The URL can be used to link to this page

2006 02-16• ~ CITY OF 1VIEIZIDIAN ~, T MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING ~,.., AGENDA ~,: ~; .:; '~~~~ Thursday, February 16, 2006, at 7:00 P.M. ~; ' ~'~ ~~ City Council Chambers ~'_':,-` 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho r ~ "Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony, - ~ all presentations before fhe Planning and Zoning Commission are expected to be truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter." 1. Roll-call Attendance: '~°'' X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Keith Bo~up X David Moe -Vice Chairman _X David Zaremba X Michael Rohm -Chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: Approve H:~> 3. Consent Agenda: ;} v~ A. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 05-054 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a new facility for Ada County ~~} Weed, Pest & Mosquito Abatement Operations consisting of a main administration building, a covered vehicle storage building and 2 storage buildings in an I-L zone for Weed & Pest Control Campus y by Ada County -south of East Pine Avenue and west of Locust Grove Road: Approve as Amended ,~., B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 05-055 Request for modification to existing Conditional Use Permit fora 40-unit congregate care facility in Phase II of Grace Retirement Center in a '~ R-15 zone for Grace at Fairview Lakes by Grace at Fairview ~ Lakes, LLC - 824 East Fairview Avenue: Approve as Amended C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 05-057 Request ~`~` for Conditional Use Permit for operation of a wholesale lumber and floor finishing products warehouse in an I-L zone for Intermountain Wood Products by Intermountain Wood Products - 220 South Adkins Way: Continued to March 2, 2006 <y~ 4. Presentation from the Meridian School District by Wendel Bigham: `~' Presented ~' ~~ Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda -February 16, 2006 Page 1 of 3 ;; All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. ~~ ~ y ~r KSi'-5' S e _ z., * y ~ it ~,'.-' sr£ N ~ .l~, ~ ~ ,. ~ ~,+ '~ ~ ~; ~ ~ ,ill :4~: ~ ~ ~~a'~*~s of ~-7'r ~'~, . 1 , 1' ;6.,k 7 k Y-rA~1, ~~i~. spec ~~~ Y" 7 J y~'~w^>; ir=e '~~ ~~ 'C ~ `~ 7 ~ . } a, .- -.•~rS{~st rat e s~~"9''SW'4 , ~=~~'< _ , ~ ~ Her 4 ~~ ~ Kx F r!~eJ ~V ~~J yr.. ,. ~i # ~'x, i.~' ~ 4 y'C ~ 'b ~ Yt. ~; ~~ ~~' ~x ~ w~, ~~ ~~; y ~_ ~~~ ~~ ~s.~s~,~ ~~~. ~~ e ~ '~ a - • • "` ~,. fl Z~1 1 5. Continued Public Hearing from January 19, 2006: AZ 05-060 Request "``~4` for Annexation and Zoning of 4.92 acres from RUT to C-G zone for Ada ~'~~~ County Highway District Ustick Road Property by the Ada County m_ Highway District - 3595 East Ustick Road: Recommend Approval to City Council ~ ~ 6. Continued Public Hearing from January 19, 2006: AZ 05-061 Request ~w -~ for Annexation and Zoning of 9.55 acres from RUT to C-G zone for Una ~ ~~ r 1 Mas by Una Mas, LLC - 3475 East Ustick Road: Recommend Approval ~ t~ to City Council `' -`' 7. Continued Public Hearing from February 2, 2006: AZ 05-057 Request ` for Annexation and Zoning of 17.25 acres from RUT and R1 to R-8, R-15 ~,. and C-G zones for Bienville Square Subdivision by Red Cliff >4, ~: , Development, LLC - 2935 North Eagle Road: Recommend Approval to ~# ` City Council 8. Continued Public Hearing from February 2, 2006: RZ 05-019 Request for a Rezone of 10.05 acres from C-G to R-8, R-15 and C-G zones for Bienville Square Subdivision by Red Cliff Development, LLC - 2935 `}~ North Eagle Road: Recommend Approval to City Council ~~ ~f y..,.:., 9. Continued Public Hearing from February 2, 2006: PP 05-059 Request `~` for Preliminary Plat approval of 54 single family residential lots, 22 multi- family residential lots, 14 common lots and 7 commercial lots for Bienville Square Subdivision by Red Cliff Development, LLC - 2935 North Eagle r'~= ~ Road: Recommend Approval to City Council ~° 10. Continued Public Hearing from February 2, 2006: CUP 05-052 ~f,.= Request for Conditional Use Permit for Mixed Use Regional project within 300 feet of a residence for Bienville Square Subdivision by Red Cliff ' ~ ~ ~ Development, LLC - 2935 North Eagle Road: Recommend Approval to City Council W, 5~,--"-. ~`~ ' 11. Continued Public Hearing from January 19, 2006: AZ 05-064 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 116.81 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Bear ~' . Creek West Subdivision by Tuscany Development, Inc. -south of West {' ~ = Overland Road and west of South Stoddard Road: Recommend Approval to City Council ..,_~ 12. Continued Public Hearing from January 19, 2006: PP 05-064 Request <<;jT for Preliminary Plat approval of 321 building lots and 34 common lots on 116.81 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Bear Creek West Subdivision by Tuscany Development, Inc. -south of West Overland Road and west of South Stoddard Road: Recommend Approval to City Council Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda -February 16, 2006 Page 2 of 3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the Ciry of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. ~s'~ ~, ~r~ - - .~ k:~ °'~`~' 3' $ rt " 'ice 2 ~ ~ ~ ~ t Y~~~6 M `:j ~ ~Y~ f 3~~'4 rt '~~F J ~~~~ ~f~~ ~ -, PlP1~' ~~t~s ,~' t ~ cy }~2jt . -t.~ r ~~~ ,-_ _ H~ T~.. F, f ~' . .., fi{ ~}}~Ysi F ~~ h ~ ~ d~ ,w+c r ~' ~} k4F~ s k ~ ~fv 1 u r`~~~~~,. - - ~~ '~~ s, 1 ~J rrf+F~t+4` 1~,{. ~WA~~~Sn ~- C~ Y `{ a '~ (~ ~ ' F ~. r 'y ~ ~. .~ r R ;f.',jf xp~~- ~' ~~. x' ~.%i~.~ ~ _ .. __ ~_ r ~. ... P ~~ v~ ~'~.. ,~ F ., - ~ • • ~_f A. j ,, ~ {4', . v>; ~: 13. Public Hearing: CUP 05-058 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a new 45,000 square foot church in a R-8 zone for Valley Shepherd Nazarene Church by Valley Shepherd Nazarene - 2475 South Meridian rte Road: Approve ;~~;., ' 14. Public Hearing: CUP 06-001 Request for an Indoor Entertainment ~`~'~' Facility in an I-L district for Yanke Warehouse by Gordon Jones x~~~> Construction - 724 West Taylor: Approve i _„ ~; 15. Public Hearing: PP 06-002 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 23 r; ` commercial lots on 22.85 acres in a C-G zone for Gateway Marketplace Subdivision by Landmark Development -southeast corner of Ustick Road and Eagle Road: Continue Public Hearing to March 16, 2006 >,, ,' ~~` 16. Public Hearing: CUP 06-003 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for -~` ' addition of a drive-thru coffee shop at the east end of the existing building ~~ "` ~. ~ for Office Value Remodel by Dave Buich - 3055 Fairview Avenue: .~Rh.. ~. '` ~ Approve ti '`~ 17. Public Hearing: CUP 05-059 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a '~~ ~ drive - thru within 300 feet of a residential district for Silverstone Towne `.`' Square by Rudeen & Associates -1660 South Jade Way: Approve Y--,; ~; . 18. Public Hearing: AZ 06-001 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 4.99 _ =` acres from R2 to a R-4 zone for Buckeye Place Subdivision by John '' >' Fackelman -east of Black Cat Road and south of Cherry Lane: ~' Recommend Approval to City Council . 19. Public Hearing: PP 06-001 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 16 y;.i;::: building lots and 2 common lots on 4.99 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Buckeye Place Subdivision by John Fackelman -east of Black Cat ~'~- Road and south of Cherry Lane: Recommend Approval to City Council `''`~ 20. Public Hearing: CUP 05-061 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a 12,680 square foot commercial building housing a Denny's Restaurant ~= ; r t:. and retail uses on 1.7 acres in the I-L zone by Mark Chang - 3155 East ~.~ Fairview Ave: Approve _~ -~-~ 21. Public Hearing: CUP 06-002 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for ' x an Equipment Rental, Sales and Service Business on 2.28 acres in a C-G ~, :~. ~:;: < zone for Sunbelt Equipment Rental by Franklin/Stratford Investments, LLC - 355 and 399 East Franklin Road: Continue Public Hearing to ;r March 16, 2006 ...t '__~ Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda -February 16, 2006 Page 3 of 3 ~.~ ;> All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ;~ °`;~ Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. ~ ~`. '~Ei_ ' Y ~-~. ~ .a+~`~ ~ - rp 5 , ~_. ,r. S tir ~~_ ~ "~. ~~`~i FFth~g+c" . y ," b ~~1 ~~. Y ~ y,y~~h .yy k.. C ~ ' ~~~ ~a ~ n ~~~r ~ ~~ Y ti~y~! L i ry~r ,~. ~ f { ~ ~ i` ~ ~ ~'~ 'S~'"=`dx~' :nom ~~ S~. y t-M ". ,' X ~,:-rr~T S'C, f S~~ tt '~'. r.''~. ~~a +}~ ~ ti ,% Su ~ *1~ ,~~`# ro a one :bsa ~' ' ~ - n ~+~Srf~~~~ ^+'~ ,. c t~ .a, ~ ~t .. , ~ 3" ``Y!~ Y ~ .~, d ri ~~~ 5~ ~v:t f~F ~f} y ~ ti,, ~s~ q~~~~, :~ ~ ~~t~. ~ ~ Sa~~u'~s^r4r*. ~ n ~,. ~ L ~ ~ ~~` 22. Public Hearing: AZ 05-067 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 6.9 acres from Ada County RUT to R-15 Medium-High Density Residential ~~ ~ zone for Casa Meridiana by Insight Architects - 1777 Victory Road: Continue Public Hearing to March 2, 2006 23. Public Hearing: CUP 05-060 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a 32-unit multi-family development in a proposed R-15 Medium-High Density Residential District for Casa Meridiana by Insight Architects - ?~ 1777 Victory Road: Continue Public Hearing to March 2, 2006 ti~;~. .: t ~- r° Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda -February 16, 2006 Page 4 of 3 ~- ' -~ All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ~:.. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings ~` please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. :a;a k~ N FS .~ i F.r ~~ Lp a ti~ 6 ~ i; w -„~I' ~" ti ~.M rrv'~,~ ~. L h G ~` .l~F - Y ~.} . t MF ry. T^GG ,r~- ~~ ,~:•r ~ ~. : ~t ` ~-, .$ ~ 3 ,~.~.- ;r .1. YS ~M^T ~K1~:>7 "?p~ ~ ~} '~ ~ ~ ~~" ~fvi f' < ~~K~~~f ~'' ~~ } ~ ~~~~~`'~ ~ `f'3r4?rt ~e { ~; ` ' r `''` ~'~' ,~ y~~ ~i~ ~ yl ~,~-' I~ yr' tits , ~ •rx ~[ e~ t ~~ ~u ~~ . j ~... dx ~ t ~~ 1 ,~~.. ,., k ~x~ ~ ~i ~ a {E § +K ~ rn~Ai-+w~ }vy~ ~r E t ~ Tk ~~ t ~s...3.~t ~~ ^R n~ c~ _ r. ~. _ i ,t :. ~ ,, :~<_' CITY OF MERIDIAN 4~ .s it ~ ~. MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING '~"'`~ AGENDA v ,:': Thursday, February 16, 2006, at 7:00 P.M. City Council Chambers '~ Meridian Idaho 33 East Idaho Avenue, , '~~ "Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony, ~rq<:i all presentations before the Planning and Zoning Commission are expected ` ~ to be truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter." ,.. , 1. Roll-call Attendance: ~ Wendy Newton-Huckabay Keith Borup David Moe -Vice ChairmanDavid Zaremba ^~~~~ ichael Rohm -Chairman ~M 4'ti;t r_~II 2. Adoption of the Agenda: ~~~e t '" 3. Consent Agenda: >r~~, A. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 05-054 Request `''~~ for a Conditional Use Permit for a new facility for Ada County ~~ Weed, Pest & Mosquito Abatement Operations consisting of a main '~;~~~ administration building, a covered vehicle storage building and 2 storage buildings in an I-L zone for Weed & Pest Control Campus r~°- ` by Ada County -south of East Pine Avenue and west of Locust ` Grove Road: ~.~~~~ ~ ~ ~ B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 05-055 Request for modification to existing Conditional Use Permit fora 40-unit Y' ~ congregate care facility in Phase II of Grace Retirement Center in a R-15 zone for Grace at Fairview Lakes by Grace at Fairview Lakes, LLC - 824 East Fairview Avenue:~~~~~ Q~ s. '.' ~ C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 05-057 Request ;, for Conditional Use Permit for operation of a wholesale lumber and M1: ; 4, = - floor finishing products warehouse in an I-L zone for Intermountain Wood Products by Intermountain Wood Products - 220 South ;~~ Adkins Way: ~+ D~ ~ v~.d.- ..~.~ °~ .~ ~~ 1. ~~11 ,;~.;,"' 4. Presentation from the Meridian School District by Wendel Bigham: ~/~L° '-' Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda -February 16, 2006 Page 1 of 3 '~ _ ~ All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ='~~~:~ Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings ,~ ; please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. Y + 1 a. st i r~+ ., ~.. ~. ~""~ J' x~- - ~. ~~~,~~x ~ ,nc :~ r ~ d, - t ~~x apc~47G ~? ~ ~- ~3 ~ i tts .:y~ i1 l F ~ c 9v X - 1:: ~ .~ ~ r .: `~~ ~~ i0 J`~Y~~ty S y ~ ! E b •. t 4 r r. ~ f'y lql h ~Sl f YIK ^~m ~ ~~~4~~ ~J ,y~. 4 ern! ~ t ~ S IY~ V~/.a~ a.~h1~ 1 YJ~~ ~' Yn r7 r z: ~* y j '~ ~' .~ ~~~~~ z ' r~,~,1.14;F rr,.~s s ~i~ , i ,...,=ti ..; ti '. i ~~L ~,: ~. ,, ~:` .;: ~. i ~- s `~ ~ f F 1r :..,, ~': '"~' ~t_~ ,~ ~.. r . ~-~ x., ;:: ~;_~ :;; ,. =,=r4 ~..~ A. -, :., ~~. . ;, a> _~, 5. Continued Public Hearing from January 19, 2006: AZ 05-060 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 4.92 acres from RUT to C-G zone for Ada County Highway District Ustick Road Property by the Ada County Highway District - 35~st l~stick Road: 6. Continued Public Hearing from January 19, 2006: AZ 05-061 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 9.55 acres from RUT to C-G zone for Una Mas by Una Mas, LLC - 3475 East Ustick Road 7. Continued Public Hearing from February 2, 2006: AZ 05-057 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 17.25 acres from RUT and R1 to R-8, R-15 and C-G zones for Bienville Square Subdivision by Red Cliff Dev~jl~opment, LLC - ~2~35 North Eagle Road: ~ /? n in ed Public Hearrin from Februa 2 2006: RZ 05-019 Re uest 8. Cot u g ry q for a Rezone of 10.05 acres from C-G to R-8, R-15 and C-G zones for Bienville Square Subdivision by Red CIiffLDevelopment, LLC - 2935 Nort , agle~a~d: _ _ tl j~ f~ Ube.-Q `~ ~~ t!~~Z~~° 9. Continued Public Hearing from February 2, 2006: PP 05-059 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 54 single family residential lots, 22 multi- family residential lots, 14 common lots and 7 commercial lots for Bienville Square Subdivision by Red Cliff Development, LLC - 2935 ~Nro~rth Eagle Road: ~'~i ~ ~r ~Yb /G~.Q "~ ~~ ~ Z~.01LroLQ 10. Continued Public Hearing from February 2, 2006: CUP 05-052 Request for Conditional Use Permit for Mixed Use Regional project within 300 feet of a residence for Bienville Square Subdivision by Red Cliff Devel ment, LLC - 2935 North Eagle Road: 11. Continued Public Hearing from January 19, 2006: AZ 05-064 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 116.81 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Bear Creek West Subdivision by Tuscany Development, Inc. -south of West Overland Roa and west of South t ddard Road: C®~ ~ ~ ~ ~,~ ~(0~ ~. ~ c, ~ C Ulf ~ vt 1 12. Continued Public Hearing from January 19, 2006: PP -064 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 321 building lots and 34 common lots on 116.81 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Bear Creek West Subdivision by Tuscany Development, Inc. -south of West Overland Road and west of South Sto and Road: , , 13. Public Hearing: CUP 05-058 Request for Conditional se Permit for a new 45,000 square foot church in a R-8 zone for Valley Shepherd Nazarene Church by Valley Shepherd Nazarene - 2475 South Meridian Road: ~~Q ~ Ui~~ Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda -February 16, 2006 Page 2 of 3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings please contact the City Clerk's Ofrice at 888-4433 at (east 48 hours prior to the public meeting. -.,, ~l 5.., ~ ..-' Y ~ .ri ... r }'~'.t~l }_ ' ~' ~ ,t y :' (ul ~~ 't ~ p+'~ { .., _ . ins ~N 3 { t ~;y~ ya F t ~~d; ~t ~ny 4^ ~ z.~:r ~,4~'~ ~. 7~~M1~ 5 ~4 ~ t ~~ ~ .~~ r 'ri i x :; _.: ,, ; "~ kr=~ -~ i}. 4. s ~, 14. Public Hearing: CUP 06-001 Request for an Indoor Entertainment Facility in an I-L district for Yanke Warehouse by Gordon Jones Construction - 724 West Taylor: ~ ~(OV Q,J 15. Public Hearing: PP 06-002 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 23 commercial lots on 22.85 acres in a C-G zone for Gateway Marketplace Subdivision by Landmark Development -southeast corner of Ustick Road and Eagle Road• ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~`,,~~.p^ `~ I~o~~ ~~ ,~ ~(Jv tl v ~, 16. Public Hearing: CUP -003 Reques for a Conditional Use Permit for addition of a drive-thru coffee shop at the east end of the existing building for Office Value Remodel by Dave Buich - 3055 Fairview Avenue: 17. Public Hearing: CUP 05-05 quest for a Conditional Use Permit for a ~~~ ®~ ~ drive - thru within 300 feet of a residential district for Silverstone Towne Square by Rudeen & Associ tes - 1660 South Jade Way: ~ o~ v 18. Public Hearing: AZ 06-001 R~~uest for Annexation and Zoning of 4.99 acres from R2 to a R-4 zone for Buckeye Place Subdivision by John Fackelman -east Black Cat Road an south of Cherry Lane: 19. Public Hearing: 6-OD-1 Request for Preliminary Plat ~pproval of 16 building lots and 2 common lots on 4.99 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Buckeye Place Subdivision by John Fackelman -east of Black Cat Road and south Cherry Lane: ~®1/fJ~ ~ L/CJ Cu~n -~ ~- 20. Public Hearing: CUP 05-061 Reques for Conditional Use Permit for a 12,680 square foot commercial building housing a Denny's Restaurant and retail uses on 1.7 acres in the I-L zone by Mark Chang - 3155 East Fairview Ave: ~n~ ~ ~, I,~ 21. Public Hearing: CUP 06--002 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for an Equipment Rental, Sales and Service Business on 2.28 acres in a C-G zone for Sunbelt Equipment Rental by Franklin/Stratford Investments, LLC - 355 and 399 East Franklin Road: 22. Public Hearing: AZ 05-067 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 6.9 acres from Ada County RUT to R-15 Medium-High Density Residential zone for Casa Meridiana by Insight Architects - 1777 Victory Road: ~ ~ ~~al~ 23. Public Hearing CUP 05-0 0 Requ~for a onditional Use Permit for a 32-unit multi-family development in a proposed R-15 Medium-High Density Residential District for Casa Meridiana by Insight Architects - 1777 Victory Road: ~p ~ h ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ®~ Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda -February 16, 2006 Page 3 of 3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. x ~r ~ ~ `l ~~ ~+, -t ~ ~ 5 ~. I y N~1% ~Y i }F.~;3~. 1 '~~~ . Y YrC L t •~IF„9)}~ Sr ~~~ Y ~.1~~ .~ {y1 S 'h~ 1 , L ,~ ~ +f.=k5~~~r ~~ ;' s.. ~'a. r r yi (~ f` tc~,f+~T, 3~ ,a 5 ~ ~- ~' r~~.. ~~ J^~ ti j31~ 1 } j.V ae Si ~T' iy d t fi,,~~ ~ r, a ~ ,, :. 4 ~ -?_~r '~ i~ F h t .i ~ ~ _ y e t.b i~ ~~~ T~f .. ,}.+,y~ y..~~ } a ~ ~~ ` .~- r ~ 7t nW -9y ~i~ ~ t~~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ s ~~~~~1 ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~;~~ P`~`~! CITY OF MERIDIAN t ` MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING ~ AGENDA ~~"~'® Thursday, February 16, 2006, at 7:00 P.M. ''.' City Council Chambers '' _ ~~ 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho , y~; . , ~- ~ . , `Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony, ` all presentations before the Planning and Zoning Commission are expected ~~ to be truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter." 1. Roll-call Attendance: ~~ ,. Wendy Newton-Huckabay Keith Borup ;fir- ._ David Moe -Vice Chairman David Zaremba Michael Rohm -Chairman r 2. Adoption of the Agenda: ~. .` 3. Consent Agenda: >, A. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 05-054 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a new facility for Ada County ~' ~ Weed, Pest & Mosquito Abatement Operations consisting of a main ~~ 4 administration building, a covered vehicle storage building and 2 storage buildings in an I-L zone for Weed & Pest Control Campus '`~`~ by Ada County -south of East Pine Avenue and west of Locust ~: , i::~; ~ Grove Road: y B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 05-055 Request ` for modification to existing Conditional Use Permit fora 40-unit 'I congregate care facility in Phase II of Grace Retirement Center in a {-~ ~~_~ R-15 zone for Grace at Fairview Lakes by Grace at Fairview Lakes, LLC - 824 East Fairview Avenue: ~,' :° C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 05-057 Request ~r: for Conditional Use Permit for operation of a wholesale lumber and floor finishing products warehouse in an I-L zone for Intermountain ~: ,; Wood Products by Intermountain Wood Products - 220 South Adkins Way: ~ Z:. : 4. Presentation from the Meridian School District by Wendel Bigham: x~~_ , : . ~3, ~f Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda -February 16, 2006 Page 1 of 3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings °~ k. please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. ~t ~, ' f. ;7 tin 1 `y ~ ~,. , Hy' ~ ?iY~ ~' ,e .fl ~ ti ~~, ~" e s.~ is ~ t r+ E,3 ~, ~ ~~a 4;r;~ . )~~°. h Jam` ( .'4!;i`. ;~; ~, ~ l ~$~ C I`Yd fr~„ ~r. 1 . '' 1l v a V~:;.A § a ',~~~' r - M' rM $~S §fr Y~-a '~i k71u'1kSSM . r M,~ ~ t ~rYn - ~ ~ r ~ -~ . S/ ,~ f it' ~~ ~~ ny~, ~K;' ~,, 'y ?~rt,~ ~,{~~t ~i; 3~t"l Yf F hC~ ~~1~ ~~~~ ~ .. ,t S Fs,t ~~~ r a w~ t ~ ` '~5~+' ~~ rt ~_ +r r t r sll4z ~ i' S .S -' 5. Continued Public Hearing from January 19, 2006: AZ 05-060 Request ~` for Annexation and Zoning of 4.92 acres from RUT to C-G zone for Ada County Highway District Ustick Road Property by the Ada County :~ Highway District - 3595 East Ustick Road: 6. Continued Public Hearing from January 19, 2006: AZ 05-061 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 9.55 acres from RUT to C-G zone for Una Mas by Una Mas, LLC - 3475 East Ustick Road ~`-'°~ 7. Continued Public Hearing from February 2, 2006: AZ 05-057 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 17.25 acres from RUT and R1 to R-8, R-15 %~.. and C-G zones for Bienville Square Subdivision by Red Cliff Development, LLC - 2935 North Eagle Road: ~: `~= ~ 8. Continued Public Hearing from February 2, 2006: RZ 05-019 Request `' % for a Rezone of 10.05 acres from C-G to R-8, R-15 and C-G zones for E:~ ~t~ Bienville Square Subdivision by Red Cliff Development, LLC - 2935 ~~~ North Eagle Road: "~~ 9. Continued Public Hearing from February 2, 2006: PP 05-059 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 54 single family residential lots, 22 multi- - family residential lots, 14 common lots and 7 commercial lots for Bienville Square Subdivision by Red Cliff Development, LLC - 2935 North Eagle .' Road: 10. Continued Public Hearing from February 2, 2006: CUP 05-052 '~-~ Request for Conditional Use Permit for Mixed Use Regional project within 300 feet of a residence for Bienville Square Subdivision by Red Cliff Development, LLC - 2935 North Eagle Road: -~`:< 11. Continued Public Hearing from January 19, 2006: AZ 05-064 Request ;;;~ for Annexation and Zoning of 116.81 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Bear `~„` Creek West Subdivision by Tuscany Development, Inc. -south of West Overland Road and west of South Stoddard Road: ;` ~ 12. Continued Public Hearing from January 19, 2006: PP 05-064 Request ~~' for Preliminary Plat approval of 321 building lots and 34 common lots on ~'~ 116.81 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Bear Creek West Subdivision '''`r by Tuscany Development, Inc. -south of West Overland Road and west '. of South Stoddard Road: r'~ ~^L .~ ` 13. Public Hearing: CUP 05-058 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a A y,, `''' new 45,000 square foot church in a R-8 zone for Valley Shepherd Nazarene Church by Valley Shepherd Nazarene - 2475 South Meridian Road: ;~ Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda -February 16, 2006 Page 2 of 3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings _ please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. f ~~:- r ~A'1.fi"k~ r ..- a yy ~n ti la~t~; 2~ < s •i ,ic. ~r'v k~ ~Ad~e +v i ~ ~.{~~' >s ~s_ ti ~~ ~Y~ ,:: S~ v`'_'' ~r «; t,.:S ~: , 4 < ~~~GG, ~ ~ ~ T rtr ~EF E'y~~1F,~ A~ ';f .h ~rl-.. ,rr-}j ~~R` ~ w.... ~ -. -~ y 7,~.., ~4{ fa {~. `'~'~ '~r+hl rT ~~M~f~1~ 'Sig IJ.Y,~ ~ t ~~' ~,~Z a 1n .~~. j ~~'~ v `~ F f~.~t ~2S' i 4 ~ K~`5'. ~' ;?3 ~ Z ~,, r a~~.~~Y~~~,,,,,, ~~ ~ ~ --~ r ~t i ~ ~ ~ ~~~ h ~~.tp • o .: 14. Public Hearing: CUP 06-001 Request for an Indoor Entertainment { -` Facility in an I-L district for Yanke Warehouse by Gordon Jones Construction - 724 West Taylor: ~~~ 15. Public Hearing: PP 06-002 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 23 ,. ,: ~` `` commercial lots on 22.85 acres in a C-G zone for Gateway Marketplace ~~~~ Subdivision by Landmark Development -southeast corner of Ustick Road and Eagle Road: 'Y 16. Public Hearing: CUP 06-003 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for addition of a drive-thru coffee shop at the east end of the existing building E' ;-' for Office Value Remodel by Dave Buich - 3055 Fairview Avenue: >- 17. Public Hearing: CUP 05-059 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a ~~"''' ' drive - thru within 300 feet of a residential district for Silverstone Towne ~; Square by Rudeen & Associates -1660 South Jade Way: r_ `! 18. Public Hearing: AZ 06-001 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 4.99 acres from R2 to a R-4 zone for Buckeye Place Subdivision by John §- Fackelman -east of Black Cat Road and south of Cherry Lane: 19. Public Hearing: PP 06-001 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 16 building lots and 2 common lots on 4.99 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Buckeye Place Subdivision by John Fackelman -east of Black Cat Road and south of Cherry Lane: _~ 20. Public Hearing: CUP 05-061 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a ~~ 12,680 square foot commercial building housing a Denny's Restaurant -' and retail uses on 1.7 acres in the I-L zone by Mark Chang - 3155 East ~,.~; Fairview Ave: ;: ", F,=~ `'= 21. Public Hearing: CUP 06-002 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for `~ ~ an Equipment Rental, Sales and Service Business on 2.28 acres in a C-G zone for Sunbelt Equipment Rental by Franklin/Stratford Investments, 3 LLC - 355 and 399 East Franklin Road: 22. Public Hearing: AZ 05-067 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 6.9 "` acres from Ada County RUT to R-15 Medium-High Density Residential zone for Casa Meridiana by Insight Architects - 1777 Victory Road: 23. Public Hearing: CUP 05-060 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a 32-unit multi-family development in a proposed R-15 Medium-High ~~ Density Residential District for Casa Meridiana by Insight Architects - 1777 Victory Road: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda -February 16, 2006 Page 3 of 3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. ~ _ ~ ~ ,, y n . ~. . }.:,~y .y', x 4E' ~~~~ !~' _ }:', z ~~~~ ~ ~ - ~s -.- Y ~ 's ~~ ~- - a d~~ A { _ 5 ~ ~r `~ '~r~~,~4 ~ ~` a ?r 3. Y` } •. ~ i ~xy - - ,~ ,c r .r ',~. n / j. y yy ~1 ~`yy , ~,~ ~L', 3 d ~':'„ rt ~,'1~ 1~ ~ ~» ,S - .Gy9h ~ y 5 i ~^ .rryn~,l tiS S _ ~;~~'~ ~: j' 1e ~ ,^ S ~ h h j~.~ "'t ,~ 2 y~;Yii ~;r' ;, ~'iq'[ifk{i '~ - - i ~T ~ ~ p~4~wi r~ r , _' ~4 ~G ~~~ ~.r r cr~r~ ~ .r . ,.*~ ' s ~.. ,` ~~ TX CONFIRMATION REPORT ** AS OF FEB 13 '06 17 52 PAGE.01 CITY OF MERIDIAN DATE TIME TO/FROM MODE MIN/SEC PGS CMD# STATUS f`` 04 02/13 1?~16 3810160 EC--S 01'52" 003 163 OK '`" 05 02/13 1?~18 PUBLIC WORKS EC--S 01'12" 003 163 OK ;; 06 02/13 1?~20 8848?23 EC--S 01'07" 003 163 OK ~'' 0? 02/13 1?~21 WATER DEPT EC--S 01'07" 003 163 OK 08 02/13 1?~23 2088840744 EC--S 01'09" 003 163 OK 09 02/13 17 25 POLICE DEPT EC--S 01'0?" 003 163 OK 10 02/13 1?~26 8985501 EC--S 01'05" 003 163 OK ~'=~''Y 11 02/13 1?~28 LIBRARY EC--S 01'06" 003 163 OK ;~' 12 02/13 1?~30 IDAHO STATESMAN EC--S 01'06" 003 163 OK 13 02/13 17 31 3886924 EC--S 01'06" 003 163 OK 14 02/13 1?-33 P-AND-Z EC--S 01'06" 003 163 OK 15 02/13 1?~35 ALL AMERICAN INS EC--S 01'06" 003 163 OK '`` 16 02/13 17 36 FIRE DEPT EC--S 01'05" 003 163 OK ~~ 1? 02/13 1?~38 208 888 2682 EC--S 01'0?" 003 163 OK 18 02/13 1?~40 208 387 6393 EC--S 01'06" 003 163 OK 19 02/13 1?-41 ADA CTY DEVELMT EC--S 01'0?" 003 163 OK ~''`" 20 02/13 1?~43 2088885052 EC--S 01'06" 003 163 OK F`r`' 21 02/13 17 45 LAKEVIEW GOLFCOU G3--S 02'0?" 003 163 OK ' 22 02/13 1?~48 IDAHO ATHLETIC C EC--S 01'0?" 003 163 OK ' 23 02/13 17 49 ID PRESS TRIBUNE EC--S 01'06" 003 163 OK -' 24 02/13 17 51 2088886?01 EC--S 01'06" 003 163 OK Y r~ ~_; .. =a ~: `~ ` CITY OiF MERIDIAN ~~ MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA r,~, ,._ ,.LL' Thursday, February 16, 2006, at 7:00 P.M. ~ ,; City Council Chambers ~~ 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho YR~'~.. "Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony, all presentations before the Planning and Zoning Commission are expected ~~ < _~ to be truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter." ~; 1. Roll-call Attendance: } ;k. Wendy Newton-Huckabay Keith Borup _~•~:~~' David Moe -Vice Chairman David Zaremba ~ F Michael Rohm -Chairman ~ ~` 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 4}: ,z ~' '~ 3. Consent Agenda: ~`yn fi Fitt jt ~, ~ ."~ ~~ r tG~,~ Ht Yi(:+ }} ,fir 3i. ~'} +. ~ ~.F~10.x4~ tY ., ~s~ ~ ~ ,,, yam' ~ ~'' ~,~~ * ~ _ ~k .. ~} x~ ~~ ~~ ~;;~. + 3 4* ~ac y r +.,. ~~ oy;5i ~, ~. tr~,~~xM ~, s,~-~ayH ,. = z > . ~` ~:~ ~~~~~ ~~ ~~ ~-~; ~. ;,r Ja 9 k ~ 1!1!f '~ 1 ~ '~ a c k >r ~:. -1L i ..e ~ S 5 y~a~ `"~'t ~~ ~; 'u t 4"` sta. .. r. :~:,- ~`_~~'~' ~ :,:. ;,- ~~ COMMUNICATIONS REPORT ~~ AS OF FEB 14 ' 06 05 00 PAGE.01 ~: +' CITY OF MERIDIAN TOTAL PAGES TOTAL TIME '3; ? SEND ~ 0069 SEND ~ 00° 27" 24" n RECEIVE ~ 0000 RECEIVE ~ 00° 00'00" fi ~~ DATE TIME TO/FROM MODE MIN/SEC PGS CMD# STATUS ~' ~ '`" 01 02013 09 24 208-489-7630 EC--S 00' 55" 002 159 OK ; 02 02013 15 34 ALL AMERICAN INS EC--S 00' 37" 002 161 OK , ~~" ~,: 03 02/13 15 36 FaxSer+~er EC--S 00' 46" 002 161 OK , :;; . 04 02.'13 1716 3810160 EC--S 01' S2 "' 003 163 OK 05 02x'13 1718 PUBLIC WORKS EC--S 01' 12" 003 163 OK p.:;`` 06 02013 17 20 8848723 EC--S 01' 07" 003 163 OK µ 07 02013 17 21 WATER DEPT EC--S 01' 07"' 003 163 OK ~ ~;.. 08 02013 17 23 2088840744 EC--S 01' 09" 003 163 OK '- 09 02.'13 17 25 POLICE DEPT EC--S 01" 07"' 003 163 OK r`' 10 02013 17 26 8985501 EC--S 01' 05" 003 163 OK '~ 11 02013 17 28 LIBRARY EC--S 01' 06" 003 163 OK '`_~' 1 12 02013 17 30 IDAHO STATESMAN EC--S 01' 06'" 003 163 OK L ~`` ~,: 13 02013 17 31 3886924 EC--S 01' 06" 003 163 OK _,~~ 14 02013 17 33 P-ANII-Z EC--S 01' 06" 003 163 OK 15 02013 17 35 ALL AMERICAN INS EC--S 01' 06" 003 163 0K "= 16 02013 17 36 FIRE DEPT EC--S 01' 05" 003 163 OK ;~'`'~ 17 02.'13 17 ~ 38 208 888 2682 EC--S 01' 07" 003 163 OK 18 02'13 17 40 208 387 6393 EC--S 01' 06" 003 163 OK 19 02013 17 41 ADA CTY DEVELMT EC--S 01' 07" 003 163 0K ~'_"` ~,; 20 02013 17 43 2088885052 EC--S 01' 06" 003 163 OK . 21 02013 1745 LAKEVIEW GOLFCOU G3--S 02' 07" 003 163 OK ~.' ,~ 22 02013 17 48 IDAHO ATHLETIC C EC--S 01' 07" 003 163 OK '!~ 23 02013 17 49 ID PRESS TRIBUNE EC--S 01' 06" 003 163 OK ~;~- 24 02013 17 51 2088886701 EC--S 01" 06" 003 163 OK ~''. ;~; ~~t^~ r.{~ :;Y {.. ~~~ ~:T» .'~ y '. ~. ?~~ `, M .. '/ ~'~ ~° ~y i' 3 ` @~ "k `` h T'~ ` ~l ~ i~Y ~ J J yJ ~{, N ` _ \ + r; t ~~, .~ a ~! t ~ "d ~ 1sN'''~~ ti ~~~1,• ~i~ x."5~ ~ k'r ~ ::C q , r ,s;-~ ~ ~2ry .M yax 4 ~ ~ .~ a .~r3~ .' ~#, ~', ~ ~" ~~, Xt ~ 4 5 "~ ,j.~; 1 h;t, z .a~ ~ '~~ < w' ' _f r + ~~ ~~ a t~~~ Y ' r }i . ,~ ~~ti ~ ,, x"9 y ~ r ` ~' H 7 ;v i T~ d .'' h t r .x~£ ~: ~ ~~ ~ ,~ ~';~~~y Cis ,'~,'~-., '- ~+j ~ - .r+ ~ ~(~ 0. ;; ~ri a..; ** TX CONFIRMATION REPORT *~ AS OF FEB 17 '06 01 38 PAGE.01 f >.. , ~'`` .` CITY OF MERIDIAN DATE TIME TO/FROM MODE MIN/SEC PGS CMD## STATUS ~ ~ ~,~:.. 10 02/1? 00 59 3810160 EC--S 02'04" 003 195 OK k,,~.~-, ?`>; 11 02/1? 01 02 PUBLIC WORKS EC--S 01'13" 003 195 OK - 12 02/1? 01 03 8848?23 EC--S 01'12" 003 195 OK <! 13 02/1? 01 05 WATER DEPT EC--S 01'13" 003 195 OK ~~ 14 02/1? 010? 2088840?44 EC--S 01'15" 003 195 OK '~. ry 15 02/1? 01 09 POLICE DEPT EC--S 01'12" 003 195 OK `= ~_ -; -. 16 02/17 01 ~ 10 8985501 EC--S 01' 13" 003 195 OK 1? 02/1? 01 12 LIBRARY EC--S 01'13" 003 195 OK '`' 18 02/1? 01 14 2083??6449 EC--S 01'13" 003 195 OK :: ~. ;:,_,:. 19 02/1? 01 16 3886924 EC--S 01'13" 003 195 OK 20 02/17 011? P-AND-Z EC--S 01'13" 003 195 OK ~„ ~ 21 02/1? 01 19 ALL AMERICAN INS EC--S 01'12" 003 195 OK F 22 02/1? 0121 FIRE DEPT EC--S 01' 12" 003 195 OK .;; ' 23 02/1? 01 23 208 888 2682 EC--S 01'14" 003 195 OK `~ `' 'at 24 02/1? 01 25 208 387 6393 EC--S 01'12" 003 195 OK .;.,; 25 02/1? 01 26 ADA CTY DEVELMT EC--S 01'12" 003 195 OK °' { ' 26 02/1? 01 28 2088885052 EC--S 01'13" 003 195 OK ` ` ~r 27 02/17 0131 LAKEVIEW GOLFCOU G3--S 00' 00" 000 195 INC ~_ 28 02/1? 01 31 LAKEVIEW GOLFCOU G3--S 00'34" 000 195 INC ~~. 29 02/17 01.33 LAKEVIEW GOLFCOU G3--S 00'01" 000 195 INC t 30 02/1? 01 33 LAKEUIEW GOLFCOU G3--S 00'34" 000 195 INC ~~ .,_'.. 31 02/17 01 35 IDAHO ATHLETIC C EC--S 01'12" 003 195 OK ~.'_ 32 02/1? 01 36 ID PRESS TRIBUNE EC--S 01'13" 003 195 OK - CITY OF MERYDYAN ''~ MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA ,`~ ~, Thursday, February 16, 2006, at 7:00 P.M. K*f~ City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho r, ** TX CONFION REPORT ~ AS OF FEB 17 '~"6 0140 PAGE.01 CITY OF MERIDIAN t; DATE TIME TOiFROM MODE MINiSEC PGS CMDt# STATUS ''~ 01 02117 0138 2088886701 EC--S 01'13" 003 195 OK THIS DOCUMENT IS STILL IN MEMORY ,::~ k, CITY OF MERIDYAN '` MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZQNING REGULAR MEETING ;;:~_., AGENDA <_ `" ~ Thursday, February 16, 2006, at 7:00 P.M. City Council Chambers { 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idahp '`'# "Although the City of Meridian no longer regulres sworn testimon ~; 3 r `" y, all presentations before the Planning and Zoning Commission are expected to be truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter." ~,; 1. Roll-call Attendance: ~, Wendy Newton-Huckabay Keith Borup ' _,~ David Moe -Vice Chairman David Zaremba Michael Rohm - hairman {~~y~ 2. Adoption of the Agenda: ,,G~pl~~Ue >'~ 3. Consent Agenda: ~,<{~: a: ` ::: k'° ~`.'' A. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP OS-054 Request '~:_- ; ~ for a Conditional Use Permit for a new facility for Ada County W d P & ;; ee , est Mosquito Abatement Operations consisting of a main r ~' administration building, a covered vehicle storage building and 2 n. ' ~ storage buildings in an I-L zone for Weed 8t Pest Control Cam us ''~ p by Ada County -south of East Pine Avenue and west of Locust Grove Road: ~o-~~;s B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 05-055 Request ~~ ~ for modification to existing Conditional Use Permit fora 40-unit =;; congregate care facility in Phase II of Grace Retirement Center in a ~~ ; ; ~ R-15 zone for Grace at Fairview Lakes by Grace at Fairview L k ~ ; ~ a es, LLC - 824 East Fairview Avenue:~~pO~ ~~. y~~,~~/ of _ ~` ~ C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP OS-057 Request ~,:~~, for Conditional Use Permit for operation of a wholesale lumber and ~;"~ floor finishing products warehouse in an I-L zone for Intermountain Wood Products b y Intermountain Wood Prod u cts - 220 South l ;' ~ ,,, L; / ~ Adkins Way: ~Or~j IY1 t/~.. ~0 ~j ~ ~ ~11t ~''--~ 4. Presentation from the Mer i di an Sch oo l istrict by Wendel Bigham: z D y - p ) ~ ~l V ~6 ~D~/ . ~ ~ U ~~ ;~ „° g Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda -February 16, 2006 Page 1 of 3 A11 materials presented at public meetings shall became property of the Ciry of Meridian. "? 9 . Anyone desiring accommodation for dlsalul'~Ues related to documents and/or hsarlr~gs please contact the City Clerks Office at 888-4433 at least 46 hours prior to the public meeting. ~ -~, ~~ ~ x ~,~ ;~; , -s ~ ~ ~.~ ~ .:,~ ~` i any ^~Z.* R ale k _ fi r~ „~ rti H;f ~ _r~ a- C' .T ,: F~ ,~ r~~ ,. ~ , ¢ ~;t ~ ~{ r jet` It x 4 'P'F, i ~ ~ ~ +4 i. 1~(f i a 4Jtf ~,' ~' ~ }~ ~5!iy ~~y r~ s~ ~~ lJ t ~ v ~ p,. ~ ` ~{ ~ ~ ~ ~fi; y ~~ ~~~1 x~ ..~ a ,~- vat ~j 5.` l r5 i + ~-tr '~~~ ~ ,_ ~, i- 4 n i,, - d '~ s ~' 6 ' t i~~ ~' y,~ini` i' rt rS~Xiy.. k~ 1 ~,~ r 7 ~~ ~~~~m s~~ c~v~ s 5 ~ ~'~ _,~, • ~'~~ ~~ COMMUNICATIONS REPORT ~~ ;F , '~ TOTAL PAGES z SEND ~ 0003 RECEIVE ~ 0000 ~y. . ~.~ ~:,' DATE TIME T0~'FROM ~,r-.n 01 02.'17 01.38 2088886701 ~i~r. ~:? 4,., C> C~}. , k ~~ ~,~+ ~.-" ;; r--) . , 'a `?~~ ~- .~~' ~'`. ~~l - S ~~}}F~- 4'a _ t ~ ~~'; a~~ ..:. +. ` /~^ r fi.' y~ .: ~gr'q_t e^~ i ,':. ~.'~~ ~~~~ ~. ~~ ~~ ~:~~, - r - ti ~' 4 ~`f „LL 7 r ~~}: r~ LJ AS OF FEB 17 '06 0500 PAGE.01 CITY OF MERIDIAN TOTAL TIME SEND ~ 00°01'13" RECEIVE ~ 00°00'00" MODE MIN/SEC PGS CMD# STATUS EC--S 01'13" 003 195 0 ~. ~ ~~P r~• r q P ,~"z'fi1 ~iT~ t~yt~3'n.~~-~,~ - ~ ~'.r:' ~ ~~ ~ h ;11, v c ~ ~,( ~~ t r aft v~ i + a~ id ! M ~J ~ •; f ~ hr 7 ,~ r ~- s ~ r 4--i& ~ `; _ a ~ ~'Y w-stet = fJ' ,.{ .z ;~-e ~k~xrl"~ e ,.. n r ~ r,~,~7 ~ T 'S'ffi-'-`# ~' X`'. r 7 ~'~. ~~ ...~ - ~ ~. ~~t<~ ~~t i KF 5 ye Y ~ J, ~`+ _ ,sue l : +*~ . ~t`Tf F „ht I 1 `~ ~ t. ~~~L~~• ~ ~ f; ,.. _ i r ._ ~ i ~ Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting February 16, 2006 ;; Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of February 16, 2006, was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Michael Rohm. Members Present: Chairman, Michael Rohm, Commissioner, Keith Borup, Commissioner, David Zaremba, Commissioner, Wendy Newton-Huckabay, and Commissioner, David Moe. ~!'' Others Present: Ted Baird, Machelle Hill, Jessica Johnson, Craig Caleb Hood, Josh ~~, a_ Wilson, Joe Guenther, Mike Cole, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: ~''`~" ~~:::: Roll-call ~' ' ~q~ t ~ ~ X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Keith Borup ~ ti '' X David Moe -Vice Chairman X David Zaremba ~''= X Michael Rohm -Chairman ~ ~~ - ~~ ~° , Rohm: Good evening. I'd like to call this regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning ~; "~ ~ and Zoning Commission together for this date, February 16th, 2006, and begin with the ~=-" ~r ; , roll call. ~~~t~ ,~.. , Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: ~, . ~`~ ~ Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to start with the adoption of the agenda. There will be ~~~x . r;'" a couple of items at the end of the agenda that will be continued, but before we do that „ let's just start by adopting it and, then, we will move to the Consent Agenda. Could I get ~~ a motion to that effect? Zaremba: Move to adopt the agenda. r- - ~, Moe: Second. Rohm: All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? The agenda has been 4 k :; adopted. ~~ . ' MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. ~~'~ Item 3: Consent Agenda: _~~_-~~ A. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 05-054 Request ';~'.''' for a Conditional Use Permit for a new facility for Ada County Weed, Pest & Mosquito Abatement Operations consisting of a main ~' '' administration building, a covered vehicle storage building and 2 .t ~_ :: storage buildings in an I-L zone for Weed & Pest Control Campus ~~ ;~; %; ..~~, :_ ~ ~ :yk 1 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting ,;, ~ February 16, 2006 Page 2 of 95 t: ~; ~r-- ~:` ~- hs s'; ;, zt } ;4 ~<~,. ~- by Ada County -south of East Pine Avenue and west of Locust Grove Road: B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 05-055 Request for modification to existing Conditional Use Permit fora 40-unit congregate care facility in Phase II of Grace Retirement Center in a R-15 zone for Grace at Fairview Lakes by Grace at Fairview Lakes, LLC - 824 East Fairview Avenue: Rohm: The first item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and there are three items on that. The first being Findings of Facts, Conclusions of Law for CUP 05-054. The second item is Findings of Facts, Conclusions of Law for CUP 05-055. And the third item is Findings of Facts, Conclusions of Law for CUP 05-057. Could I get a motion to - Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would make a couple of amendments, if I may. Rohm: You may. Zaremba: Okay. On item A, Weed and Pest Control Campus, on page two of four, item D, paragraph one, the third sentence of that starts out: For conditions, use permits -- and I believe the word conditions should be conditional. That appears to be a boilerplate error, because item B has the same amendment needed. So, somebody needs to get to the original boilerplate and change that word if they would. Back on item A, on page three of four, this was brought to us January 5th, 2006, which was after we transitioned. At the bottom it correctly states the Chairman Michael Rohm should sign this, but right above that it still has chair after my name and I would ask that that be stricken. Item B, actually, has that correct. Item C I did not have in my package. Did anybody else have Intermountain Wood Products? Newton-Huckabay: No, I didn't. Oh, yes, I did. Zaremba: I would ask that we move that to the next regularly scheduled meeting. Item C be stricken from tonight and moved to the next regular meeting. Rohm: Works for me. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, unless anybody else has any other comments, Mr. Chairman, I move that we accept Consent Agenda items A as amended and B as amended. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we accept the Consent Agenda for items A and B. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. a ~. ~ ~~ ~~ ~ , ~ .n: ~ _ ~~ } ~ ,~ Y ~hr~ ~` ~~~~ ~~ ~~ ~, .~, - ~ ~~ x~ _ ~x ,~: t PF , ~L"~txN `Q ~. > ,r ~'~` T. :. rY ,~. m.,la ,~ et ~ ~~ .~~ ~: - ~'~ ~~, ~, ~ ~~G .,, ,: t ~ ~ x~.~ ~ ~~ u # iF t Y~t k5~k!-~ 1_ r r.~ ty~ r ~~~~~ r ~ ~ 1 c+] FF.~ ~, v~ s :c ,z :'S 1 . - . ~~~~I ;_r<, ~:rl~`~ ~, ~:' ,, ~''F3 Eli:: ~;- ~; ~: :' ;~ :;~4,~ ;1 ,r ~, ~~~ Y~ ~~' ': Meridian Planning & Zoning Commn Meeting February 16, 2006 Page 3 of 95 Item 4: Presentation from the Meridian School District by Wendel Bigham: Rohm: At this time we are going to have a presentation by the Meridian School District and Mr. Wendell Bigham. Please come forward. Bigham: Thank you, Commissioners, Mr. Chairman. Meridian School District appreciates the opportunity to come before you tonight to talk about our common interest and to further our understanding of each other's needs. I'm going to go through a number of items very very quickly. I notice you have a full agenda, so I will move through things fairly quickly and, then, you can question me if -- as long as you see fit. Waiting here briefly while we get something up on the screen. Probably as just a couple opening remarks, again, bear in mind that the school district is neutral on growth. We are in support of healthy, sustainable communities and, thereafter, our goal is to work within the Comprehensive Plan and the associated rules and regulations of each municipality. We are in the fortunate position that we have many masters, that being the City of Meridian, the City of Eagle, the City of Star, the City of Boise, Ada and Canyon Counties. So, we are fortunate to be able to do the same thing a number of different ways in various jurisdictions. And that's probably our biggest challenge is to look at that. We are a recommending body. You will notice that in all of our approval letters, we simply provide you statistical information, if you will, and with that we hope that you can formulate a plan that works the best for you as a city. Just briefly, so you can see on the map, I will talk about a couple of things here in a minute. The broad outline is the Meridian School District, coming down through west Boise here, clear down south. The center area, of course, off the freeway here is the City of Meridian. I will simply make passing reference to one fact right now. That district is 385 square miles. That number will come into play here in a minute. We provide this map to planning and zoning, to staff level people. It has future elementary school sites. It's very difficult to see. Middle school sites. These sites are simply placed upon this map based upon our best guess at the number of houses that will actually end up being there and that is based upon approval, not zoning. And that distinction will be pointed out here in just a little bit. I think -- can we go ahead and go to the next one. Hopefully, the next one will come up. We have several spare copies of this, if someone in the audience wants one. This is the basis of our understanding. It is how we project student growth. It is not a perfect system and I will point that out to you. But just as a rule of thumb -- we always talk about district capacity. We have a lot of capacity in the district, but you really don't want to bus somebody from Star to west Boise, because we have elementary capacity in the aging west side of Boise. So, district capacity is one way we look at things. Capacity within a geographic area south of the freeway, between Chinden and the freeway, we look at capacity, and, then, ultimately, it gets down to capacity at the local school, which is where we really all feel it. We are going through boundary discussions. It's highly highly likely if you're in the north Meridian area your child will be in four different elementary schools in the course of five to six years at that school and we will touch on that briefly. Within our model our elementary schools are designed for 650 kids. In trying to roll things up, an elementary school -- a middle school is 1,000. 3.1 elementary schools requires us to build a middle school. Two thousand students is the actual operating capacity. Our design capacity is 1,800 r.> r_ ~~ Y' tf F:_~v _ Y ^~.: ~ `` ~!•tH` ~ _~ ~ r _ _ i . - K S ~,t ~ ` Y+E~~r R ~"~~ ~"~'`j 3i `iM4 ~3`'tV' ~'~ > aq, ~~ y' ~~ ~ ~.. ~1d ~ -,9 .. . ~^ ,.,. ... I~ F ~ r ~ t ~ ~., is ~.~: ~ ~ *, 1~ }~ x ay' t ,. Y. ~ ~ , ~t rVh x~t.jx v~'~ i;. F s. `~ ~ F t M '~ .'~~ ~ 3 >~ SY S -if '' 5 ~~~~ ~ `r ~1 i vI y ,..F Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting °~'` February 16, 2006 ,~: , Vii, ; ; Page 4 of 95 ~~; ;; ,,:, students for a high school. One and a half high schools for every 3.1 middle schools. ~~., : What does that mean to us as a community where we are building four elementary schools in the next two years, we are also building a middle school and a high school. y'~" We are starting to think along the lines of a high school every three to four years, ~` instead of four to five years, based upon our growth. It gets to be very scary, because r~ when we go for the next bond issue in 2007 we still won't have completed the high °~ school approved in 2005, because of the time line. So, we are starting to get this } tremendous overlap of having to ask for money for new schools for the growth that's ~` ~ been approved. So, to put that in perspective, we will do 50 million dollars a year in construction in over the next three years from the last bond issue. From that number e ~ we try to figure out the number of houses, quite frankly, that generate the kids. We take ~::, the number of homes and we use a census factor of .8. This is the first fly in the ~` ' ointment. Average census track for the district tell us there is .83 age five through 19 ~}'_~ ~: year olds per household. Okay. We interpret that to be kindergarten through seniors in high school. Okay. Not all seniors and 9th graders. That's kind of a hard number, ~~:.~ because as we look around in the community we live in, we have a perception that there ~~ ` ~ is more than 8/10ths of a kid per household. Some households are larger. It is a low '~ `'` number. Garden City is up around one. Parts of Eagle it will run down to .63. But we have got to base our calculations on something, and it's a very good number fora 20 ~~ '~ year old built environment that holds very nicely in Boise and has for a number of years. ~;}.;-. It's a number that's woefully low, because we are building and growing with our hair on ~. ~~ `` fire here in the community. So, I'll speak to that lopsided issue. So, that's our first assumption. So, based upon that assumption, 650 kids are generated for every 1,767 "~- homes. Remember 1,800 homes per square mile. Every 5,400 homes generates, of course, three elementary schools, one middle school, and every 8,000 homes will ~~ generate one high school and 1.5 middle schools and 3.1 elementaries going back out. l ate Okay. To run those numbers through just kind of a model that I think we can all re ~~ `- to, we took the north Meridian planning area a number of years ago, said, okay, it's Y~~~ <~~ about ten square miles, 640 acres, and my assumption that it's going to be 80 percent ~;< '~{ residential consumption, which I think is arguably maybe a little bit low. That number, ` as you probably well know, is kind of backwards with what larger cities are. It does reflect that we are a -- I don't want to say bedroom community, but we are primarily a =~ residential community in support of a larger urban core. So, 80 percent of that ,~ generates 5,100 residential acres. At 3.5 houses per acre, that generates 17,900 ~` homes. Okay. That's 1,792 homes per square mile. Census tell us 2.3 people per F household. Okay. That number I think kind of feels sort of right. Would generate y :~ :,, -`'~ ~;~ . ,: 41,000 people. North Meridian was planned to be between 42 and 58, to give you a ~~4:;.'~ perspective. This number is the second very difficult number for us. Imagine if you will ~r ~ if that goes up to a higher number, as we go to more urban densities. We will start ~ ;: ~~ ~ ~ looking at two elementary schools per square mile or three elementary schools in two ~~~ square miles. And that's really problematic in the square miles that are more or less ~~ : , .z. built out, because the land simply isn't available. This number is also very critical in , r terms of do we do our modeling on zoning and the number of houses that it's zoned for ~~;,, or do we do our modeling on the trends that Council and Commission make approval ~~f`' on? Just because it is zoned R-8, but the development is approved R-3, what do we ~~ .-~ build our modeling on and our modeling is looking out there 20, 25 years for the land F ~ ~„ ~~; ~-~ ~,,~ ~. r t ~ i~~ ~~ ,s 'ill ~.~ ~%~ ° ~t?I ~~ ~ ~t,, ~. ~; r ~~ x ,- ~ 1+]^ti ~ r '~~ S ~~ t "i.~; . .::~ ! +. ~ ,. ~~yS!: Gr..,{ 1.Cc ~# ~J s - ~ +. ~.~,tx. ~~f ~{f ~~ ~~ Y19'.f.'3 ~ lFiy' N `~~ q 2 ~; ~ { ~f~~~`~ :..,. ...: t ,:~~e L +_ k i, y,U~ 1 y4~ xI, t . . h t r. .~ 'i A~ R^ x 5y , i.~,~.nS~F~i `2ys ~h81 .a~ 1'3' F, {. ~fi , i.;f.~~ ~ hC y~;j-~. ~1~ 2r > _ > y6~i. Y~! ' rr;: r~ ` ~ '~ Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting err. February 16, 2006 ~~ ' Page 5 of 95 ... ~: acquisition. This is a real estate model. So, we tend to watch really closely what you s F,_;.,. ~.r°~ :~ desire to do and what the ultimate action is for those subdivisions. Okay. So, currently we tend to track tend more than desired growth, until trend and desired growth get ~ .,, closer together. So, that's a second really big iffy number for us. To help you put this in .~4"`° perspective -- can you slide the screen up just a little bit? Number of homes since -- ~' '~ what do I want to get out of this. Oh, in that ten square mile area, running it again :~~_ through the formula, ten elementary schools, 3.3 middle schools, 2.2 high schools. Look at cost for just a minute. Elementaries are 10 acres, 40 acres for a middle school, 60 for a high school. Land costs, 100,000 or more per acre in today's market. An ~i :. elementary is a million, four million, six million for a high school site. Furniture, fixtures, Y `~~, and equipment, that's all that is is desks, chairs. My design costs, our hard construction r. ~', dollars, we just bid a middle school today and it came in 12 percent over our estimate. ~~ < , ~, :~. That's, really, a reflection of the economy, 1.8 million dollars difference. Here is where it " ' starts getting interesting. Cost per school -- these numbers -- this middle school that bid }t~ ~ . ~"`~ ' today is up 40 percent over Sawtooth Middle School, which we bid three years ago. ~ Hard construction costs. If we take the number of schools times the cost per -- times ~'`~' r • the cost per school, and now there is a hundred million in elementary, there is 59 million ' ~ - s dollars. Can you slide this clear in middle schools, 94 million in high schools in today ~ up now? Way up. Keep going. Go ahead and shove it clear up. Thanks. In the ten ' ' '~ s 25.3 million s the simple number? It square miles is 254 million dollars. Okay. What ~t dollars of taxpayer dollars per square mile to provide a K-12 public education. That =~ investment per square mile exceeds roads, it exceeds sewer, it exceeds water, it . a, ~~ exceeds every essential public service that you could possibly come up with. Just a ~~ number. Just happens to be a big number. The more interesting number for Planning ''~=` ~ and Zoning is if you take the same number of schools, their acreage, the total acres per k4- ~s "- ~° type of school, the total number of acres in that ten square miles at three and a half Vii,- ~~ houses per square mile, we are at 5.72 percent of all the land within control of the City ~`~~ . , ; of Meridian. Okay. Remember what I said, we were 385 square miles in size? There is :.,, . about a hundred square miles that is south of the district, south of Lake Hazel. It goes ~.~t;~~ out in nine mile sections, it goes out, it includes the old Orchard town site almost to `"' ' Mountain Home, the bombing range, BLM land, state endowment land -- okay, take ~;~--;~ those out. So, say we have an area of 250 square miles and it goes the way Star, ~~~ _•~ Eagle, and Meridian are going, which is 80 residential. Two hundred fifty square miles ~ at five percent of the land, not 5.72, but just five percent of the land is -- there will be 12.5 square miles of school acreage within our district. To put it in perspective, that's ~,~ ;: 8,000 acres of taxpayer-owned school property to support a district that will be about 225, 230 thousand square -- or students. That number feels large to me. I'm probably ~~ $ more comfortable with that number being around 5,000 acres. We currently own 800 to <~ 1,000 acres. So, we are aggressively out looking for 4,000 acres of land or more and .;, 100,000 and acre, that's 400 million dollars we could use today to buy land to compete with the development community that's chewing up the land. So, as we go forward, this ~" . is really the interesting numbers, the land use. It presumes some pretty big things that h schools k of hi Thi l ti h h i 1 g . n s are. ng sc oo e ex s every school needs to be built the way t ~~• Every high school has to have athletics. It chews up a tremendous amount of land. ' ~,. The build out number we are a district of 17 high schools. We are three and a half conferences into ourself, as a matter of numbers. It's 62 elementary schools, 23 middle ~~: a r ~ ~; ,~_;:: ~~~~ rk ~, -~ ~:~ -~..~ .{Y ., .. . . ~ ~ ~. .••~? ~., ^`Z :; a+~ykf;q:yi ~~"~•,.: 7'=.`r;.;'tw'iS ;i.,w Y t ~.? .:•t•; T .lf : ~;_. ~~'+~ t~ ua• lt~. ~<a• ~''•~ `s, ~ ' ~ ~~ ~• ' 1 ` "} c~«~ , .x~. .vr.. 4 .~ ~5. ' d 3`.r)F:"6 ;. ,ti. ~~ `• < C4 y ~,5.'•; tY :'-Y . ' ~ . t. •i b~:i~... _ { ...tr :, ~~ c ~ ;:: ~,9 ~' • `CC ' a j. .,~k,~:F: !i. ~,4:. i t :`x • k , , y, :rt~ ea•.. :Y P••" i' :d' ?; '•'f+"=;y " t, . k. U . ':.' ~ ~ ~ i~x: u.a: '}X' ~ $' ~• ~ ~ . ; : i ' -.?n5F•: •~a i e :;>i st:Fs: ~ ,; +YX~'p~r {Lq( 1 ss~,.• , t 1'S _ f.~r fs i,. ,~e j i j •1,?°.ti .r .~.F>'.. ;p ~. :. ' ~ i~^,fi• . .' n j. a .9~ '~Y;,.i< •"3F t S r Y t ,{ IA L `~ S ~4''e Y~• Y+l.'~'••~ q~ t'.~,. v <~'"Ya ~~ .1 ~, ~~ ~ ~ t ..r~ • "at sl j •1£ t' 1P'~ + Y r ~ F Z Y . '., 7 ~ ,. { ti •, .~, +., „r .~, «t' '" i 3#n~ ~~-ca'~", a"~~:.~i.Y~, ~`• f l" ~ ~' ~'r ~ .rx ~~' •7w36"&~ ' - s# ~,'.7, ;? i -~~=-;.y..'M1 w t r • '.1 i ~ . ~;' .t',~.. ~ II ::{,: ~t:y...h.. 1£. ,. ~5~ 1 :. , ` ~~ q~: .,~, ~': ts: ~ .t't* ':d~i~':•nyq?.es ~ ~ ; w.~•~i;.,~;.,.r'~,... ~ ~a,~ x'.~ >,~yl • t5' ~ ~ ~ ~ ..t~ ., f,. . .: I ' ~~ t .• ~ •, r v ° ~ I . .~r .... :. is S' ~ I 11 ± ~. .'.2. : ~ :.: . '~•~. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 16, 2006 ~_, "g A~ Page 6 of 95 ~' ~' schools, 13 to 15 high schools and about 40 ancillary type alternative or charter type '; schools, public facilities. So, this is the basis -- when I talk to Planning and Zoning, -_ when I talk to staff, it is how do we get from where we are to what the district will be at some future date. Today we are 3.5 million square feet, about 350 million dollars of ~:"`~, x,.; ,; improved infrastructure in the district today to support roughly 30,000 students. Just ,: another number. So, where do we kind of go from here? We kind of went through the . number of houses and explained the iffy numbers. Some modifying factors are -- well, let's talk about portables first. That's probably best. Portables is how we deal with °'``~ growth. They are a very unpleasant way to deal with growth and they are horribly cost inefficient. They actually cost more per square foot to put on a campus than it does to ~~ ~ build the building, but the reason we use portables so aggressively is subdivisions that >;; would normally take five, seven, eight, ten years are seeing a hundred percent build out 5~~~ in the three, four, or five year range. So, students are coming to us much much quicker. Our new Hunter Elementary School in Bridgetower Subdivision is the largest elementary `s school in the state now. It has over 850 students in it. It opened over capacity. And it was built -- you know, last year it opened. So, we use portables to deal with that very ~~ ~~ ~ ~ very rapid growth. It serves about two square miles, various portions. Very very large ' ''" s in the square mile that they live in when portion of those kids will go to the school that ~7;' ;' that school is built. Very very likely that your kid will go to at least three elementary ~~~ ~~ w:= : ; schools, unless you physically live in the square mile where the school is located. So, ~'" ' . we deal with portables. We come before you regularly for portables. You can ask us _ °~`' where are we going to put portables next fall. That's a fair question. We asked ourself ~ ;"` that today in a budget meeting and the answer is we don't know. Right now all of our ~~:` growth indicators are sideways than what they have been historically. Building permits ~~ `'zit, ~F.~ are u Occu anc ermits are u Two ood indicators are re-school enrollment is P• p Y P p• 9 p kind of flat, which is usually a good historic indicator of the percentage of our growth. `'` ~' .~ Our in-district growth should be about 400 students since the start of school. It's like 37. :>;, ~~sr.~ We can't figure that out. So, we are trying to now project our growth for next year. Pick `~ a number. Seventeen? We grew by 2,300 students last year. Our dilemma is in the ~r. next 60 days we will set the budget for our '05 and '06 school year based upon some "`,~ imaginary growth number. If we guess too high, we don't get the money from the state, ~ '~~~ and we may have hired teachers that we have to hire and, then, we let them go, .``, ~~'~~ because there is no mone ri ht before the start of school or our more traditional model Y 9 ~^ is be conservative, the growth comes, the state allocates the money and, then, the ;:~; week before school starts we hire a bunch of teachers or your child, teacher, classroom is split two weeks into school when we hire teachers. So, the ability to project the online ~~ 1 ~: -- the coming online of the houses is keenly important to us and there is no good way to :~s;p- do it. There isn't a district in the state that can project how many kids there will be per ~ ~'~° household. That .8 is a different number. So, portables is how we kind of handle some of that. Plat approval process. We try to work very diligently with the platting {~=.~r° engineering community to make our desires and the information that I'm sharing ~. ' ~ available to them through Planning and Zoning staff, city staff at all levels, so that the ~,=-j~~ development community can come and talk to us before they start drawing up e ~\~' subdivisions, so we can say, hey, we are interested, you know, where can we go from " ,4 here. It's very -- it's just adversarial to have it drawn up and, then, for us to come before -~` you and say, yeah, but we need a school site there. We have to be very diligent in , . ~ , ~:~ .'~ .; "4 k i n~ .:...: z . Q bra {,:?Z"'$ ~' r',~.6,~ .. ~( ~t ',t~ t F } r, .,,,, o.~ ~ „~ ~~ ~' 'aV, ~ 5 ',j'r "~P k^ r~R~"E'tti Y~.4rY x a ~~k. a :~~ 5~ r ~ r~'t• ;t r; 4 f j + ~ J.:r ?t ( 3~Jn.~t~.~ 1 1 h`."ice '~C'~'rT~~ t ~ -.{.. 1 ~ (~~~ ~ - , 4 ~ "- ~ 4~_r y ~ ~,. ~; - $ ~ ~=~°-~3 s r ~ °K~... ~T ~ ~. Y~~• .. - t; 'ice a]_ q„ F ~ Zvi '~ i L , ~, .~ ~ Y*'S~ ~ q s Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting ~•~ February 16, 2006 Page 7 of 95 r"'~~~ keeping that communication alive and we depend heavily upon the city staff. I can tell ~'' you we do not have the staff that any of the cities have to do these planning activities. It ~'-t the city is -- and the counties but we simply do not. So doesn't mean that we shouldn't ~. , , are really our -- some of our workforce. Again, we are a recommending body, you're an ~~ -s approval body, we look to where that makes sense for both of us for a .healthy e<=; community and that many times is at odds with what the development community ~~ " wants, but I guess that's why we are on -- have the jobs we have. Talked a little bit `Y`'~' about absorption rates on the plats that are going quickly. A couple hot issues to us is °±~ the cost of off-site improvements. There is one school of thought that says the school ~' ~ district money or bond should only be used to build schools. We should not be required ~' ~?:~ to build roads, sidewalks, signalization, and there is another school of thought that says ~,., :: ="~~ we are creating the growth and the demand in the neighborhood, therefore, we need to ~` widen the streets, we need to put in the sidewalks, and we need to put in the signals ~`' ° ~; that our traffic generates. Please understand our position is you want to solve that problem, quit saying yes to building houses and the need to build schools immediately goes to zero. There is that natural tension. Our goal is to find that intermediate line. It is a struggle. In some instances we are signalizing entire intersections, because our :« traffic counts -- our traffic counts, those kids within our community, are just enough to tip ~'~ ~ the traffic count over so we get to bear the full brunt of signalization and/or expansion of ''_~ ~: an intersection. Working very diligently with ACRD, they have been working with us, ;~ and we are trying to bring the development community in in a way that makes sense ~' ` that we all share. We are not saying we don't have a responsibility. If you have ever ~~-~ been to Mountain View High School at 7:30 in the morning or 2:30 in the afternoon, you aye-~J can appreciate we do create a horrible amount of traffic for a very short period of time. ~' But they are also people that live in the subdivisions within our community. So, that ~~-$ underlying off-site cost, as congestion gets worse, the pressure for those dollars to '; spend them off site gets greater on the school district. We simply need to find a way to budget an appropriate amount, so that when the requirements are placed upon us, we have sufficient funds to meet a reasonable number of requirements. That same ~` `` discussion, then, carries through to sidewalks. Sidewalks are really not about a school's ~`~`~::=~~ boundary. Do we need the sidewalks within the school's boundary, so that the kids can safely walk to school? Again, go back to the model. It's one elementary per square {~.:: mile. If we do our intersection and within the square mile, the 20 year built environment, ~: -~ everybody in the square mile will walk to school as the adjacent rural lands develop. ~`~ - But we do have an obligation to put sidewalks on our property, just as the development community does on their property. It's the between parcels to make the _`'`'~ ' interconnections work. While it is difficult to spend tax dollars to build sidewalks, ~: understand that it's not the highway district's responsibility, it's really not the city and it's ~ arguably not ours, but if we can go off site with right of way that exists, we will entertain >~ ~; building small chunks of sidewalk to connect it up, with the simple understanding that sidewalks aren't just for the sole use of children walking to school, they are for the ~A:? ~ f enjoyment of the community at large, so it's more of a bigger picture and how we do that s ~~...~ as we develop in rural America, if you will. I don't have a good answer, other than we all ~' ~~ need to be aware of it. We all need to find the opportunities to work between the a~ roadway systems, the school, and the development community to cause that to happen ~~~>,<-~. and sometimes that may force any one of us to go off site and to make up a connection ~„ ~': ~: w /. - y.. . .`~a5. 4r . 6~.@;lk~.•-"i~fl ~}. ~ .t", ~ ~ {,, Y.`4l`P.'.F# ya°~'{~n,',:~~a- ~! t ~?~ '~S.ti~.3i " '•~2 i;'z"F, ~ ' };~~1:,(. i I ."r ~.G F, ~"i"~..', ~:s:A"y ,l `} ~ ' y. ,.' ••. ,~f~"~:•t: ,r.v s ~~YY ' ^S.', . ~F~.ke ~;3x ~~'S,': ' ,~ dl~ ~ , f 1 ~",7 ,".Yl a '~ {i r. ^,.9•Sr. ~1N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ f~~ j ~•'.~J l~- ",Y •~" ~ r ° . t ~: : . } r ~`'~ ~ Fes! t ' ~y . v x ' p ~ 1 t ~ t "r ~ 1 # F ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~•4~s B 8§a~'~~~S,,;i~ j~ a C^ ~r '} ~a p'~'A:' ~ I x .:.^ .t ~ e'. k t ~ ` j • s az ~~ ..»r~3• ~ i ~ . ••r: ' 9ra~•:1 ~ R ~ ~ , II.. . i .3~x. ~ `u '':~ ~j~: . ~ t :(: ^~ k 'e - ' °~ 'a• ~ 'f~ .':.v~. . r a .,,, ,! ~ ~~ : r...,a . 4 R :y e '~` - S. ,• s ` :5~.~;~ , .,M•~?', g ; `:~. a ~ ~ tF +i` ~ +' i i r S >Mr X(t{ ' ; , y5 ~y ~ s r: c n r 'A+k['~ r' ' ' ~ ,~ i td; a+ y} ..,Rrc f z f ~ ."v;$fi`.~T*, I j. ~ r •, I r.. ter.. ,~.,. Y: a Y ~ .Gr i 'p ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ' ~ S. 5:~ :~ N`J"( .n i ~.. •~~.e ,. e'~i S~'$+~- a' {ti~ >~i,~ of>f s .'ai . S ,~,%'~"}+c '~ y~ ~~ '.. III „ : ' i y~rip;; ,„ / ; .., ~.,, t, a: ~ t ~~':°i ;kntr w ,m-; •~as h 1 ~ , ~ t ~j c "'~ ~.~ Y r ' ~~ sd,~. °yki 1t 7~ ~k`tit i` J .x l':. a .,,~ y S ~v ra z ' `'~ ~ „~ ' ~c Fy, j ~ ~~ U y7~~ ~yS t ~ l4 r s ry~..`?~~f k. Ca~.~s.r~,. -. ~.. e.,v~5`.,.3.4 ~-~ Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 16, 2006 °`~:" Page 8 of 95 ~~ that simply makes greater sense for the community. And those discussions will always be a little bit fun. But I think they are very worthwhile. I think with that, because I know you're busy, I will stop and answer any of your questions. Very specific, as long as -- just prefer not to talk about any applications that are, you know, before either of us in a global sense. If you have questions, I would gladly stand. ~~ Rohm: Wendell, thank ou ve much. I'd like to s eak for the Commission here ust ;: Y rY p j for a moment, that the school district has been great to work with and we certainly ' appreciate your input as we all work towards putting in good development to Meridian ~'' and the surrounding area and I think you guys do a great job and it's right in line with the °~;~ same things that we do and just appreciate your input and with that I will turn it over and ~`~`~ --anybody else have any questions, this is the time. ~:~ ~ ~ Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I have one. I have been curious what exactly the state board of education or even the Meridian School District is doing at the state level, where most of the legislation is set on how schools can be funded, as I understand it, and I'm ~t~ just curious what kind of lobbying activities are going on there, facilitated at the local level. "~- ~' . ~ Bigham: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, to broaden that question a little bit, there is , ~~ t~l always an underlying discussion of impact fees. School districts are precluded by ~ ` ~ ~ ~~ ~~ Constitutional law to collect impact fees. It may not be necessarily the same piece of ~; ~ law if you talk mitigation when you talk planned communities, although to the person r~ that has to write the check, im act and miti ation start feelin like the same thin To . ~f run quickly through that number right there, if you did a mitigation that development was , . ` to pay for itself, if you take 25 million dollars and divide it by 1,792 homes, you get about t ` 14,000 dollars per house as an impact fee. Okay. That's one extreme. The other extreme is we bond one hundred percent for those improvements. So, what are we ~_ ~'~~~' doing legislatively? We look at funding for salaries, which is, you know, state ' ~` ' appropriation, which is one set of battles that the school district fights. The other is -- I s :: _~ ~, >:. ~ ~ I don't want to say going against property tax relief, but trying to make sure that property ' `'~~ s being considered this year, keeps the school district whole. We have hit tax relief that =,,, the top of our plant facility levy. It doesn't matter how much we grow for the next three <,, ~~_:I~ years, we can only do 7.5 million dollars on our plant facility levy. We have hit the cap. ~~~'~'' ~ We have hit the cap on our property tax replacement, I think is the correct term. The `"~ ~ upshot of all of that is we are growing faster than we can get our hands on money. Our ,,:~ * ~`` valuation for tax purposes for this budget year is based upon the December 31, 2004, ~~; a ~r tax value of the district, but yet we have to use that value for staffing calculations and ,:-~, the children are already here for the growth that's occurred in the last year and a half. ~` `~t` ~,,_ So, we are seeking legislative help for that one year transition until the tax base catches ' " ~ up to us. There is legislation afoot that it should be levied on the assessed value of the E~,rk y 4„~ ~ property without deducting the homeowners exemption. We are constantly advocating ~' _ that commercial development may get a bit of an easy ride. As a district we are much ~, ~ different, as you as a community are much different. We are primarily residential. We ~ ~ ~;' don't have that other blend of commercial and residential. Probably the biggest /' ~~~, legislative problem that we face is there is 114 school districts in the state. We are :;t ~'':4r'.'3 ra' e.~-F V ~ ~ Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting ~ ° ~` ~` February 16, 2006 Page 9 of 95 ~:.= funded at number 103. We are the largest, we are the fastest growing, we got the a ~ ~ highest test scores, we are the most efficient. I don't know what that says about the "'~~ other 102, okay, but it is a struggle for us. Last year we had to pass a supplemental levy. Our tax levy rate to keep your property taxes the same used to be all relegated to ~: bond and we did a supplemental levy for facilities. Last year we did one for additional ~;_; costs of operating of schools. So, that supplemental levy for the operating cost of the ~''~ schools last year reduced our ability to bond this year for facilities. So, there is constant pressure to chip away at the tax base. Don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing. '- 3 So, we are actively involved in the legislature. If you're trying to get a hold of any of us ~` ' ~ at the school district, until the legislature leaves town, we are pretty much -- may or may not be there. We are heavily involved. We try to partner with other school districts and, `~~ =' quite frankly, the other school districts in the valley, that being Kuna, Nampa, Vallivue, Caldwell, that are seeing the wave of growth that Meridian had three or four years ago ,:;,s is now moving west. They are starting to appreciate some of those similar financial fir, ~ concerns that we have been advocating. We hope to see some movement, but I don't '~ ~ ' have any crystal ball to project what that outcome will be. >-~ Newton-Huckabay: May I ask one more question? So, does the school district, then, doesn't -- you Know, sand ngnts m this state play a Huge impact on aeveiopmeni ana has the school taken any steps to try to impact that set of legislation on personal property rights? Bigham: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, no, we, actually, you know, in favor of properly '"r:< rights and arguably property rights in this state are some -- as much in favor of the property owner as about anyplace in the country. We certainly have powers of ~`~ `{ . condemnation, you know, but you pay market value. Our goal is not to go out and ~,~ condemn property, our goal is to put the elementary schools within the subdivision for safe walking in a way that makes sense for the developer, so he can make more money ~ ?F, °` and have a good built environment. Our goal today is to divert whatever funds we have ~~~ ' for site acquisitions to acquiring the 40 acre, 60 acre secondary parcels, because we ~- ~ ~ are having to compete dollar for dollar with the development community to buy that. «~ ~ You know, there is land out there that's going for 150,000 dollars an acre. It's conceivable that the land that the school is built on will cost more than the school in the ."~'- next three years. So, we are trying to divert our dollars to that. Our only go place to ~~~~' find that money is by bonding. The biggest -- the scariest part about our growth is the increase in tax base and the district to meet capacity that that growth is bringing to us is ;a;~: diverting many many dollars that should be going to preventative maintenance activities to deal with the increased capacity that the district needs. We are just breaking even, but it's starting to tip that in the near future deferred maintenance will start to be a F' ' problem for the school district. Then, we will be in the company of pretty much every ,;, other school district in the state. So, money is tight. The only solution is, quite frankly, ~:~`~ today is more money and, yet, with that we have to go to the market and compete for `''~ the land. Our goal is to do that efficiently. Rohm: Thank you, Wendell. . ,. .~ 1 { ter.: e- ~ i ~ N Y:~; ~v~ t { ~ ki; e. y yr.y W~ i ~ ~ T Ft i ~ X~ >~~~t } Y ~~ M1 ~ 1 r r r ~ ~ ~ 1„f~ ~ . a ~~~!' w:a ti-, f ~ ~ 3 , „ ,L. kA^ c '~~ ti ~ ~ ~i}k C~'9' ~. ~ , 5 ~~ t `~~ } 4 :: r v3 iii ~i y~;ti. ~ir.< 7 ~ _ ~~~^ ~ 2 ~;~ ~,< ~~ ~ `, '. ar, ,a Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 16, 2006 ,~..~` Page 10 of 95 Borup: Mr. Chairman? ~~ ~ Rohm: Yes. ~a '~~ Borup: I think that discussion raises a couple of questions I would have. One on the "~~:; lobbying efforts. Has there been -- has the school district looked into advocating a level ;4-;." tax levy? I know my school taxes on property I own in Meridian district has gone down fit: -` last year and that's because of the growth. And so it dilutes that and, then, taxes are ~` reduced. I think past studies have showed that a level tax levy would eventually ~''' eliminate even need for any bonds and that had some action several years ago and I'm -w surprised there hasn't been an effort to renew that effort to -- ~, ~: ~~ Bigham: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, I, frankly, don't know. I try not to get involved in F ~ ~ the tax legislative stuff. I'm kind of busy with the other things I have to do. But the ~~~ answer is, yes, our effective levy rate never quite makes it to our stated level rate. Now, I don't know if that's answering your question -- ~,r t ; Borup: Well, no, right now it's going down. i; Bigham: Yeah. t's, . 4 ~: 's Borup: If it just stayed level where it was originally at, it would eliminate the need for ~~:.,. bond elections. ~ `~~ Bigham: Well, certainly, to have that question answered -- it's a very fair question. I'm '' sorry I can't answer it, that's just -- it's a whole other world. Eric Exline with the school district does our legislative affairs stuff or Evy Kiler, our budget and finance officer, ~' . ~ r could probably right off the tip of their tongue give you more information than you want regarding that. It would be -- it's a fair question. I simply don't have the answer. '` ~'`~ k ifM^ i Borup: Okay. And the other thing you brought up was impact fees. Does the school district have a stand on the current impact fee bill that's being proposed in the ~`''" legislature presently? Bigham: Mr. Chairman and Commissioner. Could you tell me what the status -- current ~~ status of that is? ~~`5~ Borup: It's had its third reading and I think it's going to the house. `~ , . Bigham: Is that the one that's like $2.50 -- Borup: 2.50 per -- ~~' ' '~ Bigham: -- per square foot. .._,; ~ ~ ~!' ~~yy ~ ~ -`t 1 a a f ~H.,f h r r ~.. ~ r~ "- ~ ; ~ ~' ~~~~ ~fi i ~~ } ~~ r ~ ~'k ~ . ~rj ~.j { ~i'y'i 4...~i::.-t .'~:~ry . ~~'L3"~i ~, ~~ ~ ~ , F ... 1 i,J. t ML Yr ~`~ ~~ri ~v: ±` Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 16, 2006 Page 11 of 95 Borup: -- per square foot, which would -- you know, five to ten thousand dollars per ~'~~ house that would be added directly to the cost, but -- and the thing that will probably ~ affect Meridian is -- my understanding is strictly be used basically for updating old schools -- older schools firstly and, then, it could be used to reduce bond elections. The question I would have, if -- if the voters in the districts see that they are going to have that cost, how -- how open are they going to be to the next bond election. Bigham: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, that's our exact fear. If you're going to levy an impact fee, you need to do it in a way that no long makes you dependent upon the super bond majority. '->l~ Borup: Well, this one -- or at least spend the money related to impact of the growth. r~.~~~. ,.:r -r.,:;';. Repairing old schools has nothing to do with new growth. Bigham: Right. But if there was money available to provide new school growth for an impact, it would free up bond indebtedness at another level to deal with the older facilities and the deferred maintenance. Again, we have a number of legislative affair ` ~ committees. I can simply tell you that my perception is that any discussion of any type ~:~;~ of impact fee needs to be moderated with a commensurate decrease in the super majority to 50 percent. If I'm a homeowner and I pay 2,000 dollars per lot or I pay 14,000 dollars per lot, contribution towards the school, I'm probably going to vote no on next bond issue when someone asks me to vote for a bond. So, as we go down the road on discussion of impact fees, let us level the playing field and have a simple ~~~ majority. And, then, I think in between you can have a much healthier situation, which is '`" a blend of impact fees, which gives you a -- kind of a reliable source of money, not this hit and miss two year cycle and a blend of bond dollars that allows you to deal with the fact that you need 40, 60, 150 million -- '" s~ Borup: That's one more item for the lobbyist to work on. " ~ Bigham: Yeah. It's going to be difficult. I hold out no hope for impact fees short term. ~,.,,J~k. The bill that's before the House is -- I have no idea where that number came from at that ~. $ 2.50. I can show you our numbers, I can tell you that the average household in '~ Meridian was about 1,700, 1,800 square feet. It's probably up closer to 21, 22 hundred -` square feet. But how you do that -- seems assessing it on a square foot basis -- the ~~'} ~~ larger the house you got, the fewer kids probably live there as you're retired, the more e'. ` money you pay, feels inequitable. I mean I don't have a good answer. ~ ~ Borup: Thank you. ' Zaremba: I was just going to comment, Mr. Chairman that it's enlightening to r~s~ understand the sequence of events that a subdivision gets improved and, then, the school district has to go look for or beg for an area of land that they can set aside for a ~~`~~~= school, plus pay a higher fee for it. And, then, often, because the subdivision has } already been approved, the school's application is the last one in line and tips the balance -- the last straw, so to speak, that causes the need for a traffic light or causes -; -` ~~~~. i k A"~ u (~ YAM ~ >F r' ~'!~'K 'i ~ ~:i of ~{,~~iN?7 b3~}'~•, t -.L 1 - :.': g~'. i - ~[ •1 ~yL.. r~ ~'~°l~ two x, . + "~E - 5 - ~ ~i t f t; . r ~ )f. ~: k~F ~i ~; i. a r, ; '''i ~ ?.~ W ro ~ ~E ~ ;~ ~, t~v~ L nt ~ ~ yr. 2 ~. ~ ~p 1n~ !{ ~+ 4 } - T i _ ~F' 7 ~~ 4 F ,,..w Y ..... . .a{i.d ~?v3 A.~ t > ._ f~. ';~ y.3 ~. 1..' ': ~.;~~ Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 16, 2006 Page 12 of 95 ~''-~ the need for sidewalks and the school district ends up paying a hundred percent of that fr.~ cost. And as you pointed out, the schools don't cause the subdivisions, the subdivisions „. 7 cause the schools, and it impresses to me -- it seems a little unfair that the school ~~~ should end up bearing a hundred percent of that cost time after time after time and _ don't have a good solution for it, but I was impressed by that point. ~'- ~ Bigham: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, it is a topic of ongoing discussion with Y;; ACHD. We historically get to a reasonable, fair, and equitable solution. It is a problem unique to the secondary schools, specifically the high schools that generate so much -;: traffic. Hopefully there aren't many 6th, 7th, and 8th graders that drive to school at the ~. ~ middle school and it's really kind of a moot point at the elementary schools, because, °` again, the traffic is local, 10, 12 trips per day neighborhood. Our goal is to work with ~;: ACHD to identify early on where our secondary sites are, so that the knowledge that those schools and the traffic they generate are coming as ACRD and the development ~:,'' community looks at the roadway improvements. It's a great plan, it's predicated on our ;~,a ability to get out there and buy our secondary school sites ahead of the subdivision growth itself. That's kind of risky, because I'm not sure where all the various planning ' and zoning agencies are going to approve development within, you know, their area of ;A impacts. So, it's a balancing act. It is all about communication and it's gotten ~:: ~~ substantially better between all jurisdictions and agencies in the last year. So, '` appreciate your concern and it's just to be mindful of it. ~~r ~_~ . ~' Zaremba: Great. Thank you. Rohm: Wendell, thank you for a good presentation and we certainly appreciate all your efforts and I'm sure we will be seeing you lots more. Bigham: Next week. ~; ~`'L` Rohm: At this time is when we start hearing our public hearings and one of the things "' ~ that we try to do is we try to give each project it's due consideration and listen to all ~, ~~~``' public testimony in its entirety and our agenda tonight has expanded beyond what we ~} are capable of hearing tonight and with that being said, we have talked to a couple of ~r ::} the applicants and the first thing that I would like to do is let the public know that we are °s going to continue Item CUP 06-002, the Sunbelt Equipment Rental application and AZ "`'~` 05-067 and CUP 05-060 for Casa Meridiana to a later date and so if there is anybody ~. ~~ here that had expected to hear testimony and make testimony on either of those ~' ~'` projects, we are not going to hear those tonight and it's my recommendation to the ~^-.`,~ balance of the Commission that we continue the Sunbelt Equipment Rental to our regularly scheduled meeting of March 16th, 2006, and Casa Meridiana to March 2nd, 2006. And so if I can get a motion to continue those two items, I would appreciate that. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, even though we adopted the agenda earlier, I would be happy to move these two items forward and beginning with Item 21, I move that we continue ~`~~~ CUP -- actually, you haven't opened them, sir. ~. R tt.. ~~,~,~. . ,~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ '~ ~;~, 4, x ~ i; "r ti~5 M , ~J ~y~ `~ i~ t i .!~4LN~ t F' f~} . ~~' Y ~ 5 ~ li' I 2 ' ~~ s-~ i i ~e~ e. ~{ a.~~, f { r a ~~~Yµ~ ~~ Yyp 4 Y y i4 v ~ .. : ~ 'tic r R L i y4 W e .__G j r~-,~ A f ~, !'~' k~°~- ,} t =s~,r - -~ fi ~,~~, ~, ~ ~ r~- ~~ . _ •~ -, r ? r, i. ~ ~~.~ ~ ~i ~~°1 ~ ~ ~ n~ ~, ~,i"~ i ~ '. .~~' 3,t~'~+t x a~ .. ,; .d ~.. : I. ~, ;~ .~- ,~ ~,..~ Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting ?'~, February 16, 2006 ~~~~'~~~' Page 13 of 95 ,..k ;=k ~~r~;i Rohm: Let me get -- Zaremba: Then, we can deal with them - Item 21: Public Hearing: CUP 06-002 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for an Equipment Rental, Sales and Service Business on 2.28 acres in a C-G zone for Sunbelt Equipment Rental by Franklin/Stratford Investments, LLC - 355 and 399 East Franklin Road: :,~ Rohm: I will open CUP 06-002, Sunbelt Equipment Rental. ~`"~ Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue the Public Hearing for CUP 06-002 relating to Sunbelt Equipment Rental to our regularly scheduled meeting of March 16th, ~..,~ 2006. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue CUP 06-002 to the regularly scheduled meeting of March 16th, 2006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 22: Public Hearing: AZ 05-067 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 6.9 acres from Ada County RUT to R-15 Medium-High Density Residential zone for Casa Meridiana by Insight Architects - 1777 Victory Road: Item 23: Public Hearing: CUP 05-060 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a 32-unit multi-family development in a proposed R-15 Medium-High `'{. Density Residential District for Casa Meridiana by Insight Architects - 1777 Victory Road: ~- 4 T ~`~'~ ~~ ,. -~ ~~; , s ,. i~- ~Ry ~; m`~ °r ~: ~_ ~~ ~f~ Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on AZ 05-067 and CUP 05-050, both relating to Casa Meridiana. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Yes. Zaremba: I move that we continue Items AZ 05-067 and CUP 05-060, both relating to Casa Meridiana -- neither of us are getting that name right, probably. Rohm: Yeah. Probably. Zaremba: Something like Casa Meridiana. To our regularly scheduled meeting of March 2, 2006. .~: ~ r '~ a r 7 .r 4 kR: .. ~ d5 {•-..; ~..., _as i ;, #,. •. ~~..~r~_.~ Kr `G .r ,~ _'~~. r3 ~~t + -~r i '~ ~ ~,~~ j x': f ~~. ~ Y6+u t'~r J... ~~ .. ~ - - ~. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 16, 2006 '..~, Page 14 of 95 Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue AZ 05-067 and CUP 05-060 to the `: regularly scheduled meeting of March 2nd, 2006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. x _. ~` " Rohm: All right. Now, before we open our first Public Hearing for testimony, I would ~- `~ like to make a few comments. The general procedure for opening and taking testimony ,~: ~~ ; ~- ~ on an item is we, first of all, ask the staff for their report. The staff is there to present the ~: Y application s project in terms of how it affects the Comprehensive Plan and ordinance. ~' They tell us if they are in compliance or if there is things that need to be changed, but, =~ basically, their position is neutral. After the staff has made their presentation, then, we give the applicant an opportunity to present the project from their perspective. That's, ,y., 4<` basically, their sales pitch. After the applicant has made their presentation, then, it is, ~,, ., -. = then, open to the public for your testimony. At that time the testimony that we receive ~<j~ as it relates to those specific projects -- as you make your presentation it's best that you're able to speak to either Comprehensive Plan or ordinance as you speak to the := project. And not necessarily do you have to use either the Comp Plan or ordinance, but ~` ` it's best if your comments tie back to that, because that gives us something to validate ~- . ~~'~ testimony. The second thing is many times a group of people will have a single ~` spokesman, like a president of a homeowners association, that will speak to a project. ~r -~ And if that's the case, what I will do is I will ask for a show of hands for those people that "` that individual is speaking for and, then, unless that -- a spokesman has omitted ;`~~~~ something that you feel is pertinent, then, you're actually relinquishing your time to that ' spokesman and they are given extra time at the mike. ~,: J~~ Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from January 19, 2006: AZ 05-060 Request ~. , , for Annexation and Zoning of 4.92 acres from RUT to C-G zone for Ada '~' County Highway District Ustick Road Property by the Ada County ~. . ~a. '~ Highway District - 3595 East Ustick Road: ,~ `. ~. ~~ ~ Rohm: So, with that being said, I would like to open the Public Hearing -- continued a, ` Public Hearing from January 19th, 2006, for AZ 05-060, relating to the Ada County ~~ ~ Highway District Ustick Road property and begin with the staff report. `~ ~ Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This is an z{' ; S annexation request only at this time to a -- from Ada County RUT district to a general ~~. ~` commercial C-G district. The property site is located approximately a quarter mile to the -:;>;r east of Ustick-Eagle Road intersection and this one will relate to several other projects. '~~ `'~~ There are two other projects in the area tonight. With this annexation the -- ACHD owns ~` - "° the roe but the will be doin a future s lit of the roe m order to sell the t. P p rtY, Y 9 p p p rtY ~``' ~~` remainder that they do not wish to continue. This area is primarily residential at this r ` ~- time, but this portion here south of the site has been annexed into the City of Meridian -, ;} , ..- fi ~ r s x ~ r ~~, ~ „ ,n< ~:~ d . . . a ~~, l lk;n~ c '7~ -, fL ~le ~l y ~~~ N~ l f; +~ % C Awl { 7~TCI '~ ~~i '~~ j ~, h tx ~.~ ~ 'r _ ~~+ -. 'i+ s ~{~ s.* - _ it t s .d' r k M~~~:~ R~ Sl?F Y ~FD!-~w .~. ~. r,:.iS i ~ w~i - 'tb ~,tJ A'}1~ ~~RR - .~'~ N)Y p4 144 F 3 y I~ a ~ {~' ', i. z , ~ f t •'~ mss, x~t~°~~~n ~~~"s ,. ~ ~ _ , ~a a _~ ~ '~~ a ~44~:~~ u _ ., _: t ~~ ~~ .ti • Meridian Planning do Zoning Commission Meeting ~~" - February 16, 2006 •,;. ,, Page 15 of 95 ~_`` `' and services to Red Feather Estates Subdivision to the south and east, as well as the =. portion that did the attachment has not been developed. It is currently a C-G parcel that ~t has been bound by a development agreement. The future collector road system would F K;~~ connect from Ustick all the way through to Fairview approximately to where Records p ~.4;.' Drive is across from the Meridian Crossroads development. This collector system ~ ~;-} would primarily be developer funded, but ACHD needed to acquire this property in order ~~` " ~~` to make sure that it was -- started off in the right direction. However, the property is .w„>;,., ":r..>-- approximately 170 feet wide. A collector road system is an approximate 65 foot wide ,, roadway and so they will be doing the division in order to split the property in the future. „~ -~, Since they are a governing body, this would be a piece of property that would come up ~~~~~> to the highest bidder. Now, with that property, since we know that there will be a ~'~"'' remainder that would be bound by development agreement, the development :.: agreement of this site would provide for a minimum of two cross-access points. We °~':'' anticipate one to be in the middle of the site somewhere and the second one to be at ,,,: the southern property boundary. With that, the next hearing item also is bound by those - same development conditions. This is pretty straight forward and I guess I will stand for questions. Staff is recommending annexation with the development agreement as <~ stated in the staff report. 7;r..'..'.: 4-~ _':;. ~:. Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of staff? U. ~;. ~' ;' Moe: No questions. ~'` Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like the applicant to come forward, please. ,a .: McKay: Good evening, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. Becky McKay, ~~~~<-~ 'n olutions 150 East Aikens Suite B Ea le. I'm here this evenin ,~ En ineen S ~~~~ representing Ada County Highway District. We submitted the application for annexation ~~~=f and rezone of this particular piece of property. As Joe indicated, we have requested -- ~` `.' think I wore it out Tuesday night. The particular piece of property in question is _`~~''~' approximately 4.92 acres in size. It's only 169 feet wide -- or 166 feet wide. I'm sorry. And, then, it's extremely deep north-south. Ada County Highway District ended up ~, _t owning this particular piece of property, because when they decided to expand and ~,. ~`' ~ rebuild that section of Ustick Road, the property owner would not sell any right of way ~~"'`~' and they said if you want the right of way you need to purchase the whole parcel. So, ~,: s~' they ended up with the entire parcel in order to facilitate the expansion of Ustick and the -:~ acquisition of the necessary right of way. It is the desire of the highway district to, ~° obviously, do a one time split of this property, therefore, allowing the property to be C-G ~' and potentially be utilized with the adjoining property to the west in some type of future ,~, development. They also want to retain 60 feet along the eastern boundary here, which ~`~ ~ would be utilized for a collector roadway that would come down into the interior of the ~`` ` section and would link up with Allys Way, which is the signalized intersection at Fairview ~, ~"' ~ up by Sportsman's Warehouse and Lone Star? Isn't that -- yeah, right there at the corner. They believe that this will, obviously, alleviate, you know, some of the ~~ ` congestion that we are seeing on Eagle Road and Ustick by creating what we typically ~~~~.ry call a continuous collector that comes out from -- goes from one arterial to another to a {, _: ~r . ,rY; .. JF 1a ~ h1~j^^. ~ rtNi Z.~b;~+ f, ~3, l,r „~; ~ t o- ~; Y u, c f L :~ , 4 c~+ f ~ t ~~ k + ~ 7 tr 3r^. ~^rfi'r~ tip. ~ P `..-~r f } ' ;~ 5 1 !~p ~C Y ~• ~ ~` `~ v R F~ F ,_ti_ k:~., -r'~ Meridian Planning & Zoning Common Meeting 4= - February 16, 2006 '" Page 16 of 95 ~~~- - signalized intersection. We have reviewed the staff report and I think we are in r ~ agreement. There was one thing on page number three, just in the summary, we wanted to make sure that it was clear. It talked about no direct lot access to the future ~~r~?=.=s roadway. I believe that should have read no direct lot access to Ustick, other than the =.y- ,. future roadway. I think that's what the intent was. This roadway will be a 50 foot -- 60 ~' '' foot wide right of way, with a 46 back to back. It will be three lanes with a bike lane. ~ <;~ ACRD, it's my understanding at this time, doesn't know when that will be installed, but '< `x that is the plan. In reviewing the staff report on page six, bulletin number six, it says a street buffer constructed in accordance with city code shall be installed along Ustick and `t ~: the future collector roadway. It is the desire of ACRD to install a landscape buffer along the collector roadway, but only on the west side. The reason being is, obviously, with ~~~T 5`y.;. 166 feet in width, where we are keeping 60 feet for future continuous collector going ~ southbound, they are only left with 106 feet of usable area. Secondly, the lots in = ~' Perkins-Brown Subdivision, which are located here and take access currently off of v `:- Duane Drive, are 640 feet, approximately, in depth. At some point in time those lots, ='''-'f being the fact that they are very long and about 200 feet wide, some are a little ~_~ narrower, could potentially redevelop. They would have access to that collector for ~~` ~- redevelopment purposes. All of the homes are pretty much located along that Duane ~_;k Drive corridor and so they -- most of them have some pastures or yards or so forth. We ask that the Commission take into consideration that this particular parcel is interconnected with the property to the west. I think it's call Una Mas. We would like -`~~ our application to stay in sync with the adjoining application, since they are interrelated in a vehicular fashion. The district has been working with these property owners to get ~: ~~ some cross-access for them, so that they can have access to this collector roadway ~~ 3,- and, therefore, alleviate congestion on Ustick or Eagle Roads. Do you have any >! questions? '''' ~ Rohm: Thank you, Becky. Before you sit down, I'd like to ask staff if you have any objections to the two changes that she's suggested to the staff report. Guenther: Well, staff has drafted the staff -- or the development agreement conditions ,~ in accordance to the ordinance and staff would not find that the -- eliminating the eastern landscape buffer would be a severe encumbrance on any of the properties accessing that, since sewer and water would, actually, be closer to their properties as `~' well, as well as easier to access than having to get through a common lot, essentially, in a future subdivision or something for ACRD to maintain. So, no, staff would not have any problems amending the development agreement to require only the western portion to be a landscape buffer, but I would recommend that you hear public testimony prior to and taking that into consideration. ~'. , Rohm: Okay. Thank you. E4~_ _~ -~ ~ Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? ;b ' Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. -_;. ;~~ ;<, 4 s , * Y W :~ r' t {~ ~( '~1" ~ . ;f~4 Iigg: ~t` ~; _. ~i ~ f Ar, M Mt{ 'Fy. ~ tir r ' i @ tti 1i '~ ~ ''r ,e t ~,, a ~' e ~ t r »n : ~r ~. li.J ~ t ;~ r' i~~~ ~' - 'k'L °ic.,{ F ' ~a y4y't~~~ ~~ ~ f A ~^ I =~ ~ t> ~~ c t a`~ ~' ` ~~ , 'A'E ~GT J ' ~ `~ q , ,. ^~ ' ~.' • , Meridian Planning & Zoning Common Meeting ` ~ February 16, 2006 ~;::, Page 17 of 95 .,,. Zaremba: On that same subject, I would just clarify one thing. It's ACHD's intent to ~~ ,~=- build that collector right to the east property line? 3 ,.; . '~ McKay: Yes, sir. It is their intent. Zaremba: So, if there is no landscape buffer there, the edge of it or the curbing -- back ~-. ~ of curbing or something would go right along the other people's property line? McKay: Yes, sir. Which would, then, obviously, facilitate future access for them. Also, 4+, rc `3 one thing I did fail to mention is Summer's Funeral Home is located adjoining that and, a ~ then, the LDS church has a facility there. Award is there. ACHD -- it is their intent to, ~ ~~ obviously, try to convince those property owners to take access off this new collector "~ and eliminate some driveways out there to Ustick and Duane Drive. Zaremba: Thank you. _~ z Moe: Becky, would you go over your first comment? Is that page two or page three? McKay: Page three, sir. ~~ '~`' `~'~~ Borup: Yeah. I had the same question. ~~~` Moe: Could you go over that one more time? ~.:__. >; :~ McKay: I believe it referenced -- last sentence on it says there will be no direct lot '~~~`' access to the future road and a system of cross-access points or internal streets will be established by ACHD. I think Joe intended to say there will be no direct lot access to spy Ustick Road, except for the future road and a system of cross-access points or internal r_ '' streets will be established by ACHD. Is that not correct, Joe? -~.~ r ~ ` Borup: Is there any restriction on individual lot access on a collector in commercial? In i~ : a residential you cannot have a driveway access onto a collector, I believe, but that `_ ~ doesn't apply to commercial, then? -':;: McKay: Commercial collectors I think function a little bit differently, but there would be, ~'~ obviously, offsets required. One hundred seventy-five feet between -- edge to edge, I k: believe. ~'~ Borup: Okay. °7 _~;;,' ~, <;., Rohm: Thank you, Becky. At this time it s open to the public for public testimony and we do not have anybody that has signed up, but you're welcome to come forward, sir. r'~ `~` And, please, state our name and address for the record. y ~`:~~ y ,: "' Belcher: Fitzroy A. Belcher, 2920 Duane Drive. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I'm ~{~';-` here tonight to represent the people on Duane Drive and very much opposed to the ~~ :. IP,; , ~' -' ~a Y. !! ~' ' .l ~~..-.Y ;N: '- . y ~p 4€ 7- .f ~~.~. . ~,. "Nr _~~r ~~t'r~.- r ~ 1 ~in . -•:3 ..~ }~ __}~kr ~` ~ T Y S {~ jYr ... J ~'" ~' ~~ tY ..i``. ~. .. ....;,Ti.~. x'G'Y ~ .. { ~. dry ,~; ea+i~t , , tr~j -'a s 4. f i;~ _ ... a ,,,.~:.~,: ~,I'~. `~,}~~. Z>. X x ... ... ,~srr,;~. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 16, 2006 Page 18 of 95 doing away with the landscaping on the east side of this right of way. Becky stated that in the future we may want to subdivide. As it stands today, the covenants say we can't >,.Q go less than two and a half acres, so there is no way to break those lots down and have - that right against our properties. We'd like to see landscaping on both sides. We can't break -- we can't subdivide. ~` \`' Borup: Sir, we see projects all the time coming in before the city that that has r~=- ~~F: `:, happened. ~>; ~_: ~ Belcher: I'm sorry? °~; +`'~ Borup: We see projects all the time that are developed. So, it is quite common. And '' ~ ~` the owners in that association can amend those bylaws. But you realize that if they do n~- ~' put a landscaping buffer there that you would not have any access at all? Belcher: Yeah. We don't need the access. We don't want the access. ;~' Borup: Okay. Rohm: I think one of the other things that I'd like to point out to you that may change your view a little bit is this road is being fully developed by this applicant, as opposed to, typically, a developer will only develop two-thirds of the road and, then, leave the balance of the road for the adjacent property owner, the people on the other side, to develop at some point in time down the road. And in this particular case the road will be curb to curb and will be completed and there will be no obligations of the property owners on that side to complete any additional roadway. So, it's -- from my perspective, it's almost like there is a little bit of give and take here inasmuch as the county is willing to fully develop the road and the fact of all of your homes sit back significantly from the roadway, it's almost like the property in itself offers its own buffer if you -- if you can appreciate that. C- ~~~i%: -.. 1: ~. '.: t.. s -: ;r..:~ >, Belcher: We have about 600 feet from the lots where the houses are back to the back property line. However, most of those are all fenced now and they are all -- in pasture. Almost everybody has stock. And I don't know what the traffic up and down there is going to do with the stock. Going to bother them. I don't know. Rohm: Yeah. Thank you for your testimony, sir. Is there anybody else that would like to testify on this application? Okay. At this time I'd like to ask the balance of the Commission if they have got any final thoughts on this application prior to moving forward. Baird: Mr. Chair, it might be appropriate at this time to allow the applicant rebuttal. Rohm: Okay. Becky, would you like to come up and -- okay. Any questions of the applicant by members of the Commission? ~ :~ ~~~~~ r:, if - - ~4.-. << i`, ? .f ` ~~~~ iii ~~1 .t ".'~~..f 1 ~ 'rb ~' 'i*.3 Prot ry' . x ¢¢~~~~, err %. sf ,-~ ~ J ~ ~ ~ ~h 3 .a - -fit r'' ~)A'Y5 t I'~ $, ~. a 'j T _.,xs, ._ .. _~ :' ..~, l~ S A' ~ ~ ' i .Lap.`. ,7;k--', { • .z , ::, -: ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~4a~. r,,.q~'-,'~R. ~i ~~ '4r7' ^ t S~"~ b y i !: s n ... y ~ . ! ~ ~Pr~ ~ tF;F- ~~{ _;-, . > -.~~ ~ Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting ~:~~ ::r.; February 16, 2006 ~ Page 19 of 95 ~~~~' Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I do have one. And, actually, this may either be for staff or for ~ ^~;`''~ the city attorney. At a joint Planning and Zoning Commission, City Council meeting or '~" ''~' that we had a few weeks ago now, we discussed development workshop, rather, agreements and the lag time between when the development agreement was finished ~~~~~ ~~` ~ and prepared for the applicant's signature and the requirement for them to return it ~~ -`~! signed. We did not discuss what is on page six of this staff report under analysis, where it says the applicant shall contact the city attorney with 18 months -- within 18 months to ' `~~ initiate this process. Of course, the initiation of process has to happen long before the ~f" ` ~ ~ signature part of it. It just seems to me that that's an extraordinarily long time. I realize ~~'~ we have probably had that condition for a long time, but if the goal is to finish the ~~ ~;= annexation of a orooertv. the annexation is not complete until the development ~ag. ~:. ~;~~;r agreement is complete. If we are going to discuss that there should be a shorter time n. for the applicant to return it after the city attorney has prepared it, I think there should be a shorter time in the initiation. x.;., ~ 1, ~~...:, '~" Rohm: Mr. Baird. x. Baird: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, I was not in attendance at that joint meeting, but Mr. { ~~ Nary was, and I'm not sure where that 18 month period came from. I suspect that this ,_~~~ particular applicant is motivated and organized and we will see them calling us right ';; away, because I think they want to get this taken care of and maybe they can make a ~:~~:~,~:~~: commitment as far as what that time frame would be and we could re-insert that time ~~ ~ ~'~' period and I would also probably have the Commissioner -- or the Commission inquire of Mr. Guenther if he has any idea where the 18 month time period came from. It looks =~ like we have got a technical thing going on over there, though. } Guenther: Mr. Chair, Craig is trying to look it up. I believe that section came from the ?,r .~~ ~~ ~~°4''~x; portion of the UDC which sets time frames on annexations and platting for expiration `' and 18 months is when they have to complete within that time and I believe it is stated ~` } `~ ° in 11-5-B, which is under for the expiration provisions. However, we are trying to locate ~~* an ordinance to verify that for you. eft ~~ `~~•~ 3w~i~ 1 ~ Rohm: I think in this particular application it s almost a moot point, because it s going to ~~, take place way prior to the 18 months. So, I'm not sure that we will be bumping up ;:`~ against that anyway. _F~~ . c, I ~~ '~; ~}:~ . y-. ~, ~. e .~ . , Zaremba: And, Mr. Chairman, I am not necessarily certain that we need to solve that for this applicant either. I think it's going to be -- but I think as a boilerplate issue, again, since it does show up in other applications, if staff would promise to look into it and discuss it another time, I would be satisfied. Rohm: A point well taken. Hood: Mr. Chair, I would just like to confirm that we will look it up. It doesn't look like we have the UDC. We got a new computer this week and they didn't put our UDC on the computer it doesn't look like. So, I don't have access to that. I would just i4 ~ ^S ~~c 'L.q aw j~~~ f t'}Fo ~. ~ -C4 ,K ~ , }fir , ., +, ~ ~~, ~-~:'~ K~: ~yy yYT 1 ~~~v'^ i UIJ;{' y ~ • i 4 ' Y ~ ~~i + ~~ ~~J ! ~::. ~'y If 4 _~Y ~. µ ~ ~ j. ~~ ~ ~~ ;~~ ~ T j~11.1tkfjM' hN F w '~(~ J ! ~I <~g yY YaY t ~ a w 1 w~' `-Y.w i , i'""`' { +" ~ C u,w• - ~,&s~k 2r t !y x ~~~'~ ~ 1 X ~...~ T:`i I'..s. 1; ~. :- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting i; ~ l "''~''~~ February 16, 2006 Page 20 of 95 y}~r~~T recommend that we strike that 18 months in case it isn't in the UDC, because as you k~u```'~~ noted, they will probably comply with that anyways and, if not, we aren't requiring `` something that isn't required by code. So, just to be safe, I'd recommend that we just ~' ` strike out that time period at this time and they need to comply with the UDC. So, n :':; ;~x:, whatever it says they have to comply with anyway, so -- and we will look into that. ,~.F.4j Rohm: Okay. ._ Zaremba: Well, if we just take out the words within 18 months, the whole rest of the sentence still makes sense so -- oka Thank ou. The a licant has been noddin Y Y PP 9 1, __~~ her head yes. Do we need that testimony on the record . -;.;, ;rig Borup: No. Let's just do it. Rohm: I think we are clear on that. I. think at this time -- - Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on AZ 05-060, Ada County Highway District Ustick Road property. ```'-`~ Moe: Second. ,,~; ~,,; ':?'` Rohm: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded that we close AZ 05-060. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. } ED: MOTION CARRI ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? ~~i ~Y~, Newton-Huckabay: Whoa. I have got a question. ~~ f~ '' Zaremba: Oh, I'm sorry. I don't mean to be pushy. Newton-Huckabay: I guess I got to speak up. :>° Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. A ;~~ }~J ~y. ~'~` Newton-Huckabay: I was just trying to refresh my memory regarding the buffer on the east side. Isn't there a buffer to the north? I mean -- Guenther: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, that would be the Ustick Road buffer, which will be a 35-foot landscape buffer to the north, which would -- which is written into >; there -- into the development agreement. °'~''~~~ Newton-Huckabay: No. Isn't there an east -- the road north of that. This is the ~~: signalized one right behind Lowe's; right? L=,v r ~'ii41 y +: .5 ~ 'G <, rir 1 y [yr- ! ~~ z if' ~ v y.,}4 .YA Sl .lC t .~..`.. V ^.aF~ , r ;;'+, t-1 - r . ~:e, r L r ~~s;~ ~~ a 3, - •~ k r :~t ~~ ~ ~ ', t ~: a ; „'. dt$ ~ 4~- ~ y , `~ %n y~ r. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commn Meeting February 16, 2006 Page 21 of 95 !9 =,~ ,,_.. :~,. ,;: _;~ ~~;~; Guenther: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: The one north of it, doesn't that have a buffer on the east side of the collector that's already built out? Whatever -- Heather Meadows or -- Guenther: Yes. Zaremba: If I can interpret your question, we are talking about where the center line of the two different roads would align; right? Depending on whether there is a buffer or not. That's the question. Do they align. Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh. Zaremba: Depending on whether there is a buffer or not. Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. And I guess that's -- because as I -- I don't think they will, but -- Guenther: Mr. Commissioner, Chairman, Mr. Inselman from ACRD is in the audience and he indicated that there is a land use -- or landscape buffer on the other side of the road as well. Baird: Mr. Chair, if we could reopen the hearing and get Mr. Inselman on the record, think that would be the best course of action at this time, since there is an open question. Rohm: Okay. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move to rescind closing the Public Hearing and reopen it for AZ 05-060 and I would note that nobody has left the room since we closed it. Rohm: Okay. Is there a second? Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we reopen AZ 05-060. All in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Newton-Huckabay: Can I complete my statement before you call him up here? Rohm: Absolutely. Newton-Huckabay: Thanks. My question is this: If there is a buffer and the streets wouldn't line up, which I didn't think that they did without a buffer, I would think that we ;s; ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~,~ ,c~. } .~ s ;>n ~ :~ :, ~s. ms's +~t ry u fir. ~ ~:~' j ~,~y.,.. ~~ ~ :n 5.. .: S~,~I~-1! y t~ Y ~ ~ sty ~~ Wit- ~ t.=~: r r ... ~~ r.,* , •.v awa ~, ~ ` ° a,~` w r ~~ .w,~e#,~r X' ~ ~ n ~' ~ ~f~u. ~ .,1~ f~~~~i 7 v ~ ti fi L Y (~" .~~~~r.,. .., ,.. 4~9t~.}+S~ Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 16, 2006 Page 22 of 95 would need to have a buffer on the east side of the property and so that the street would line up. _, Zaremba: Good point. Newton-Huckabay: And that it would look like -- if for no other reason -- I mean that esthetically it looks like it's a continuous flow. And I have completed my statement. Rohm: Okay. Would Mr. Inselman like to come forward, please. Inselman: Commission, Gary Inselman with Ada County Highway District. The intersection is already constructed with the road project that we just did with the =~; developers at Lowe's and the other side of Eagle and the roadways do align at Ustick "` and, then, it is the desire to swing the road to the east to allow access to the Summer's Funeral Home and the church and, then, continue the road straight south for the distance that those parcels require. Borup: The radiuses are already in, there is no curb cuts to do anything; is that correct? Right. The intersection is already there. Mr, Rohm: So, you will just be continuing the existing roadway to the south. Zaremba: Well, the part that I heard is that it would curve. There would be a slight curve to the east to -- somewhere south of Ustick it -- okay. At Ustick it aligns with the ;:, road across the street and that requires some bit of landscape buffer to do, but some distance south of Ustick the road would shift slightly to the east and eliminate that ~'~` landscape buffer for the purpose of connecting to the two properties that agree to connect, but, then, it would continue along that property line from then on. Rohm: On south. Zaremba: Oh, there is a drawing to my right. I was looking the other way. ,, t Guenther: Mr. Chairman, this is, actually, from the Una Mas project, which we will hear _:'~f `r next. Zaremba: Okay. Guenther: This is their drawing, their rendition of the ACHD intersection. Zaremba: And is that a fairly accurate depiction, as far as you're concerned, Mr. Inselman? Inselman: Something to that effect, yes. Zaremba: Okay. r~ . ~- ~~ r z ~~• ti ~~° .~ T ~ r' q~l,!.H. f~ ~' F ~= ~ ~ '~. ~' ,r,: y ~:'~ xt Y ~6'f '~ '~ ~F . `i ~ ..~. 4'' ~k ~~?f+ >'~~ ~., - h }j.~ F iM1 ~~ ~~ ti: y^ Y. * ~. ~ 4 y: V ~ _ ~r k~'.~WSr t~~ T,S '~ ~ c F G :s ~~~ 7r 4 } S ,;4~ k 1 -.e~~ ...~ ~, .1 ~~ i..4 '`. ~ ~.. ~a .. ,( f. yM,~~? ~~} F y .~ ~ a ~s.';' ~' ~~'. ~ ' ~.y .dk. r rt ~ ~ ~ ~7~. y J}~-ff ` q l: t t~ - "Y ~ ~ ~1 t ~r' - J~. F .~~. '~` a a ~ Y~ r`" ~~ f% i.,G t -~~?`r ~r -~~~~4"~ ~ t o x r -n - u ~ P .- ~ ~ ~ ~, k ' Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting ?,a_-;j February 16, 2006 s ~ Page 23 of 95 a Rohm: It appears to be very clean cut to me. Thank you, sir. Any other questions of .,,~ Mr. Inselman before we move forward? Thank you. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, do you have anymore questions about the buffer to the east -- or to the south I guess it would be. No. To the east. To the east. Newton-Huckabay: Well, isn't -- the Summer's Funeral Home sits on Ustick, so where is the access off of the proposed street? It's right there? So, it's going to access at the back of their property? "'~ Rohm: I believe that's the intent, to take access off of this new roadway. Newton-Huckabay: Well, I guess to me it doesn't make sense, other than the mere fact that I guess you have got many more feet of land to sell on the other side, so -- but -- ' Rohm: I think that might have been the point. '} ~~ Newton-Huckabay: Well, I'm just stating my opinion. I would have put the landscape - buffer all along it, but -- ~~~~ Borup: Well, it does allow -- as was stated, it does allow direct access to that property. ,~ Newton-Huckabay: To? Borup: To go to that collector. Yes. Someone leaving Summer's would not have to go - down to Ustick and down to Eagle and back to Fairview, they go directly to Fairview. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Well, we don't have to belabor this any longer. Borup: That's what I was thinking. Rohm: Okay. With that being said -- ,: , Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing for one final time on AZ 05-060, Ada County Highway District Ustick Road property. Moe: Second. N~~ Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close -- reclose AZ 05-060. All those in `~~;` favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. } ~Y 4 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. ~~; Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba, are you ready to move with a motion? ~~, ~ ~,~~ ~: ,, ~~ ~;: '~~'~ ~y~ 'T,X r~':n',. .:.~~ 7 f :~:i- ~, •:a i s. , ~} ~ s 3 a d .,, _~ t ~ ;r ~' ~'~ i>. ~ ~~" L~~z ~ ~,ti ,_,_'w, s.,. _ ~~ R r I ,,'. F ^^o ~'? 4~ l4 ~Y~i` 5r ~PI :~i~l ~'' ~ ~ ~ r ~"r w ~ ^?:+~ ~ .rte ~ ~ - s .. - ~ ~x e,z~'S` err :~ ~x`'~v f~{ s4 't,"„'"'- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting ~. , ,; _ February 16, 2006 ~,~ ..,: Page 24 of 95 Zaremba: I am ready. I was trying to find the third place where I need to make a `~~~ comment and I have found it. Therefore, Mr. Chairman? _~:~. ~~ rte;: ~;: Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. ~' { -~ Zaremba: I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of AZ 05- 060, to include all staff comments for the hearing date of February 16th, 2006, with the ~~ i`'' following modifications: On page three, paragraph I, the very last sentence would be .~ changed to read as follows: There will be no direct lot access to Ustick Road, except for the future road -- and, then, the sentence continues the same as it was. On page six of ~'-> the staff report, item ten, the last paragraph introducing the bullets, there is an underlying statement that says the applicant shall contact the city attorney. In that ~`'" sentence I would strike the words within 18 months and leave the rest of the sentence the same. In one of the bullets following that, the bullet actually begins on page six and ;:", continues onto page seven, I would add a sentence to that bullet that says that a ~~ .; ~ ..~ landscape buffer will not be required along the east side of the future collector roadway. >~~°~< End of motion. ~'~ Moe: Second. ~; <... ,: °'.° ~ Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending ry. approval of AZ 05-060 with modifications to the staff report. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. Thank you very much. ,, MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. ~1•~'.b z:~ ,. Item 6: Continued Public Hearing from January 19, 2006: AZ 05-061 Request ~~, ~ for Annexation and Zoning of 9.55 acres from RUT to C-G zone for Una Mas by Una Mas, LLC - 3475 East Ustick Road ~:._ ~~ Rohm: One down. At this time I'd like to open the continued Public Hearing from -:. January 19th, 2006, for AZ 05-061 for the project Una Mas and begin with the staff ,,, report. :,~. ::, G ``= Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The Una Mas -- annexation request is, again, just an annexation request. What we have tonight is a 9.55 acre site that would be requesting annexation from RUT to C-G. With this site it is there is two main issues with the site. ~~ °' also mostly agricultural at this time. Currently , ~ ~ One is that ACHD on Ustick Road has not provided them with an access point -- a ~: ~~ future access point to Ustick with the current roadway configuration. The access would ~` " be full access immediately off site to the west. And, again, from the future roadway that we just had discussed, which is why the extensive portions in the development `;' ` agreement address cross-access and vehicular circulation between all these parcels. That is the main concern that staff has with this site. Secondly, that the southern portion of this property staff is recommending to ACRD that a 42 foot wide road system, ~, half of it be reserved, not dedicated, to provide for a future either public or a collector -- ~; -. r ~ a.?F}„ F~.n~i;b a 'A t ~ y m• ~ ~ +C ) i~1 ~t ,ri ., •5 ~.d~~ ~~„ -: :rt. ~ , ~.~ ~ t ~t~~; ~ `L pb;t F x Ft` ~,~~'~' F; r',. ~y f` ''~ ? }` Y ~ qY"" ~' '2 r ~~ _. } ~. y . -iw ~ ~, ". is k:~ ~~~ ,~ {, ` .~ ~; ~ t ~ '`t t .tN~'i~ rt a ~~ S ]: , kt~'.I~_ X13 ~* _,~~.~?. ,r F ;'i; {n S~d54J5~~C ' rs'. ?~ r ru ~~~ ~ ~; iw ~1 3Z^ ~•m~,.,T z?., `_~ ' ~'y.; '' Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 16, 2006 ~~ `;~;; ; Page 25 of 95 ;~.. ; .. •' commercial collector roadway. That is to be determined by ACHD. Staff does feel that ~ ~~ there is a severe need for traffic to -- especially commercial vehicular traffic, which will ,'° be loading trucks, semi trailers, and such, to not take access to Ustick at this point. So, ~' ~' cross-access across this parcel, probably at the southern boundary for a full roadway, '~-;~ would be desirable in order to allow for loading traffic, large truck traffic from any ~. ~~ commercial properties in that area. Keep in mind that the property to the west is zoned ,` general commercial, which we will also see tonight and the property to the south is ,< ~~` ~ zoned general commercial, which we shall see sometime in the future. Staff doesn't k ~ <~ anticipate this entire site to be retail type of commercial uses, but possibly office and ~y ' ~~: additional residential uses that would be able to take an access off of the commercial = ~. road with another type of future roadway system. And that would just be for a reservation of that future roadway system, so that it is available for any future ~~~ ~~?`T development needs that may arise. Staff foresees that there would be those needs, therefore, that will be written into the development agreement. The second point would ~:. . , be that across-access road would be designed to a private street standard, with a ~`'~>~~ 1 ~ minimum of 24 foot wide paved surface, with a five foot wide landscape buffer and a five '`'~~ foot wide sidewalk for pedestrian access in the east-west direction in order to provide c~`; for some sort of a mid block or mid development connection. We would foresee this 4 ~ ` parcel would come in as either -- well, two to five lots for a preliminary plat and the -,:_, cross-access could be provided at the lot line, which would connect the parcel to the west to the future collector roadway. That one, as shown in this rendering, could be designed as a slightly meandering type of a roadway, but staff feels that no parking ~ `a shall be allowed or backing out on that roadway in order to facility vehicular movement -f;. ~ '+ ~ ~ between the portion of the property west of the site and the future collector roadway k! !. _ Y. system. Currently, this site here, there will be -- Article H of the UDC does not allow for ~~.. °~ access points to Eagle Road. So, therefore, the east-west connections are paramount ~~ to the success of the commercial operations in this area, which is why the extensive ~~';~~ 4 ~ development agreement would be required. In my discussions with the applicant, they a: :_ `'_ - feel that these cross-accesses would be -- they should be able to design around them T~' °' f- . and, therefore, staff is recommendin a royal of this site, with the cross-accesses as 9 pp , {`" ~; 1 listed in the development agreement requirement of the staff report. I will stand for ~' ~~~ questions. ~,•;,~~. :_, Rohm: Thank you. I appreciate your testimony. Any questions of staff? Not at this ,x` _ time. Would the applicant like to come forward, please? n;.~T ~r {~ Rosin: Chairman Rohm, Commissioners, Jon Rosin, Hansen-Rice, 1717 Chisholm Drive, Nampa, Idaho. We are in agreement with the staff report, with the clarification k`` that we would like to also see that if they are asking for the 42-foot area along the south ` of the properly, if that's truly where it's located, we are good with that. Along this -- along this edge right here. We have had discussions with this applicant, as well as 4 -'~ ACHD, and we believe we have come up with two access -- you know, we have come ~~.~~ up in agreement with at least two access points -- cross-access points across our ~~~ property line this way and we are -- k "~~' Moe: Can you show me the other one with -- ,; ~' :~Y:'i 1~ ]y~tj t (?~ t'2F~ t.f~ t v~'. -i < vii' ~ .'1 4 ,i. i};^ ~ r~ S ~ , a5 3` ~c, z ^- r _ ~i Z ~ ~~~~ ~~' ~ ' . r ~_ ~- . ff ~ - y ~ - ~' ~ ~, 4 ar~iy # ' ~`^y 1~ `~ ~~`~V~} 7 f y t Ufa 'f ~ •'~ RY ~ ~Ti~F fi( . ~4 ';~ f - t.. ~~a 3~~~. ~' .. ~' ,L, ~ D ~- ~ r~Y^ d~' ~~~. .3 ~` ` Meridian Planning & Zoning Common Meeting February 16, 2006 Page 26 of 95 J ~~~ Rosin: From this drawing? Moe: I understand the one on the south side. I'm just curious -- Rosin: Yeah. This one right here is the 42-foot that they are requesting and we have come up -- we had a meeting with ACHD and the applicant to the west and we are ;f,~ showing right now somewhere in the neighborhood of 350 feet or so from Ustick having some kind of a meandering access -- cross-access to get through our site over and, then, another one down here that lines up with theirs that would also meander through the site. Our goal is, you know, to have offices, retail space, and, you know, we don't ~~ want -- I mean we have purposely aligned these lots up so that people would have to meander to keep the speeds down. We really don't want a freeway going through the sites where we have, you know, the offices and a lot of people who are working there. ,. Moe: So, you're anticipating that you would have three cross-access points off the west side? Rosin: Yes. We are oka with that. We are willing to -- you know, we are willing to Y work with them. Thank you. `'"'°~ Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: Actually, I would ask Mr. Rosin a question if I could. Since you have been - talking to ACHD and the other applicant and somewhat together, I guess, do you have any greater comfort that it may be you that acquires this piece of property that will be the remainder of ACHD? '"^ Rosin: Not at this time. We don't know. We sure -- we would sure like to pick that up, but price will dictate. You know, it would definitely help us in our development, but it ty~ depends on, you know, what happens when it goes up for sale. Zaremba: Okay. I assume that has to be a public process. s Rosin: It does have to be a public process. Zaremba: There may be other bidders and so forth. `~~~` Rosin: That's correct. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. ,``;;~ Rohm: At this time I'd like to open it for public testimony. We don't have any additional ~~~ individuals signed up for this, but at this time I will open it to public testimony. ,, Moe: Mr. Chairman? S ~' ~ t •~ ~f ~. ~T~Y ark t r -~ ir,~ 4'~ `-?a~ ' r -~~ ~ ~ ~ '~?~"`~~ ;~ r '~¢ ~ 4 k r fw G, ;+ $ x ~ ~ ~~ a ~~ ~~~` ~ ~~ r,: i y. '4 S `„~ dq, ...!~ I ~rr~~ d x r-~ , ~. ~ , 3 ,~ ~'t . x , p f: tt?;`~ t~t,,~ 1 f ~ f~ - vM'.' w i. ~ B .`i~ 9 C 4K,~ .~ i ,; ~ ~ ,~2 ~' 4 :~~ t' e ..'k. rt ~e Meridian Planning & Zoning Commi~On Meeting February 16, 2006 Page 27 of 95 Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I move we close the Public Hearing for AZ 05-061. Borup: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 05-061. All in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I move we recommend approval to the City Council of file number AZ 05-061 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 16th, 2006. End of motion. Borup: Second. Zaremba: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 05-061. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion ``'t carried. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. ~ ~ Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, it's not part of the motion, but I would support the request of _~ one of the applicants that AZ 05-060 and 05-061 stay together. That they go onto the ~; ~ City Council at the same time. '~ Rohm: Yeah. I think that's appropriate. .. ~,.- ~_ :. `~`' Zaremba: Just a scheduling question for staff. <. ~~~`~; Item 7: Continued Public Hearing from February 2, 2006: AZ 05-057 Request ~~-: for Annexation and Zoning of 17.25 acres from RUT and R1 to R-8, R-15 and C-G zones for Bienville Square Subdivision by Red Cliff >~µ;-. Development, LLC - 2935 North Eagle Road: ,,N i.. "; kS ~~'~~ Item 8: Continued Public Hearing from February 2, 2006: 12Z 05-019 Request `' ~ for a Rezone of 10.05 acres from C-G to R-8, R-15 and C-G zones for ,;; ~:: Bienville Square Subdivision by Red Cliff Development, LLC - 2935 ~~,~ North Eagle Road: }: - i ~.~ ~ ~ J Y ~ yc r Y~i { t •i L {"~q `; G'c' s: ~G° ~- ` Y :~. ~'` ~' ~` ,~, „~~__, ~ r 7 a f ~i 'icy 7 4 ~ t ~ ~~ f ~ r+`... d`'S,. m11i ~. }} : ~ ti rR ~ f • t~ ~,k _ .. 1~ ~. ~iR:..~ .~ . ~.ti1.7 ~ ~ G` ~'H' 1 # ",?~ 1 ~'y l:i W2 ~: f ;; ~~ ,: . ~,- . ~. ;. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commin Meeting February 16, 2006 Page 28 of 95 l~ Item 9: Continued Public Hearing from February 2, 2006: PP 05-059 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 54 single family residential lots, 22 multi- family residential lots, 14 common lots and 7 commercial lots for Bienville Square Subdivision by Red Cliff Development, LLC - 2935 North Eagle Road: Item 10: Continued Public Hearing from February 2, 2006: CUP 05-052 Request for Conditional Use Permit for Mixed Use Regional project within 300 feet of a residence for Bienville Square Subdivision by Red Cliff Development, LLC - 2935 North Eagle Road: Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to reopen the public hearings for AZ 05-057, RZ 05- 019, PP 05-059 and CUP 05-052. All of these relate to the Bienville Square Subdivision and before we take any testimony it's only being reopened to discuss the perimeter of the project and the fencing and pathways. It's not to take testimony on the project itself, other than as it relates to that -- that boundary. So, with that being said, I'd like to ask staff for the staff report, please. ~` ~~ Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. With this `: ;;v~: application you tabled this item to here. Some of the discussion was there was open ~~A°'``' questions about the southern portion of this boundary, as well as the western property, rj ~ ` the fencing and the design layout and such of the multi-use pathway along that area. >f. Since, then, the applicant, as you have multiple letters from the applicant and staff, that r : ~, they have gone back to the neighbors and met with these property owners along the southern boundary. They have come to an agreement that the Finch Lateral shall ,~~~ remain open. You should have received a site plan stamped received by the City of '' Meridian Planning on February 13th. The staff report that you received I believe on the _'~:~_ 14th of February is the date that -- the final date, which should include a condition of ~_ ~ 1.2, which -- trying to get Craig to flip this. The applicant did bring this layout back to us. §~ `" This is the Finch Lateral ditch, which would be approximately a 30-foot wide ditch, and r k ~_ they -- Nampa-Meridian has asked for an 18 foot wide maintenance pathway. The '~:< fence line would include a six foot wrought iron fence with the multi-use pathway ti between that fence line -- ar that fence line and the development. Again, the staff report does indicate that there would be one other condition just referencing the site plan that ~' ~ was received on February 13th, which includes this drawing that I'm showing you on ~~`' ~ here. Staff actually supports this -- this change to the -- I guess it's the master site plan :~ _' now that has been submitted, as well as the applicant has submitted a new fencing plan for the western property boundary, which would be of a composite sort of a nature with ~~~ ~~ stone and composite materials, which would be to the liking of the neighbors. The "'_'~` applicant has indicated that the neighbors are in support of this -- of these design ;;, changes. With that, there should be two letters in your packet of support of these designs and staff is recommending approval with the staff report that you received this T ~ ;u. ;~1„~~, week. < ~'~ ~- Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of staff by the Commission? ~r z ~; --: .1-_ ,1 y tt ~ ~y ~;* ige4 t't ,,tt f , !!i1 .~T T ,.. ~~~~~~ ~,y'fi y..J ~.i'.-1' ~:~ ';. ,:-:its 'P ti,~ ,r ~`~ t~ i T ~ .~ ~._; , ;~d Y ~ ~.j :f~; ~ _ .. ~+1~Qq~ ~ y ,y .r:>; 3 3?+ {, !~~ ~* ,'. f 4~ p, lh~ 5 ~~ ~'~ x a ~ t. Sy ~ ~~ i "~~ +~ ~ 4, . x C. .'ee~~!' c^#. ~~ ~+~ ~ t 4 .{r~ 4i '~ ri, ~ ~"~, c ~ M u s ~'~~ f">' • n Meeting Meridian Planning & Zoning Comm ., ,. ~''`' ' February 16, 2006 Page 29 of 95 ;t:'t' Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I do have one. If you would take the current drawing off and ~~ show the one that was there before. Just to clarify, since I wasn't clear and maybe -- <<- maybe I'm the only one, but maybe others aren't clear. But to make certain, orienting to this drawing, this would be Carol Subdivision on this side and this would be Bienville on ~: this side? Guenther: That is correct. k~ ,x }.' Zaremba: Okay. I just wanted to make sure of that. That was it. ,r 54=:~ Rohm: Any other questions of staff? -~_ Moe: Joe, I guess one thing I do have, I understand that the neighbors and the ~~~ applicant have kind of worked this all out and we have the plan and whatnot, but have you received anything else in regards to -- you know, other than the master plan here, as far as explanation for the fencing and whatnot or are we just supposed to take that off the master -- this revised master plan? I bring that up, because based upon the ~~f' letters that we did receive. When the applicant comes up I'll have a couple questions in ~`~=~ regards to some of the -- "~V` Guenther: I have not received any other correspondence with neighbors, outside of what is in the packets. ;- . Moe: Okay. Thank you. ~z Rohm: Okay. At this time would the applicant, please, come forward. Guenther: The copies that the applicant is handing out are the copies that I had up on ~;F; s <~ the presentation. We received them via a-mail I believe on Tuesday as well. ~; =,. f- = Unger: Mr. Chair and Commissioners, Bob Unger with Redcliff Development. Our k~'' address is 7871, Suite 125, East State Street in Meridian -- Eagle. Getting my places >.: f~ '''; mixed up. What I have just passed out to you reflects what staff has on the board here. If you go to the second page, that is a site -- or a view from the -- of the pathway as we are proposing with the trees on either side of it and the wrought iron fencing on the left- sr~.t hand side. That would be a view looking west. If you go to the next sheet, this is a view ~~~~` looking north, which would be towards the condos that we are proposing. The next °~ sheet is just kind of an overhead -- somewhat of an overhead angle view, once again, _;.?'"~ looking west -- or east. Northeast. Which also, once again, shows the condos and the possible commercial building structures that would be there. And in all these we are showing the pathway with the fencing and the trees on either side of the pathway. And, "~_ then, the last picture that we have in there is a shot from the southeast corner of the C'- ~ fi~ project, in other words, there at the corner there of Eagle Road and just south of the -~3 canal itself. This is the -- for the Finch Lateral itself, this is what we reviewed. We met . ~: with the property owners twice since we last were before you folks. We met last ~:,.;, zar~ ~~ , ~ ~ ~ rte. `.. -, .~ x ~r~.~x~E r t~.,~` ..,r b rye` 7r~rt~~„ Y;,. irii -ar ~- 1 '~ t hy. ~ '~` ~~.~ '~ `i 4 4c ~! i' +5 ~f ~ .~ ~,~. r k _ ~~, ~ iwa' r ,~ 3 c ~~ ;, +~ M1 ~ryx* ek f` 'S "~~ Y' ~ ~ y'. t. ;r - : ' ~ ~r3j';: ,~bi~~l ti. }{ ~jf ~i '+ ~~ ts6 ?b; ~. fx 1 ,r K~ ~t t ZEN ~ (' h 1 .~'. ~ f ~Y ~ ~ h i.y ~` ' ~ ~ r~,dr +d#i _. ~ ~ ~ ~ yY~, }~,~ h{ •~ 1 L` ~ I~ ,' ~ ~ ,~~.l1.71~ 7 ~~ ~ r 2 .. ~yy~. •'r. 'lTf r ~~, ,'~~7 . _yy .~ ~:' „i,. ~` i_ ~,4~T r Meridian Planning & Zoning Commi~n Meeting ''~ '`~"° February 16, 2006 " `' Page 30 of 95 rk,; Saturday morning -- one of the property owners was nice enough to let us use his ~:,;,~ , home. And, then, the Wednesday before that, Wednesday last week, we met on site ~; -~ with Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District, Bill Hansen, and the property owners along the southern border, to discuss, you know, what we could or could not do within the ~:~ easement of the Finch Lateral. And what we brought before you this evening is the ~, conclusion of those discussions and negotiations, where the Finch Lateral will be left open. There is an 18-foot -- there will be an 18-foot separation between the top of the ~~~~' bank over to the fence area. This would be allowed -- would allow Nampa-Meridian :`' ~~ sufficient room to get in and out of there to do any work on the ditch if they need to. ~ ~- Small shrubs are permitted within that 18 foot strip. The -- our landscape architect kind ~.-.. ~r of pushed them -- kind of bowed them out a little bit. Those will need to be up against ' ~'= the fence. And, then, we had the wrought iron fence and, then, we have another four feet between the wrought iron fence and the pathway, which allows for tree planting ~ ~-: every 35 feet. And, then, we have a seven foot pathway. And on the other side of the ~ ;` pathway we have some larger trees that will be placed at 35-foot on center, but they will n~ be spaced in between these front trees to give a good visual barrier throughout the ~,,; project. And as I have indicated, the property owners to the south of the project have ~ t ... ti ~ indicated that they are okay with this plan. In fact, we have modified it since our plan -- or since our discussions on Monday based upon their recommendation. So, this is what ~'.. y they asked us to do and that's what we are bringing before you this evening. If you will ~t ~ ~ go to the -- the next one is for the west -- western boundary landscape and fence detail. r:` Zaremba: Joe has that one, too. Guenther: I was looking for a picture. Unger: Oh. Sorry. No pictures on this on. What we are showing here is -- our original ;`~,F fence that we were proposing along this western boundary was -- actually, was going to be a pillar and cedar solid fence. The neighbors did not like that. They felt that the .V ~,~. cedar was not sufficient. They had concerns about the durability. What we are coming '` ~ back with is this is actually -- is not cedar, this is Trex, which is a composite that's made of recycled plastic and wooden mixture and it comes in some different colors. What we r;,n are showing here and in our picture is more towards acedar-looking color and we have shown this to a couple of the neighbors along the western border. They seem to feel comfortable with that. That's what we are proposing what we want to go forward with. ' ' It's a very durable product. In fact, it -- we have done an awful lot of research and as has neighbors -- the neighbors over there have also done some research. The information we are coming up with is that it has anywhere from a -- some of the product ~~~n it says a ten year warranty. What we found has a 25 year warranty. So, it's a very durable, very solid product. And that's what we are all looking for is something that's w;~ ~ durable and solid, a product that's going to last awhile and, in addition, the fence itself would continue to be always maintained by the property owners association, as would any of the landscaping within the project. And just to show the detail here, this would be ,.~,. ~~~: the fence that we are proposing. We have a bermed area here and trees every 35 feet. -Y::~~ That's within a 15 foot section. Once, again, a seven foot path and, then, another eight F; ~~~ feet for additional trees. And, then, the properties that would abut this within our ,, x e4 ~- ~ i LL i~ ~ ' ,. 4 3?~ix ~ ~<~' "~ _ ~ ~r kyei ~ ~ ~N' 3-'-e 7 ~ ~' a~ t.$~3, i. e _ti`~ ~,r ~`, ~~ f ' ~: q ~w .._..._. 1_,. ~:_ a . >, , . . ~~} fy'`1 4.. f; rt~~r yL ti ~ d i M1J ~ k 1 ~ 5 ~ ~ \ z 'Y."Y. ~~~~ 7~~ k e IYn~- ' s ~` ~~` G'q ~. y i r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ <~i~ ~: 5 '"'q~4 as , s y!,,~ :,t::, S 5 !~ K','Sfi~ 4 ~' {I 1 ~~3~1~ C) F~1q"Y ;., ~ 4 ~. ~ ~',. ~ ir~~ SAF3 s I ~, ~'~~e 4 ~-• Meridian Planning & Zoning Common Meeting February 16, 2006 Page 31 of 95 ' •w= development, they would be allowed to have an iron fence along this portion of it. And ,~;;~ that is within our 30 foot landscape buffer that is shown along our plan. So, with that -:yam think I can conclude the presentation, because that's what you instructed us to do and V~ that's what we have done. And I'll take any questions that you may have. ~t~}y Rohm: Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Any questions of the applicant? Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. ~ •' ~ Moe: Mr. Unger, as far as your renderings that you have submitted to us tonight in ~ • ~~ regards to the condominiums, basically with the windows facing to the west, is that all '' ~'~ the windows we are going to see in the condos facing to the west? >z -_- . ~~~ ~~ Unger: I'm sorry, Ididn't -- I think I understood you, but -- ,, ~^ ~ Moe: The picture right here as far as your window location and whatnot facing -- ~_ ~~..; x>- t~`, ~, ~: "' } ;X .. iii ~: ie.: A~~. .t ~r.~ ~... ~~° s ~' <~~,~~. ~ti ~k i~ Unger: South you mean? Moe: South. I'm sorry. Unger: Yes. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Moe, yes, those particular units, they do have windows. Those are bedrooms and we have to have windows in there. You know, we will try to put in sufficient landscaping and buffering to somewhat, you know, block their view. But, once again, I think just to remind you -- Moe: Mr. Unger, Let me -- what I was going to tell you is I think this is more than adequate. Unger: Oh. Okay. Moe: I wasn't looking for less. Unger: Okay. I'll quit right there, then. Moe: Another thing, are you in receipt of the letter from Betty Rosso to the Commission? Unger: No, we haven't received that. Moe: Do we have other copies? I think it's important that he get a copy of this, because there were comments made within her letter that I just kind of want -- maybe after we have the other public testimony, you may answer to -- you know, she makes mention of :f ~~ • I l ~ 6 ~.N k, W7~4S. f ~_r C Y n, E3..fr~ i ~ ~~~`~ i .. ~ ^}`.3 1 ~6 `~}~ r a ~ ~T rt;.. ... "~.. y ~y.~ p Y ;^~` ~k6S~3iif4 ~~ ~ ;-5 1 . _t2-a ~.. ~ fr r. ~;.- ~ ~ , .;, ~ k ~' i. ~,~ t D ~ MTJ ~}_~) I ~s) ~ , : "~' ~ ~3ivby ,:?bj ~~~~~ .f ~.r':.:. .'3 ~~+ .-5'_=.. Yrft ~~ ~ s r 1>: ~t ~_' ''d, ~ - fi' ri~ri:~~, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 16, 2006 Page 32 of 95 ' ~^ the 11th. I think she still has some concerns and then -- so, your meeting on Saturday +:r , maybe you can kind of review that and answer to that. Unger: Okay. ~; Moe: Okay? That's all my comments. f~,~, ,,.., . Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. ~:` Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, on the treatment of the ditch and pathway and that stuff along ~~ ~'~ your southern property, I assume your property line is the center of the ditch, which ~'''' means that you're responsible for maintenance north of that, including what would be ~4~ the easement between the ditch and your fence and my question is should that be in a ~~"' separate parcel maintained by the homeowners association or how is that 18 foot wide ~~~~. strip between the ditch and the fence going to be maintained? Unger: Mr. Chair, what is -- the greenery that you see here is going to be more of a longer buffalo-type grass. In our discussions Bill Hensen, he was all right with that. He was also comfortable with our maintaining this 18 foot strip. We will have to have a license agreement with the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District in order to do that and it ;_~.. will be identified as part of the landscape area that will be maintained by the property owners association. So, it will be incorporated into our CC&Rs. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. And my other question, actually, is to staff while you're here. If the pathway is to serve as part of the regional pathway, isn't there a requirement that that be ten feet wide? '` ` Guenther: That is correct. We were looking at that just now and Craig -- I was going to F>;, bring that up as a point of clarification. The condition 1.1.2 does indicate that the pathway needs to be compliant with UDC sections for regional multi-use pathways, ~4'• which have their own fencing and landscaping standards, which also has -- the construction standards of the pathway needs to be ten foot wide. But with the additional 15 feet of landscaping, the applicant should be able to accommodate that. Zaremba: He nods his head yes. The rattle doesn't show up on the public record. Unger: Mr. Chair. As a matter of fact, staff and I discussed this a couple of days ago and staff was going to check on that for me and we hadn't communicated since then. That was Tuesday? Guenther: I believe that was when you originally made the submittal, yes. Unger: But at that time he informed me that it may have to be wider and we don't have a problem with that. Zaremba: And you can work it out to be the ten feet? -~; ~. <;: ~ 4~ 4 ti~-, P } d~ ,~ ! f f ra ff~'.f R' '' L 'f .l,_k:. d ~~ yy ,. M 4Y i } Y •'p a _h ~~ ' Lam, - } y. t ~ ~{ ~1 1 tf µ~NC ,tY3J P 1 .~'~' ,~~ y t~- ~~ ~ ~ ~ } ~, ~ ,~,, a ' ,..: v ~~ s j~T 1 h ~~_ r''~~` ~ < ' c y i ~T ', ~tix~k~ t+~~ 1 .l r 4 ~#~ ~:~. ~ ' ~ ~ _ ~t . p. - f, ~~ ~(, .. t~ ~ .:a r=, ~ Y ~- `:.~. .. .Y ~r k: Y ,= ~, i ~` t°`. ~ Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting !~~~~~ ' ~ February 16, 2006 ~~ °" - ~ Page 33 of 95 r; ~~ Unger: Absolutely. ~: ~~~~ '`` Zaremba: That was my other question. That's it. ~; , .. Rohm: Thank you. At this time I will open it to public testimony and start with Billy :~ Knorpp. ~: Knorpp: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I am -- my name is Billy Knorpp. I live on ~~~~< = - 2972 Leslie Drive. So, I'm one of the seven lots that back up on the south side of this ~`. development. We did meet with Mr. Unger twice, as he indicated, and we did come to `~~~' ~ ~, a -- what seems to be a good agreement. I just wanted to clarify a couple of points from . w~,~ my point of view of what I would want to make sure either gets into the record or ~`"~' becomes part of what would happen and that is -- I guess the first one is sort of a ~; ~ question, I guess. Mr. Unger believes that asee-through fence is required. We would, of course, prefer it not be asee-through fence, if it were possible to put something along ~~°;'4 there, but I think it's part of the code associated with this path. But if that was possible ~. ~ to be a solid fence, we would prefer it to be a solid fence, rather than the see-through °A, ~ fence that is now planned. The other is the larger -- the fact that they're going to put in ,, ~= < landscaping, which is great, I mean he's agreed to put in twice as many trees, actually, ;'r;°~ as I think are required. What we'd like is the trees be big enough so that they are not saplings, you know, they are two feet high and they take 25 years to grow up into '~ anything that's useful, that they be reasonable size trees put in at the time, so that when `~ ~, the -- and we didn't discuss this, but I believe Mr. Unger would agree to this. We .; .,. `~- ~ haven't really -- it isn't something that came up in the meetings that we had. He's been ~~ `3 ' very agreeable in helping us to resolve this -- the differences between us. So, I can't T' speak for him, obviously, but I just wanted to put that in the record that, hopefully, the "'J ` trees will be at least five gallon or so size, so that they will grow enough rapidly to cover `r~:: up the area. And the other issue is, again, Mr. Unger agreed that they would move the '~ ~ roads and other obstructions around, so that the -- he took out the drawing, but that ~.. ;~ drawing that shows the profile of the path, that that profile would, actually, continue , ~;.: everywhere. The original site plan didn't leave enough space in some parts of the path ~~ ~ that you could actually put those trees and other shrubbery on the north side of the path ~`4r ~ ~.:. and so as long as they have agreed and they continue to have enough space there to put that line of trees in, then, I think it will all work fine. So, those are, really, the only >., things. Just some clarification more than anything, of the agreement that we did come to. So, I think that's all. All the other things were discussed in the other meeting. We Sz still have concerns about traffic, but that's not a topic to be discussed here at this h>_ 3 moment. Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of this testimony? Thank you, sir. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I'm sure Mr. Unger will bring it up, but on the subject of F-: whether that's an open vision fence or a closed fence, under the old ordinances, the police department consistently added the requirement that along public pathways it be an open vision fence. That's a safety feature. And for that reason it got into the new Nj}~~~ ~ r f } ~T; ~ ~ f ti ?t - .. ~ t ti ~~ ij ` ~ ~ ~z ~ r ~-ri ~'J~ ~f S ~ , h ~~ ~ F~+9: f Y Y ~~~ ~~ r .; J . ~ Y F r ~. n >~. ' {~, ~~ +t f ~ k ?i F,.: y ,-,k.4w C :~ ~ 4 ~}}fir x 4 r~ - r~sa -. ~, r-~YI. ~I~ r ~ s ~'~,;~ ~- .,, { 4 ~, ? '~ F Y~1i µ ~ ~ ` ~~~ r ~ ?~ ,}.,~~~` Meridian Planning & Zoning Commi sion Meeting February 16, 2006 Page 34 of 95 ~~~~'~ Unified Development Code as a requirement. So, it's a police department request that that not be variable, that it be an open vision fence along all public pathways. T-*~~ Rohm: Thank you. At this time Ray Tomczak. From the audience he says his `~'=~~~-~~ questions have been answered. Steve Meredith. And from the audience his questions a:~4 ~~~ have been addressed as well. Is there anybody else from the audience that would like -~~-=. to speak at this time? Please come forward. <= Grant: My name is Steve Grant, Mr. Chairman. I live at 1534 Leslie, which is on the western boundary of the proposed development. I am concerned that there is an assumption been made that the composite fence that was described to you by Mr. Unger is -- he -- I think his words were seems to be in agreement, because that is not the case. I came away from -- I didn't go to the meeting on Saturday, I had another commitment, but I was given a drawing that shows a masonry fence and a composite fence. After the meeting started tonight, do you see the masonry fence anywhere? It's ~~ gone. That's the first I knew about it. And I'm very concerned and I'll just draw your attention to the fact that we were here late two weeks ago and Mr. Unger stood up and said, okay, I surrender, masonry fence on the west side. Do you remember that? And '~' Mr. Borup asked him what about the south side? And that's when the -- we started to continue. So, I'm asking the Commission to hold them to their commitment to a masonry fence on the west side as we discussed and they agreed to two weeks ago. ~~ And that's -- that's all I guess I really want to say at this moment. Any questions? Rohm: I think you have been pretty clear. Thank you. Okay. Is there anybody else that would like to testify? At this time would the applicant like to come back, please. Unger: Mr. Chair, Bob Unger again with Redcliff. I think the first gentleman was asking for five gallon trees. We will put in whatever code requires. I believe those are three ;r° gallon. I'm not sure, but whatever code requires we will put in there. Whatever size is required by city code. ~~~~~~~ Guenther: City code requires two inch caliper trees, which approximate a five gallon. y.. ~~ ~~ Unger: Okay. As far as the -- Mr. Grant's comments, we were unable to get this final ~` composite fence to him before this evening, so I don't know exactly what his -- whether F~ he supports it or doesn't. This is a compromise that we have put out there and this is ;'~ what we want to go with. It's a very durable fence. It's a lot better looking than a block ":~' wall fence. We did get some indication that that would be a favorable move, but, ~~-, ~ obviously, that's not confirmed. So, I apologize if we have misled you that everybody's -~'' happy with that fence. This is the fence that we are asking you to approve. In reading through the Betty Rosso letter, I'm not quite sure what kind of comment you're looking ~'~ ~ for from me. ~, Moe: Mr. Unger, I think, basically, I would imagine that items such as Mr. Grant has ~~''~ brought up are pretty much what she was referring to, to make sure that whatever ':' ,_' ~. t~~ > ~ `~ Y,.. n y . n ~'f ~}'~ A ~ ~~ T ~ r. N~ ~ x y ` y ~ , ~ 'k _ ~' r ~, ~ rte` nnx c <7~t~~ ,~ ,,.,r u r fi~ ~~~ ~ ~ `° -. ., > .~~.~ . ~' k w ~, ~ 4 y : ~ ~ 1 ~ .,p 1 P~ ~1 I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Y ~ ~~, , ~ ~ , . ~ ~ LLL 4 l .~i~ 4; 3% •~ ~t 4 r ~ h ~2 x x ~ z ~~ Yh~; C k 1~ ~ 4 { ~~'~ ~;. ~ ~ ~ ~~ t ~r ~ ' ~ j ! Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting e February 16, 2006 Page 35 of 95 agreements were made on Saturday, you know, within your discussions, that those ~,~ ,, ?'~ things would definitely be done. I think that's, basically, what I got out of her letter. ;~~ =a Unger: And I agree with you and I think whatever conditions of approval that this Commission puts on us, holds us to any agreements that we have out there and I think _ that's the reassurance that she's looking for. Moe: Mr. Chairman, one other question. Mr. Unger, do you remember the comment ;,' in our last meeting about the block wall? ;, Unger: Yes, I do. _ Moe: Thank you. That's all I have. ,:, '~`~~ ' Rohm: Any other questions of the applicant? ~X ~;. k~~: Borup: Mr. Chairman? r~ w ~: ;,~; Rohm: Commissioner Borup. ~.:. ,- ~, Borup: The meeting Saturday, do you know how many people along the western ~~:-`=~ boundary were there? bG' . ~ Unger: I can only confirm that there was one, because I believe Ray was there. That's ~~ the only one that I know for sure is from the western boundary. ht-- ''~,'~ Borup: And another -- just a comment. You had mentioned you weren't sure whether ~~ `'' Mr. Grant was in favor of the composite fence or not. I thought his testimony was pretty ~ ~ clear, though. ~~ b ~ ~ Unger: Well, let me share with you the comments I heard from him before we came into ;:~ the hearing, was that he wanted to look at this. :~ ; ~~- Borup: Okay. „~~~- Unger: If there were anything out there, you know, comparable to this. So, yeah, _ agree. °~'~`° Borup: Okay. Thank you. , - ~ ~', ` Rohm: Thank you, Mr. Unger. t: Unger: Thank you. ._. ;~ ~ ~~ ~ Rohm: Okay. Any discussion amongst the Commission before we close this hearing? ,, ,~ ~ Commissioner Zaremba, any comment? +` -~} ~.: ;~±~; ~~ ~', ,t=' ,~ :;~ ' ~u"z 1 ''~ r °-~ r ~': 3` , { ~~ a ;,-~ "`3 : n .~ !~ '~ ; ~T i t~>m ~¢tt ~. `~ e f ~'. ~ x'- Y L 7 :~.,+r ~': i , k' t~ ` .,o ~ r, th 5. e .; r ~- ~«~ ~1:,, k i~~t«L.~, ~ nxt; Jy ~. k ~ K `+'. r '~ 3f~i r .Ii n s kl'- F't:~'~ .~, ,ts ~.t ~~ F ~.= ".` . ~'', `. a ~' s z _' ~. ~~ .. A' fi ~~ ~~~~;. _. ~ _ i+t 5it~w~" `" Meridian Planning & Zoning Comm~ss~on Meeting - February 16, 2006 A,~~:~..; Page 36 of 95 Zaremba: I do have comments, which could come either before or after. I don't actually ~`~~ have questions. k' Rohm: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. `~~ Newton-Huckabay: I was just -- on the property to the north on the western boundary, isn't there going to be a masonry fence along a couple of the property lines? °~ Rohm: I believe that that's where the discussion ended the last hearing, is there is a masonry fence to the -- on the adjacent property. Just a moment. ~` Zaremba: My recollection was that it would be a continuation of the same fence that Sadie Creek was building on their portion that abuts the eastern part of Carol ,~~` Subdivision. '?;;f. Rohm: I believe that that was where the discussion ended at the last hearing, yeah. Newton-Huckabay: Well, my preference would be to have the same fence continue along the entire eastern -- I mean, obviously, the lateral presents a unique situation, because it's the ditch and the open site requirement, but along the western boundary to <; continue the same type of fence, so you have continuity through the two projects. Rohm: And I think that there is general support for that conclusion. _~,; Borup: The other concern Ihave -- it appears there is only two people that had any ~~ `~ input on that. I'm wondering -- two out of the six is all that seemed to have a concern. I'm wondering why the others didn't have any input either through letters or attending the meeting. ''"`~ Rohm: Well, there is a number of reasons why that may be. At the conclusion of our v~~, last open hearing the assumption was that we were going to have a block wall all the way along that west line and if, in fact, that was the conclusion, there would be no ;r~,~~=1 reason for them to provide additional input. So, I'm pretty sure that that's how that -- Borup: That's why they didn't go to the meetings. Rohm: And so, you know, I think at such time that we are ready to make a motion, it would probably be best to include something to that effect. Newton-Huckabay: Ihave been re-reading the testimony from last hearing and it's pretty clear from the public testimony and from the statements that it is reasonable that _r-~ p ~ R k t r4n ~ ~ k yf e ,~ ~ ~ ~; t -v ~ ~'.~ r•~ e++ n ~+! { T n~j ~ may, i i ~ ,.y~ ~ ^ '!~ S ~~ }} ~ + j `~~~ V ~ S H y~ }",{ ~ f` I 13Ri1rv~'i'iX.~j~ ~~ S Jf .~ ti - 6y~'G ! i +' ~ ,{` ~. .. f'7`, ESL' C r•y+~ ~_ vx- Ak fix. , ~ , t. ~ i r ~ ~:, a r RS ~ ~~~~~~ ~~~ ~~~ r ~ r ..i,: r'j`'"A ~ {?"f h . Trv ; ~ ~ ~ ~ Y ~ ~ - ~ T ~.. „'` ~ ,' ~ ~~ ~~ i E ~~ ~: Y !f l:~ ~~ ` '~ 2k ~~ ~;i'~ . x 5~'v ,~ ~ C~~~ ~y ~? { ` ~1T}1 H M1~FS 'k-n ~ '. r. ~. ~~~~~'. Meridian Planning & Zoning Common Meeting February 16, 2006 ~`''"' Page 37 of 95 ~. t - anyone would have gone away from that hearing assuming that there was going to be a ~::-.- masonry fence, if not the exact same type of fence that's going to be on the property to ~~ ~ the north. '.. 4 Rohm: And I think that we are all in agreement here, so at this point in time I think it's probably appropriate to close the Public Hearing. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 05-057, RZ 05-019, PP 05-059 and CUP 05-052, all relating to Bienville Square Subdivision. ~,"'s Moe: Second. >;;L Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close AZ 05-057, RZ 05-019, PP 05-059 , and CUP 05-052. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. ;,_ '~ ~~ MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Let's see. Mr. Chairman, I would float a motion and, then, perhaps have discussion of that motion afterwards, if I may. 4t .. - Rohm: Absolutely. ~''` Borup: One other discussion item from me. Rohm: Yes. Commissioner Borup. Borup: I just noticed there is no comment on that Eagle Road access. I believe ITD a denied it, didn't they? s Guenther: Commissioner Borup, ITD has not denied that access point at this time -- Borup: They just didn't approve it, was that -- Guenther: ITD's policy that I have been delivered from their staff is that they want to see the land use proposal being approved or denied by the City of Meridian prior to `{r.Y taking their action, because if we are not going to allow the access, there would be no sense of them running an access permit through their executive committee. There have ~.~-~ been access permit discussions between many of these applicants and ITD staff, but I '~" don't believe the executive committee have been -- Borup: So, part of our approval would be recommending the access point as designed. Guenther: Well, actually, part of your approval, if you are consistent with the conditions ~~~ of approval that are outlined in the staff report, would be to indicate the required 30 foot 1'; ` wide landscape buffer along Eagle Road, which is in condition 1.1.3, which would be to i ~; -a~. tint '.: P F k'. a~n _ 3 ' " " ti i.a )k. ~ :~'' `7 ~ '~ f N~• Y r~~'~ j~~ ~~; a _ r ,_ ~q~~[`n 1 t ~~ 4 ~ K ~ ~, r Vin:. ' ~~ t . ?,~;e..; `9~r, _t `P~- < f ~~~r ~ ~ :~ ~t N^. i I l .h. ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ !_' ~ ~ F "1171 'a 1„` ? • ~ .~" J ~~ F ~~ ti ~Y,....~~(( ~ ..a ~;t `' r ~ " .'. ., a ;'`'ppZv gyp' !y ~ t '~ k !'N~F~h {~' _ t~ ~.,t r r{it ~ ' 4 r !" !}. 1 { Krj f~R -. ~ z31t ~ - } ~ f ~ Y r ,Y,~~, r y~g~6 !,i( ~1(P R W"pf~,~- E~ s ' x:~. ~: '- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting "~ February 16, 2006 `~`~ Page 38 of 95 eliminate that access and replace it within landscaping, which would be the ~..;, recommendation that this Commission would send to the City Council. Borup: But I don't believe that was the Commission's discussion last time. `~`r' Zaremba: Well, that is the portion that I was going to discuss. ~' a~'' Borup: Okay. ~Y`"~ Zaremba: I was going to phrase it in the motion such that the access would be there, k~ ~ but, no, let's discuss it before I make the motion. My feeling is it is important to have the access there and for it to be a full access. Possibly even signalized, if possible. The ~, `~ issue on this particular corner, even different than the other corners, is that with Carol ~ Subdivision behind it, it's different than the other three corners, even at this same ' ~`~~ s property, you could, by twisting around in a intersection. If you go behind the Lowe ``'.: convoluted double back and much turns, drive from Ustick to Eagle Road within .« but there is -- it's not any easy way to go and it would not attract residential subdivision , people to cut through. On the southwest corner there is no connection now. If ACHD ~~' does make aconnection -- and as we talked on one of the projects, maintain 35 feet ~~ along their southern border and on the next door project that will come up we will s ~~ probably discuss that again, if that is somehow going to connect to Eagle, then, the =~< people on that corner will have a way to go around on the northeast corner where Kohl's ;: is going to be. They have a backage road that goes north from Ustick and the applicant ~` has made it very clear that they intend to bend that around to Eagle at some point. The €'' ` f ` benefit of that is -- let me back up a second. If you have traffic that is going where you don't want it and cutting through a neighborhood, such a Carol, which does connect €w ' r from Ustick to Eagle, it's attractive as a cut through and that is undesirable. Avery ~.. r similar scenario is called a bypass and that's attractive. You want that in some places. "'~~ One of the proposals that has been presented entirely different from this and my ~' recollection is that I'm thinking of the intersection of Ten Mile and McMillan where either =~ one developer owns three of the corners out of four or at least if it's different developers ;,~ they are working with the same engineer, and they have presented a concept where ~ <~ ~:~~~ , there are roadways that connect and allow you to bypass the intersection. With an ~_ _ _ ~~ intersection like Ustick and Eagle, it's my assumption that we aren't -- we aren't even at this point seeing half the traffic that's going to be on Eagle. When Canyon county ` develops, Ustick is the longest east-west road in the Treasure Valley. It does go all the " " way to the Snake River. The people in Canyon county consider it to be a major arterial. :F When it becomes a major arterial, there will be people who want to bypass the intersection of Ustick and Eagle. They can do so on the other three corners. On the ~;~~ti~, corner that we are talking about, they can only bypass the intersection by cutting .~ ~~ through Carol Road. If there is no access in Bienville to Eagle Road, my feeling is that that access in Bienville to Eagle Road is opposite to my opinion about access eve here else. I absolute) a ree with limitin access to the section line roads and a ~:.~ half mile in between and possibly right-in, right-out at the quarter mile, not only on the state highways, but on most of our arterials I would support that. If in the major point we ~~` which I think this the few times when there is a reasonable exception then stick to that , , , 1 .;~, _ - - S ~~ r~~ ~il'Jl I s r: ~ n] F ~ ~ ~' 3~ ~~ ~Si~ 2 t^ v:,~~.)4 ~^` ffffY 4 7~-~ Q 2 ~ `~ r ~~f"~~'gf~.'f~1~ ~~ f ~ 3r A ~S. ~3 I ,y 4 ~ a . Jrw' ', 4 E.^:c. y~ 3f r ~ ~~ j~F k3 `} ~ ~ ~, ~+M~- ~ ~~,~=~ -, ~ }~ ~ 7 I ~ ~ ~.yt.", It t~ ~."~ 1 F ~ ~a'S4~4 ~+m w .F ~,~:. ~ V:. *~'~ < ~~, ;~ ~- ~~~, f,, $ r ';?{ - s i ~;;t . `' `' Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 16, 2006 Page 39 of 95 °s '~~~ is, it's easier to make that exception. My feeling is that we do no good to the traffic and '=' no good to Carol Subdivision by not providing a way to bypass that intersection for people that want to. It is being provided on the other three corners. You can go north ,,, behind Lowe's and west at their north property line. I'm pretty sure that the property on ;;; the northeast corner is going to end up connecting. We are already talking about the property on the southeast corner connecting. I believe there needs to be a connection through Bienville. I would support it being a public road the whole way and I would `F support there being a signalized intersection at Eagle, even though I would not support `` that kind of access virtually anywhere else. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. ~.. ~~ ti Rohm: Thank you. And I think as the property to the east develops, will be the determinate whether there will be a signal at that proposed access point. So, I guess we will wait and see how that washes out, but thank you for your comments. Are there any other comments from the Commission before motion is to be made? Moe: Mr. Chairman? Newton-Huckabay: I have one. Moe: I guess I would agree with Commissioner Zaremba entirely. Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Isn't there going to be a light on the west side of Ustick? Does that line up with the property -- the Sadie Creek properly or where Kohl's -- weren't they putting in a signal? Where was that signal going to be? So, it's just to the east of Leslie Way. Okay. Rohm: I don't know. I assume so. Zaremba: You're talking about the signal that will be behind Kohl's? Newton-Huckabay: Right. I was just trying to -- Zaremba: That lines up to the major roadway that comes through Sadie Creek -- Newton-Huckabay: Right. Right. Okay. Zaremba: -- to this one. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. I would also like to say I'm in complete agreement with Commissioner Zaremba and I think he made very logical arguments and they would be well to be repeated at an ITD hearing. Rohm: Thank you. 4 _ .: ~l/' ~: Y~ ~~h! a~ .; ~ , r: i ~ `~ :4 ~ w . y '~~" t.,~, ~ ' ~ ` 1 ' ~,ier ' +~ ~~ .':` ' PP"" `~ , ~ : ~; r~ w ~ ~ : 3C. . 9. f F Yt ~ II, cc ~ ~}t.r ~~ ~ ~~~ r ~,T , ~ ~ ~ ,s ~" ~ ~ '" r ~;~ ~, ~~ ~:~. `~~,, _ ~'~.. ~T _-. _. ~ .'. s f ¢ Meridian Plannin & Zonin Commi Meetin g g g February 16, 2006 Page 40 of 95 Zaremba: I would be prepared to make a motion, Mr. Chairman. Rohm: I'm ready. ''`:~ Zaremba: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council ':;,~_ recommending approval of AZ 05-057, RZ 05-019, PP 05-059, CUP 05-052, to include all staff comments for their -- I believe their revised staff comments for this evening's ~~-3 meeting of February 16th, 2006, and referencing specifically the master plan site plan provided by the applicant, date stamped received by the city clerk February 13th, 2006, and adding the pictorial representations provided by the client at this evening's meeting, `~ with the exception that the path will be ten feet wide and the exception that the western boundary fence will be of materials compatible and repeating the western boundary fence of Sadie Creek and recommending that our decision is made based on the access to Eagle Road, which means I would delete on the staff report page -- I don't have a a e, but it's item 1.1.16 that sa s direct lot access to Eagle Road is prohibited. P9 Y ~`" I would change that to say that a full access to Eagle Road is required and as a second part of the same motion I would say that that particular access is critical to this Commission's recommendation of approval and would add as a part of the motion a >~~ request to the City Council that if they make a decision other than approving that ``~~~ access, that they remand any other version of this back to us for further consideration ~~~, and recommendation. Rohm: Excellent motion. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded -- ~_ _.. Guenther: Commissioner Rohm, direct lot access would imply that each one of these five building lots would have an access to Eagle Road. That's what condition number 1.1.16 -- - Zaremba: Let me correct my phrasing. I would not approve direct lot access, I would approve, as depicted on the February 13th, 2006, site plan a roadway access to Eagle. ~~~ Guenther: Commissioner Zaremba, would you just care to eliminate the last sentence 'J~ of 1.1.4, which says including to -- which reflects changes to the preliminary plat. That's the landscape plan. That would say that add landscaping where there is currently '"~' showing an access point, to eliminate that sentence. Zaremba: That would work for me. Yes. Eliminating that last sentence would work. I still want to clean up 16 a little bit. Well, it says other than those that are approved. I'm recommending that we do approve it, but that -- okay. The statement as it says, other than points of access approved by ACHD, City of Meridian, and ITD, direct lot access is ,~~x prohibited and, actually, I agree with that, but I'm -- based the February 13th, 2006, site .: plan, I'm recommending that there be a roadway access as depicted on that plan. ~~~ f ! S. .'fi'' i 4- r...~`; t}~~ fi ~ r~ ~ . c~~~~t x .~ ' ,. ~ - ' ~W.,E ~ ~. .;:fi .. ~y ~i r ~.. ~: ' b f ~ ~ J,( ( r ~ ~ t._ ~t, :a.. t a~~ i ~ ~,~ G ~Er~;,.'.~~ ~1. c ~ - ~~ •i. - y° ~ - ~lt yy~~ r ~ i -~ - n -.'a .-.' rf yl~. 1LF .. r { (y :.~~::. ~ .. ~ h:. ri ~~ ~ k ~ ]• ~ ~, v~ ~- ~' .'r r . -,. ~} s ~~` a L i~ 1+ _' 4f ~~ 3 ..S r ! + k ':, ~ w: , i " S ~ ~3z+x ~ - s,; ~„ ' r ~, '~t~ ~ ~ ,,.s ~ ~ ,±~-~ ±"~,ry Y. '+~ ^,t~, i aiA ~ ~, ~ .~ ~~ I'~ ~ 5-: A 1_: ~ Meridian Planning & Zoning Commis Meeting t-:?s. February 16, 2006 j Page 41 of 95 ~h' Guenther: So, you're recommending approval of that site plan, which shows the access `' ~' point -- Zaremba: Yes. ";F Guenther: And we will forward that to the City Council -- Zaremba: Yes. Guenther: -- as you have stated? Thank you. y':~: ~ :._: Zaremba: And the second part of my motion is if that changes after it leaves us, we , want to see it again. ~. =~ Guenther: We will get that to them. r;~::~ ~~ Newton-Huckabay: Second. "`~ Rohm: Okay. All right. It has been moved and seconded that we forward onto City _ Council recommending approval of AZ 05-057, RZ 05-019, PP 05-059, and CUP 05- 052, to include staff comments with amendments as stated. All those in favor say aye. ~-~ Opposed same sign? Motion carried. Thank you very much. Appreciate all input. ~., .;,. et•.... ` '' k:~'~ MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. =P `'` -.. Rohm: At this time we will take a short break and we will reconvene at 9:35. :: ; <` (Recess.) r Item 11: Continued Public Hearing from January 19, 2006: AZ 05-064 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 116.81 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Bear ~'` ' Inc. -south of West Creek West Subdivision by Tuscany Development ~~~~~~ , Overland Road and west of South Stoddard Road: f° ~ :~ Item 12: Continued Public Hearing from January 19, 2006: PP 05-064 Request ~~" ` for Preliminary Plat approval of 321 building lots and 34 common lots on "` 116.81 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Bear Creek West Subdivision ~~>- by Tuscany Development, Inc. -south of West Overland Road and west of South Stoddard Road: ~~. tt``: Rohm: At this time I'd like to reopen the Planning and Zoning meeting for tonight, ~: ~= February 16th, 2006, and begin by opening the continued Public Hearing from January : ' ,. '''~ 19th, 2006, project AZ 05-064 and PP 05-064 for Bear Creek West Subdivision and 4 begin with the staff report. x~:~ ~f< ,~F~;, ~,, pyM , ~~ ~h f~+ ~ - ia 4 ~ 1 R lS ~ ,,. w .:, i .~`k Li. t 4 s ~i ~ {, ~ ~~ 'F ~ _ ~ ~~F, ~ ~, =~ 1 i ` ~ r aky~Si ~..:,. t 3; µ~ ~:Y ~ z:y ti J d ~ ti Y p $ ~ ,~ -; 'R+frti r :_. ~~ ~ Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 16, 2006 Page 42 of 95 Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. If you will recall, this item was -- or these items were only continued because ACHD had not given their final approval of the subdivision yet at the time of the last hearing on January 19th. Since that time ACHD did approve the subdivision with no changes and staffs recommendation would remain the same. We may need to kind of refresh your memory on discussions and items in the staff report that need to be changed, but I think with that -- one thing I will mention is Mrs. McKay did agree to the six items that are in the a-mail that is in your packet for tonight in regards to buffering their impacts on that church property on the north side and, then, we did also discuss part of the development agreement that required that the five foot sidewalks and street buffers be installed along Stoddard and Kodiak prior to occupancy of any dwelling units. I think staff and the applicant did come to the agreement that it's probably more -- it's appropriate and more agreeable that -- that's only with those parts of those streets that are installed with the first phase. In other words, you can't install sidewalk where there is not a street yet. So, that's what I have in my notes for the changes to the staff report and I would be open to any questions or discussion from the Commission. Rohm: I think before we have the applicant come forward, just for the audience's sake, if you could just describe the project in its entirety and just for clarification here. Wilson: Okay. The request for Bear Creek West was the annexation and zoning of 116.81 acres from RUT and R-1 to the R-8 zone and preliminary plat approval of 320 single family residential with 34 common lots, located generally west of Stoddard, east of Linder, and south of Overland with -- let's see. With some -- a county subdivision on the south and portions of the west, a lot of agricultural land on the west. The existing Bear Creek Subdivision to the east and, then, some rural properties, a future school site, and an existing church on the north side of the property. Rohm: Thank you. That's what I was looking for. Any questions of staff before I have ~~ the applicant come forward? Would the applicant please -- McKay: Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions, 150 East Aikens, Suite B, Eagle. Mr. Chairman, just to -- as Josh indicated at the last Public Hearing, we gave our presentation, the opposition spoke, we are -- we did our rebuttal and, then, I believe it was the statement of the Chairman and the Commission was in agreement to leave the record only open for Ada County Highway District commission action. Josh had mentioned the things in the staff report that needed some adjustment. Other than that, I Y~~ believe we are in total agreement with the staff. Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of the applicant? Thank you. McKay: Thank you. Rohm: As previously stated by staff, this Public Hearing is only open to discuss the Ada County Highway District's comments and so with that being said, Luke Lance, would you like to come forward, please. ~, n ,,,~,~, , ~; fat ~s~tt~A ~r Y~ ~.~ 1 ~,~ ~ ~ ~,~ 'M~ ! Y' F ~ r r ~~ ~~~~.s~ ~~ ~ s ~'~ ~T`. ~i ;:_,~,: y at »~*~,~ ~~' .- $ ~ Y r„sr S~n„ * •~ 't f ~ ~;: ;' ,y i 4nf f'-~t ff _ _ ~~ .2 asM'r r~rKi.~ 1 'rte W p@°} C f'` fs4•¢ a... f z..3 ~ ,~ i, . ~3 y '~ ~ ~~ ~ ~'~ r ,,:N ~~.~:~;: ~+ ~ ~ ~ yo-,, ~ ; ~~ sei~ { f ~~ ~. ~l ~ '. d ~ i r ~ S ~~~~ }2 ~'f~'. M K ~' ri "Sf ,~ "t ~~' i ~{{~ /n i ~} Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting "~'~ February 16, 2006 Page 43 of 95 to OT's. Lance: Luke Lance, 1370 Eggers Place, the subdivision to the south of the proposed development. In speaking with Commissioner Givens at ACHD, he addressed a lot of our concerns for the property, since that's all I'm allowed to talk about. That's all I have to say. Thank you. j Rohm: Thank you very much. Okay. Is there anybody else that would like to speak to this -- on this project. Please come forward. ~, Rowe: My name is Chuck Rowe. I'm at 2707 South Stoddard Road. And I guess at t e `` meeting we were here we didn't close the Public Hearing and the main reason was f.;~. ~`? because we hadn't heard comments from ACRD and I came here tonight hoping to hear some comments of what ACHD is going to do and what the report was. So, my only other comment would be on the subdivision, there was some talk last meeting that the ~~ ~' subdivision would be moved in phases and I guess I'm interested in if the roads are put Y`''~"" in and the site's developed and, then, there is down turn in the market, what happens to t~~ the maintenance of that property if a phase is -- if the roads are allowed to be put in and, then, no houses are built on it. Any questions? ~.5~:,f G~^ Rohm: No. And those were appropriate questions. I think we can get some response on that. Thank you. Anybody else like to speak to this? Okay. At this time could I get ~~ `. some comment from staff on the Ada County Highway District's report. Just kind of give ~. ~~~ ~;;;. a synopsis of what that entailed. ~, Wilson: I will give it my best shot. Not being an ACHD staff member or terribly familiar ~_`~ with their policies. It was approved as submitted by the applicant. What ACRD takes °'~ into consideration is street sections proposed, the routing of public streets proposed, ~'~~ ' and also the locations of any stubs. They also have some standard policies about ~, , offsets of roadway intersections. You know, a fairly extensive staff report in, you know, ~:.> 5;i issues. I'm certainly not knowledgeable in -- I am knowledgeable that they did approve '~-=`~ the applicant's proposal with no changes. And, you know, as far as the weed issue or ~' ~ ~ the maintenance of those lots, if the roads are built and the phases aren't complete, ~=~ :~ there is a city ordinance regarding the height of weeds on vacant lots and keeping those ~` ' in some sort of general upkeep and, you know, I think that's -- I think that's what we ~~~ have to fall back on there. ~, Rohm: Thank you, Josh. Would the applicant like to make any final comment? r= ~r : , Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I do have a question, either staff or the applicant probably can ~ ., answer it. We did discuss at the last meeting some variation in the treatment in what ~- would be the southwest corner of the project that involved changing a cul-de-sac ~ y; . slightly. And what I wish to clarify is that ACHD saw the new plan and is that what they . , '`"' approved? Staff had requested -- Borup: That was to allow access to that out parcel -- or to the existing house. ~ ; ~~ ~,~. Ki ~ a~,v h ~. ~, r N ~~~~ -r ; ~ t k 4 T, au ,r ~. ~F .. 3 Y t ,,; ~aa c ''-+r '~7,- ~,} ~ ti ~ ,; k ~ ~ . ~ ,; ~--~ n r~-.j ~. _ - -. ~ ~ ~ 47~+ "~ t'~ 4 ^,.~ k `;~. try a ~;+. ~.r . ..} i T i 7r ~~~ ~ ~ ~ r t ..h ,~~,,.`~ ~t X ,r ~ a 9 '1J ~' ,lli ~~~tt nt. , ~._r ~'f 'lF ,~, rf, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commi~n Meeting February 16, 2006 _.~ - Page 44 of 95 Zaremba: Something like that. I don't -- ,~ Borup: Isn't that what it was? ~F 1" Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. So, they didn't have access on Linder Road. They had to ~1~ take it -- Zaremba: Staff had requested it and I'm pretty sure the Commission was leaning towards agreeing with it. Wilson: It doesn't look like that's part of the report. I'll let Mrs. McKay address how `~` ACHD deals with small changes like that, because they do -- it's pretty regular that small sA changes to a roadway system like that come out of this Commission and I believe there is a mechanism to -- for ACHD to approve those minor changes like that. Rohm: Okay. - McKay: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Rohm, that was discussed at ACHD tech review when -- that the city staff was not in agreement with any direct lot access to Linder. In my staff report it says other than access points that have specifically been approved with this application, direct lot access to these roadways are prohibited, meaning Stoddard and Linder. And there is no exception listed in my site specific requirements >.~Y allowing for access and they use -- they specify like no direct lot access, except for lot X, lot such and such. I don't have anything in here to that extent. So, it -- I believe it's their understanding that we are not taking any direct lot access. ` ~~: Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. 4 S ~. Rohm: Any other questions of either the applicant or staff by the Commission? Okay. At this time I'd entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing. ~: Zaremba: So moved. ~~°`` Moe: Second. 4;r F~,~ Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 05-064 and PP 05-064. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Thank you. ;. 4` MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Newton-Huckabay: I have a question. On the staff report from last time I have some ~; items marked off that I believe we were going to go into and strike from the final motion, ~} ~Y, but I'm not confident in that I have all of the modifications we were originally going to ~~~,; make, so does anyone else have -- I have that we were, on page two, striking the statement under five -- 5-A, the subject application will, in fact, constitute a conditional a ~~ F :V ~ . , ~q~y ^m. 5 1 7 -: -~N'Y .f ~~ ~, t F ~.~. ' ~ ~ ~ c~ a ~~~._ ~J1 ~-~ ~~.~ ~~~ ~`.. .^ ~ ~~~y~.,~~iqq- t~"Ys.~r• V 1 ° ~ tc ~~~ ~ - .-tr ~:z w r ~.~. ~~ ~~ ~t `5~7 ~ ~fi 3c~ ,srt ~, ~, 6~ n ' 1M k ~ ~ a n _. ~ v ~ r f=1 h~q ~ ,~ Nit ~ gr, // . F Z y $: 4 ~;i 7}i "mil ~ ~. l Y ~ . F ? , <n ~ 7;V j' v-~ ~ '. Y C1 .~S.T 5 ::'~ w ` i i ~ •. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commtsston Meeting `'" ` February 16, 2006 Page 45 of 95 ~.a:V use as determined by the city, et cetera, et cetera, which I think was there by mistake - and, then, on page six under nine, we were striking sub set A. ,: <:; ~''~ Rohm: I think you're doing quite well. This could be in the form of a motion. `Mz Newton-Huckabay: Oh. And, then, I have got on Exhibit B, item number three from the fire department, I have that we were striking item 3.2 completely from the staff report. ~ , And that's all that -- and with the addition of the a-mail from -- that Josh sent out on `~ Friday, January 20th, with the title Bear Creek West Subdivision, stating some statements that the applicant agreed to. ..;3 :~::: Borup: That was not part of the testimony last time. Newton-Huckabay: Yeah, it was. Yes. ;4w t~ Borup: It was? Zaremba: I think Mrs. McKay mentioned those items and -- 'yi, ea , Borup: Okay. ;: Zaremba: -- what I see in the a-mail is pretty much the way I remember them, that she and the developer had offered those fixes, so to speak. It wasn't anywhere in writing at ~:~r the time, but this is putting that into writing. ri.~ ~` Newton-Huckabay: Well, if no one has any additions or modifications to the statements ` I just made, I would ask that those be added to a -- move to recommend an approval to City Council of file numbers AZ 05-064 and PP 05-064 as presented in the staff report '~? for the hearing date of January 19th and the preliminary plat dated November 15th -- excuse me, hearing date of February 16th and the preliminary plat dated November 15th, with the modifications I mentioned previously, will that be appropriate, Josh, for '"=~ you to -- =i; Wilson: Yeah. Newton-Huckabay: Did I get them all? ~~ Wilson: There are a couple of minor typos. I guess I'll just run through those real quick. ~ ` There is several references to multi-family development. You did catch one of them. `~ Those are errors from another report. There was another one on the top of page seven ~s; under annexation analysis. There was another one on page eight under preliminary plat ~"~'~ analysis. And, then, mistakenly, the Ten Mile stub is referred to in condition 1.3.6, it refers to the Ten Mile stub drain and that should be Ridenbaugh Canal. And that's the ,~x> only ones that I have. Newton-Huckabay: So moved. .. ;µ~Y~- ~ -~ h !~ ' .' y. ri'.: ~ ~1 ~ I. ~ 7 Y ~Y ~ i, F t -.~. ~ - ~ ,.. f - ~ h~r~ ~ f y-7 rx ~+~., .= a } ,. y f4'Y~,.~ ~ . 4 L~< .+'. f t,'r: 1L ~JV ~r ~` ~ ' fe~~Y~ !5 K , /~ ' ti~ ',t .... Y!t' . L ~ ~ a1 p} ~,~ ~.` y _ . .. ''.„''ca'~} ~? ` ~ ~ '+l 7q .J d. 's '~#~n +rt ~~ ~_ '~ ~~:~ t~. ,.,; Meridian Planning & Zoning Comm-ssion Meeting ~~ _'. February 16, 2006 ~:,~i: Page 46 of 95 ~. ~:~ k.. F~~-~. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 05-064 and PP 05-064, to include staff comments, with the mentioned amendments. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. Thank you very much. ~~ MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 13: Public Hearing: CUP 05-058 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a new 45,000 square foot church in a R-8 zone for Valley Shepherd Nazarene Church by Valley Shepherd Nazarene - 2475 South Meridian Road: Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on CUP 05-058. This is in reference to Valley Shepherd Nazarene Church and begin with the staff report. Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me get to my presentation. I'm still trying to get through the Bear Creek landscape plan. There we go. The Valley Shepherd Nazarene Church is located on Meridian Road approximately a quarter mile north of ' Victory Road, which would be just south of the map shown here. The entire site is 32.5 acres. It was annexed as -- I believe in 2002 and also includes on this map this one lot, it's a 1.1 acre lot out of Bear Creek. This site is currently vacant. It does have the -- I ~;~ believe the Kennedy Lateral bisecting it. You can kind of see it there, which is a Public °~~ Works concern. It is addressed in the staff report. The building that they are looking at would be in the north -- I guess I don't have my site plan here. Okay. Somehow it got ~`-~ truncated in the presentation. The church site would be located -- this would be Meridian Road here on the right side, which is the east side of the site. The church site would be located in the approximate northeast portion of that. It takes up a significant e portion of this site. The one lot from Bear Creek is right here and that has had a `- t property boundary adjustment that was recently completed and there is a 12 acre which if you run this line straight down to the property line, this square here is division { , now a separate parcel, but it was included in this entire site design. One of these ~" special conditions of approval for this site is that when and if the 12 acres is platted as anticipated as residential product, that the church site also be included in the plat, since it is addressed in the entire development agreement, as well as within the balance of _ this application that we have in front of us, which is for the 32.5 acres. I have not received a comment from the applicant to that effect, but it should be more of a less point. There is a collector road that is shown here. This is a half mile section of ~~~~~ Meridian Road and -- between Overland and Victory. This rendition shows a little bit - more of what we would consider an overkill. This would not be a full collector road .;~~~ system, as we were previously defining and ACHD, which would affect two sections. _? This would most likely be the shorter version of upwards of 175 to 300 feet of collector °` ~' road and, then, narrow into a local road, which would be a residential road type of a ~,~~ . system. This roadway would just provide connection at that light. It's anticipated that ~~: _, '° s~ ~.r t _ y~~ ~~ ~~ ,n r. tD~vy~r ~r ~ "- t ..~_~, ' ~~^'- e;, r'~ n ' ~#~~,' } ~ ~. ~ . ~ , ~ s s ~r; ~ ~ x _ ,r ~. ~ s ~: a c~; ti ~+~ e" ~~ a F i~r ~~~f ~' M.~ '-' f %" Y iF y, ~` k } 3 :~~ , ~~.~ ~~ ~~ ,~ ~,t u ~. ~r F'~I, L .. .. __, ... „i~~Y~,ay, v, ~x•' k~' ~ . . .. ~1• w}''; ~ ~ fir' j } '~ t r r E;'1 t 5 i j r~'k~ t, -; Meridian Planning & Zoning Commin Meeting February 16, 2006 - Page 47 of 95 Roselin, which is servicing some commercial properties and is currently a double cul- ':{ de-sac, would connect through with the Larkspur development also occurring on the ,~ east side of Meridian Road. So, therefore, this would be the logical portion for where a light would occur at this site. The Strada Bellissima project on here is too close to Victory Road to warrant a light. So, the only possible location that staff would foresee would be at this site, which would be conducive to the collector road system, as similarly shown on that. But since the collector road system would be on the church site, the only mechanism in order to have ACHD acquire that road would be through platting and dedication, unless this applicant wished to do a split off of their property. So, that's why staff has included the condition in order to include the site in the plat and give ACRD a comment on that, since ACHD's comment at this time would just be on the church and that no access to -- or no direct lot access to Meridian Road would be allowed. With >~~ that, you can see that the services for the church site would be coming out of Bear ~~ Creek across from the portion of the 12 acres that they recently did their division with. As far as the church itself goes, staff has looked at this building layout and this would -- `"z this more than exceeds what -- our gateway corridor standards and staff is very confident that this application would be a desirable product for that location, as well as with the landscaping standards and the parking lot screening and pedestrian access j~h~, points addresses all the concerns for the site design that we would look at and staff recommends approval of this application with the conditions listed in the report. ~~ ~` Rohm: Thank you very much. Any questions of staff? K-. ~. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? ~_,. ~,~.1~ Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. `~` ~ Zaremba: Just a couple. And. I'm going to assume they are typos, but I do need to '~~"''~` have a clarification. In the description for notice and on the agenda and on page one of the staff report, this is indicated as being an R-8 district. On page two, item E, present 7 . ,: ~~ zoning says R-4. In paragraph H it's R-8 again. On page three, item E-6 proposed zoning R-4. And I believe that they don't propose to change it. Guenther: It should all reference an R-8 zone. Zaremba: I assume these are typos and -- ._~ Guenther: Yes. Zaremba: -- which one is correct? R-8 is correct? Guenther: Yes. Zaremba: So, it's currently R-8, it's proposed to continue to be R-8? ' "~ Guenther: That's correct. -:.; ,. .:~: <. s. ~, sS4 ti~ v'u~ ~'~' i .tt~. C(b ~ ~~~~ k~~ ~''~ ~ ,;~ it i ?~~ kit ~~ ~.' + ,7 6 T ~s t`r S Y T ~t ~L,LL J .. ~k k ([LI, M1 ~ '. i ~~ (. ,~ _: _. ~ ,. Y ~ a .: , F ~ y f i', ~ K ` . ~. + ~c+Y. N c ?i! S~ i '.. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 16, 2006 - Page 48 of 95 ;: - Zaremba: Thank you. That was my clarification. ~`~`'~ Rohm: Would the applicant care to come forward, please. <~ ~: - Rockwell: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Pete Rockwe . y address is 595 Americana Boulevard. We are in agreement with all of the staff recommendations and request approval of the Conditional Use Permit. I just want to - clarify that the access on the north side of the church is not part of this application, but ~'"' the church has been sited in such a way so that that could come at a future time. Other ~:~ than that, I just wanted to add the Valley Shepherd Church has been a big part of this community for 89 years, will be getting under construction with this in their 90th anniversary year. This will replace their facility which is right across the street here. It's been a part of downtown, been a part of Meridian for a long time and churches are good neighbors and churches are an asset to the community and an amenity that's good for Meridian and good for the area in general. So, anybody have any questions of me? Rohm: Thank you. Any questions? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would comment that I and probably the other Commissioners `~ are aware that Valley Shepherd Church has been a part of the fabric of this community ''~~~ and many of the public meetings have been held at your facility and happy to see your need to expand and also wanted to comment that the site plan shows -- including this one -- I think it's very attractive to have your building closer to Meridian Road and your parking behind it. That's a very attractive touch along one of our entryway corridors and I appreciate that. >Jr. °~~s Rockwell: And it's purposeful. ~° "`.~~ Zaremba: I figured it was on purpose. Rohm: Thank you, sir. ~_: Rockwell: Thank you. <, "~~, Rohm: Kevin Borger, please. .~-~ Borger: Kevin Borger, 169 West Cub Street. I live in the Bear Creek Subdivision. May t~ I have the site plan up. I happen to attend Valley Shepherd and I bought the property ~~~~f` that I did buy because I knew that the property was going to be built on by the Valley `.`" `~~.:. Shepherd. My concern doesn't have anything to do with the building, but the staff r<~.: comments about -- if I can get this to work. My property is right there. That road is right ';:' ,; there. That's less than a first down to my back fence and my house sits well back on a.._°~ the property. It's probably another ten yards or so to my back door, so I'm not all that excited about learning all my neighbors' driving habits as they come off of that road here and, then, go up here. I understand the church was moved up from their site plan. ~; _~ ~_,A y -~z t . f fir' u ,' ~ s{ .: y1: >.~~'~ a J ~S {~ ~~~ ~,„f: ~ ~c~~. Ft ~ ~ F~ r,Y^ . 'f. ~. - 1'..., . v i~t yy ~pQ~ {• r. 4~ ~°c x ;.:t y f o-~ ^~•. ~" r u s ~ n~f i a $~a' F. ~S i i?~r; ~~ !H~ ' + f ~1 ,9 -,, ,e. ~. '1 ~ I ~~~: jl r xt. ~`:_ ~~ , .. ~~ *~z`i ;: ~.,, ss. ~~~E ~~; ~'`` m~ _~ ~,;. ~~r' g ~ :`; ~;. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commis• Meeting February 16, 2006 Page 49 of 95 They aren't intending on -- to make that a request. However, if the city were to require it or the highway district were to require it, all of a sudden I have got all my neighbors from here and probably this new subdivision suddenly coming right by my house. Obviously, I have got a road up here. I'm not that interested in having another one right out my back lot. My perception would be that that would reduce my property values by at least a third if I have got headlights coming into my windows, cars coming by there on a daily basis. You can imagine that if there is that access, people are going to take advantage of a shorter route there, than perhaps driving down here or driving out the other way and going down Falderwood like we do now. So, this may be premature, but you will probably be hearing from a lot of us early and often if that is somehow proposed or if the person who bought this property proposes it in the future. I know you have a letter from I think this individual or one of these along Alaska Way, wrote a letter with that same concern, and I know that my neighbors along here, to have a road that close to their back property is not going to be advantageous. It's my understanding that the church is an advocate for that at this time. So, maybe visiting with them, I'm merely requesting that you take that in consideration and not make it a requirement. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to testify on this application? Okay. Seeing none, discussion amongst the Commission? Newton-Huckabay: The road that -- will that come back before us in another hearing? Rohm: I'm reasonably sure that it will. Borup: But without the road the access to this site would be all that traffic through Bear Creek Subdivision. Guenther: Actually, Commissioner Borup, the access would be through Strada Bellissima here. Borup: Okay. Guenther: And, then, they are proposing the connection there. You will see this again. That's why the requirement is for the plat. This is not a rendition of the road. There is landscape buffers and required use buffers between these two uses that we don't have planned with this site plan. And that will be accommodated through that platting process. Zaremba: Have you looked or considered that future roadway enough to know that with all the setbacks and the landscaping and stuff it would not require taking away ten feet of what we are talking about tonight? Can it be done off this site? Guenther: As far as the church is concerned? The church site? They have left over a hundred feet of distance between here and their back parking lot in this location. When we met with their architect, they figured they could fit Meridian Road in there and we are not asking for that. ,~~, ~;: uy~~~ r= f~ .1~ t `~' ~ f ~~ L IZl 1. -' ~~ } Sj' *' T `r..1+ ~ Y `~' ~1` r at ~~ ih .x ~ , ~ 'W' s* p .; d k .., i ~h y._h'rj.. ~y "-~' iii.. at u ~ r.~ k' ~ t ';y ~ ~ °t' a., ~ . r~ Via,;; en :,~," y ,E m. ~,~er '~' ?' ~~'. '~+Y-~. PS'~l h ~ ~~~ .. ~~. ~ F,:i }., F , ~ 8r~'''~' tk r ~L ri ~~%, ti~ h ~~ ` :x ~k ev4~~. x 'yx L ,.e -~~..,, _ .~ Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 16, 2006 Page 50 of 95 ~-::; Zaremba: Okay. So, however wide it ends up being and however far it is from the back of the neighbors' property lines, it still isn't going to affect the property we are looking at tonight? Guenther: That's correct. `~ Zaremba: Okay. 4;~' Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on CUP 05-058. ;:~, Borup: Second. :~ Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on CUP 05- ;. 058. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. ": ~ MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. >;~ Moe: Mr. Chairman? ;~,~. ~. .4 i Rohm: Commissioner Moe? ' ; ~: •~~~ Moe: I move to approve file number CUP 05-058 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 16, 2006, and the site landscape plan dated November 15th, 'x``° 2005. End of motion. ~,, ~~' Borup: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we approve CUP 05-058 as presented. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried, but -- ,. '~~ ' MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. ' . ~'~' Hood: Mr. Chair, just for point of clarification, the maker of the motion, would like to see r v facts and findings. I imagine you guys are approving this, so findings for -- do you . already have those? With no changes to the facts and findings. Okay. Sorry. Thanks. .. ~;~.~ ~`~ Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would comment on the facts and findings and it's the same ~e comment I made earlier. On page two of the facts and findings, paragraph D-1, the ~~,~: third sentence, the word conditions needs to change to conditional. Just a typo, 9 -~~~ Rohm: So noted. Okay. We should probably take another break. We are going way ~~~, ~~-~ too fast on this. Zaremba: We are successful after breaks. ,, ~tcv r -;~ ~. ~ . 5' : y f~ [ t~~ * A ,~ t ~ 4M ~ ,,.. ` t £ S`. E i..w ~P 1, , 1" -t y ~ ` r '~ i S.. Y ~ Y 4„ .x. A ?F - 3 QJ~iii - ~~ ~ ' .( ~ ' T ~o ~ r.s 41 5~ Y ._~ ". ~k ~X i J ~ l Y` ~~ ~1 .[ ' +, U ~ ~ ~A. i' f,) i - - ri'l. `L. . T~, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commis• Meeting February 16, 2006 ~~~~ "~'' Page 51 of 95 Item 14: Public Hearing: CUP 06-001 Request for an Indoor Entertainment Facility in an I-L district for Yanke Warehouse by Gordon Jones Construction - 724 West Taylor: -: ~;-~ ~-~ Rohm: Okay. Just kidding. Okay. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on CUP 06-001. This is referring to Yanke Warehouse and begin with the staff report. . " Guenther: It's me again, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Tonight we have another request for -- this is the Yanke Warehouse building. An existing certificate of _~~'~ zoning compliance has been issued for this site and the certificate of zoning compliance ~` ~~:;;` was issued for a warehouse building. The warehouse is located at 724 Taylor, which is ~~<~ off of -- excuse me -- Franklin Road between Linder and Meridian. The warehouse site 4R~ , '`" -- this is the site plan that was approved with the certificate of zoning compliance. It ~~' shows, essentially, a warehouse that has approximately 25 percent office building up '~;`_~ front and, then, now the site plan has been flipped around so the office building is in the front of this one, where it also shows that there would be four basketball courts that would be accommodated in this building. The use is as an arts, entertainment, or '~~~ recreational facility indoors, which the applicant is proposing to be basketball courts for adult recreation and such. The use is accessory to the building, which is required by ~~.~ conditional use, which is why it is in front of you, because it is in an industrial area. Staff is recommending approval of this use as the primary use is a warehouse and if this use ceased it still has practical use as the 29-foot high pile storage with a firewall between `:,~ the offices. So, I think the design accommodates the use, as well as for secondary use as a basketball court. I'll stand for questions. '`~ ~~, Rohm: Any questions of staff? t~,, ~~' Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? „~~ Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: Of course I have a question. s~t ' '= Rohm: Absolutely. ~: ,. Zaremba: I stay up nights thinking of questions. The -- let's see. It's been a couple years now that we approved an indoor soccer thing not too far south of this on the other ~'~v~ side of Franklin and my question is how is that going? Seems like it's fitting into the v~-. community well? ~ '' Guenther: I don't believe we received any comments since two years ago on the indoor ^~~= soccer facility in an industrial area. Zaremba: Good. And the only comment that I remember from the discussion on that one was related to parking. You did include an analysis of the parking that showed for ~''` the warehouse space there is plenty of parking. The discussion on the soccer one was ~ ~ ~; ~~ ~~~? ,~~- d 2 it fah. >'' 9 .w .. ~ _ ~ ~t ~ F 3 T`~ ti, TC a ~~~ 3 k : ~ ~,~ 1"" ~t ?y. ~.,vn - i kl /~+' ~c r f µ ~ ~r]~~ rr S ,r ..' k.r..."' 111,.,_ ~y ~' t+ ~~ ~ r1 T IF(! - . . u 1t W ~ { # rrr y~F r 4 ~!. r ~~( 4yll Ys..81 F.it ~ i ~. I~. .. y i ,.M~ ~~YY~~rr ~. 1 4~ r~ x- 43 ~ ~, rA`. €, ,r~1~ ~ ~ ~' l .i 1 $ .` ~ ~ i~, y ~ .~ 11~. ~ .. .~:5. ... _...~ - ~- r lj Meridian Planning & Zoning Commis Meeting • `; j,' February 16, 2006 ?;~' Page 52 of 95 that there would be times where people might be arriving for a second game before the ~:,, first game was over and, therefore, double amounts of people would have to park and the net result of that was that we asked them to get cross-parking agreements with some of their neighbors and that seemed to be okay, because the hours of industrial ':k projects and this probably wouldn't be the same. Is there any need to do that on this one? Guenther: There is not, Mr. Commissioner -- Commissioner Zaremba. The property to the west is the I-84 lumber site and the property to the east I believe is also owned by } Idaho Tank and Culvert and I don't believe that they foresee to have this type of parking. `} ~ This building size requires 12 parking stalls. They are showing 178, which should accommodate four courts of five guys playing basketball Zaremba: Thank you. Guenther: I'm sorry. Five per side. That's ten. You got to have two teams. Rohm: That's a whole bunch of people playing basketball if you're going to fill that parking lot. Rohm: Okay. Any other questions of staff? At this time I'd like to have the applicant come forward, please. Harward: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Paul Harward. I'm with Gordon Jones Construction and representing the owners SJL, LLC, who are proposing this facility. You should have a letter in your packet there from Mike Ford, who is a representative for SJL, the -- who represents the Yanke family. I don't know if you want :k. me to read the letter, but the purpose of their -- the intent of this building was to provide a place for their children to play basketball and as noted in here they said that the intent `{ is not to provide afee-based facility, a for profit facility, it is to provide a place for ~'- organizations that wouldn't otherwise be able to afford a place to practice and play. They don't anticipate being able to recoup the money that they are investing in this ~< ~ facility. The warehouse spaces may off-set some of the costs, but the intent is just to provide access as a public facility for -- in the first place the organizations that their children play on, but for any other organizations within the City of Meridian that would require space that wouldn't otherwise be able to afford it. So, that is the intent. And it has four basketball courts, six volleyball courts, and the facility is to accommodate that. So, we are just asking for approval on it. We don't have any exceptions with the "~`'~ recommendations in the staff report. We have been fulfilling them and are fulfilling them as we speak to be in compliance. That's all I have. ..',~ Rohm: Very nice. Thank you. Any questions of the applicant? Thanks very much. Is there anybody that would like to testify on this application? Seeing none -- Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on CUP 06-001. ~~, _,_ k~~ ~, ~ ' ' ~r i ,~._ , ~,,. ;F .. ~; ~.~, b ~ ~ ~ '-. ~.L~~} .4 ~,~ ~ ~ . ~-Lr'~'~r~uiltll M ~ - ''g X11 k 'v" ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ _ ~.. y s ~~f ~ ,a ~ ~~ Y ~~~ 'S+~~ ~4j , .. ~ '~ .#F~ x _ ~,„. ti .rr : ~ ~ H ~µ. ~~~a~~ x ~ ~ ~. ~:i 4' f ~ ~ i ~~ ~` Meridian Planning & Zoning Commi~n Meeting ' '^ ~ February 16, 2006 Page 53 of 95 ~ >,r ~,~ Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that the Public Hearing on CUP 06-001 be ';N;' closed. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. :.~ Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we -- let's see. I should look at it. It's not a ' recommendation. This is actual. Okay. I move to approve file number CUP 06-001 as ~4:: presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 16th, 2006, and the site _, landscape plan dated August 8, 2005, with no modifications and ask staff to prepare the findings with one change to those. Page two of the findings, paragraph B, paragraph one, third sentence for conditions, the word should be conditional. End of motion. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we approve CUP 06-001. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 15: Public Hearing: PP 06-002 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 23 !'`` commercial lots on 22.85 acres in a C-G zone for Gateway Marketplace Subdivision by Landmark Development -southeast corner of Ustick ;> ~~~ Road and Eagle Road: ~~ Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on PP 06-002. This request is related to Gateway Marketplace Subdivision and begin with the staff report. Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This is a request for a preliminary plat. The preliminary plat is tied down to this site as a portion of a development agreement. The plat is on the 22.85 acres in the southeast corner of Ustick and Eagle Road. We have already had some discussion on this area. This also -- this outline should include this slight piece right there, which would be next to where -- this is the Una Mas and the ACRD property that were recommended for approval for the annexation earlier tonight. With this site currently there is the lateral that crosses I believe it's the Milk Lateral, which will be relocated on site, as well as the site is presently vacant. There are a couple of field drive access points to Eagle Road, which staff anticipates changing significantly. The development agreement that is tied in with this site is primarily commercial. The higher the density, the higher intensity of the use for commercial is -- was encouraged at the time. As you can see, it's high intensity commercial in the corner, commercial office, as well as a transitional use, which would be the north-south type of a collector system. But this was done prior to the ACHD roadway system collector being proposed between Ustick and Fairview. With this the applicant's use request for a plat for commercial is consistent, but there is several things outlined in the staff report that staff would like to see changed. One of those would be -- E ~; ~.: ~' ~r , a.~qq ,r h i ~,. 5 ji. D ~. ~{ '~~l M~. 'C_ ;; ~ 5 ..K,7' i y ~,. ~ ` ~.. ' t b i ~ i VLCV ~.J 6~~F ~ C!~'~ _ yY~ ~.1r r~~ ~J y^.. Y +~ f ~,' 4 M 4 ,a' ~y h ~-;. Sr. i{ r~ ; } ~'f... j~.. Y r ~ ~ E~ . h °'~si % ed¢ ~ ~ it' ~. ~ ~i H~ f. `. cn~ 1 X , '.4r, v1i,+hi~. yy1 ~~ iI * ~ r f 4y1Q~~ "~' s Y" y ~ i 5+ ~~' ["~ 5_ '~': .:: ~~y4~011 s Meeting Meridian Planning & Zoning Commi February 16, 2006 ,. ;; Page 54 of 95 ~~~ ~ I'll start at the southern portion. Cross-access to the south needs to be issued with this _ plat. With that, the other recommendations on the development agreement for ACHD g and Una Mas were to provide from the southerly portions of these properties to approximately where this property turns south, this little jog out would reserved for -Y-h ACHD to propose a future public street. That public street would be either a jog to the south to access this property and provide multiple points for public access to property or to also facilitate large vehicular traffic to the light, which would be at Allys Way and `'' Ustick. As you can see this site is proposing some larger boxes, larger box products, ` with loading docks in the rear. Right now this design does not facilitate east-west traffic, --= which is the main concern with the design of this plat, as well as it overloads the access points on Ustick. ACHD has met and this is a right-in, right-out access point approximately -- I believe it was 400 feet from the Ustick-Eagle Road intersection, as z ~` well as there is another access point at approximately -- I want to say 750 feet, but it's getting late and my memory is failing me. This would also -- this one here, the full access point, staff wishes to see a design that would not accommodate large truck traffic making a left onto Ustick across what is going to be a turning lane and two lanes ~~= of eastbound traffic, which is why the public road section in this location -- at least designed to public road standards would be something that would be most desirable, as well as to allow the large truck traffic to access the point in this location and be able to exit in a different location. Having that traffic not as a signalized intersection is not in ~''~ the city's best interest. This application is proposing two access points to Eagle Road. One access point would be a right-in, right-out -- I'm out of light. In approximately this location and the second one would be a full access point at the southern boundary of ,t this location. This access would be a full access, but currently the Eagle Road corridor study does have a median in the middle of Eagle Road, which is also the same thing we ~~ ~ had discussion on with the Bienville project to the west of this site across Eagle Road. With this staff is looking for a redesign mainly to address two issues. This application would not meet the standards of the Unified Development Code as more than 70 percent of the Eagle Road frontage would be parking lot, as well as the Ustick Road frontage would be looking at over 1,350 feet of the 1,380 feet of the site as being a parking lot, which staff can site as same issues as what Meridian Crossroads has. The recommendation is to bring back a redesign. I think the applicant has already submitted to us late today a redesign that is already a proposal, but I think that this Commission '~~° needs to give the applicant better direction as to what you would foresee in relation to staffs comments in the report. There are not findings for approval. Everything would =~ need to come back to you, as well as this design just does not work with the `~~` development agreement requirement for the access frontage road to facilitate that traffic. I know that in the past -- I was not here when this was annexed, but there was `~' significant discussion about the large vehicular traffic accessing Ustick Road and the frontage road being essential to that success of not having the large trucks cross many .. -~~ ~ lanes of traffic without a signal. With that the staff report does outline many changes , `*a that we would like to see to reflect some of the concerns that we have had with this design. With that the Una Mas annexation report does have the two points of cross- ~T~ access. One would be approximately at the center of the project and the other one at '~^Y,, ~~ the southern portion, as well as they would get their immediate cross-access into the front lot of their site. And, again, this site -- or this access point to Ustick Road is off site s i~"1AiSGffif~ e~! ~ .. .... ~,,Yw.~`' ~. f ,~1p 1~ tir 1_ h "~ ~~~ t f ~ 'r~ *~ j~. "~ ~~~~ 4 i ~ {. ~~ ~l '~ l t- ~ Y a {~~ ~.# ~ Y~ .. t •' ~ i- ~ fi w'' ',~ ~ ,,~~ f ~ 5 rv t~ r .{`_ '~ "< ' ~ + r "~ i; r `a d ~ 3 _,~ ;~ ~ ~~~~~'~ r h ~ ~, s _ 7 ,~ F { r ~- t~ ~' ~'s~ ,~ •' a ~~ ~a 8 _ ~r , r.-.x'~- a ~. ~ s ~ ~ ~ r~~ ~1 ti .5 ~~ +2 u *e..y ~ _ - - K '• ~ r"~ '' Meridian Plannin & Zonin Commission Meetin g g g February 16, 2006 Page 55 of 95 `~ _~ from their project and so cross-access in this location would be essential. Also talking about the cross-access here, the -- ACHD has made comment that they need additional right of way here for stacking lanes that they would anticipate with this size of a '' ~ development. The design that I have seen already indicates that there will be a drive aisle of approximately 300 feet in this location and a redesign in order to facilitate traffic s; accessing that stacking lane, essentially, going both to the east and west, which is ~~:; something we also need to see in a better scale and more format in order to bring back abetter recommendation to this Commission. But, again, tonight staff is recommending ,, continuance of this, so that the applicant can address the design of the plat in relation to the comments and concerns of staff, but I also encourage this Commission to give as much direction to the redesign as possible. Or there is the other option which has the ~'~ findings for denial already incorporated into the staff report. Staff does not foresee that a denial would be conducive to this application, but a redesign would definitely -- is ~~~-; definitely a practical option. And at that I will stand. ~~-., Rohm: Thank you, Joe. Any questions of staff before we ask the applicant to come - forward? Borup: Just one, Mr. Chairman. You made reference to the frontage road, but I don't know if there was a lot of staff comments on that. Are you anticipating that there would be a frontage road along Eagle? I think that was part of the Eagle Road corridor study. ~ Guenther: Yes. Borup: And it was discussed at the time of annexation. Guenther: Yes. The discussion on the frontage road has also shifted significantly with the incorporation of the ACHD collector road east of this site. Borup: That's that I was wondering. "~~{ Guenther: Which is why the -- and, originally, the development agreement indicated that this transitional use would be, essentially, the frontage road for the entire area, but that was -- this was done prior to ACHD making any type of condemnation or purchase of that property east of the site, as they anticipated the collector road system to be at r'`° approximately the quarter mile and that's a third of a mile. So, what staff has taken the ~- liberties of is to ask for a redesign in order to accommodate north-south vehicular traffic as a commercial collector, which wouldn't have parking on it in this type of a location, which would not be a public road system or, essentially, a backage road and to provide ~~~ the east-west connection to what the ACRD collector road system would provide, which would be that backage road and the light to Ustick Road. Borup: So, you're saying with that design you would not require a frontage road? Guenther: With the conditions outlined as for redesign, we feel that the backage- frontage road can be accommodated. ~ T °!- ~- ~~ t ^; ~ C~ ~~ -~i r ~ P { ~f}' si' 'YL k ¢h .y.r:ti. S ~ = f ~, ~' f ~~ 1 -d n~ ' ~' 3 },'± K . 3~i:~,~x w ~ ..j. k ~~~ `~~ ~ 1 i" { fife- ' , ~+ .~ ~ ~~ j,~ ~] ~1~~ 1, t. %'7 -:'~, ` • _F z ~ ~~ ~ "v ~ ~ 1` ~+ s r ,r p r [ h } ~' s ~' '1 , ~r~.te s yy}}yy~~ 1 . YP`~ r ,,~ w .,}: ~ - ~: ,~ • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commi~On Meeting ~; '`' February 16, 2006 ~~ , Page 56 of 95 ~; '. <r::> Borup: Okay. Thank you. t:.~ .; ~.:. `'- Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? <> .. ~~ ~' Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. ,..~;::: f ~'n 1~-FQ Zaremba: Would you -- let's see. For avisual -- yes, that one is fine. The aerial. Perfect. A couple of questions. Orient for me the -- Una Mas property is not as long ~q,,f north and south as this roe ~ Is it shorter? P P rtY Guenther: Yes. The Una Mas property comes right to that point, as well as the ACRD property. This one incorporates -- it appears to be about 80 feet more to the south, which is why staff would foresee that a public street in that area could cul-de-sac or come into some sort of approved ACHD turn around, because of that type of development, and the discrepancies in the property descriptions. As well as we don't foresee public road access to Eagle Road. So, if off of ACHD's new collector, as we have asked Una Mas to leave a right of way space at their southern portion, the continuation of that would not, actually, be along the southern portion of this one, right? It would be up just a little bit? Guenther: It would be -- and, again, this portion is missing a piece, which would be this long skinny one, which would be a portion of their southern border and, then, this jog to the south. I would -- keep in mind that the conditions listed in the report are recommendations -- they are not conditions, they are recommendations for redesign. They are listed as conditions, but they are not -- typically they are conditions of approval. This is conditions for redesign or denial. So, they are still very much open for conditions or revision. Zaremba: What you just said about the narrow strip -- clarify for me again -- does Una Mas and this property share a common border or is there a little strip in between. Guenther: Yes. There is a common border. Zaremba: Okay. Guenther: And it would be, again, this little strip right here. Zaremba: Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Are you just trying to determine if a road can go through to Eagle? Zaremba: Well, you're anticipating where I'm going. It makes sense to me if Bienville has a road that comes out there, that this road from ACHD's collector ought to come out and there should be a signalized full access intersection there that serves all properties on both sides. It completes my bypass idea. We already have the bypass up here. I'm ~ tick ,~ `-~ ~t~~;lr ~ n <,{ ~ ,u; ~' f~, ~~. ~ . r _ s.~~, ~~4 ~; r,:~ ' ` F ~ ~ ` '~ : ~ r r ~, ,~ + ~~~ r~ .,.- ~ , 75 xe ~.., ~ ir..,~ x ~p ~.z .~,~-. ~: ~ ~ . 2 .~ 4 t. r -. (~ 61 i ~' p _. i ^i!!d~ ~. F^ K~z.; i , s '•. ,~ ~ , 5 ~ i y' ~~;. to S..'.. ~~1t~6 i ~ 1_ r k ~` R' ~. ~: ~.~ Y ~~, ~ ~ J ~rl ,~~~' M]4 ''jj~~..~~} ~' 4rY k ry " -j4YlJ ~ .~~i,ME w n i'Zi ~, ~+r..; F:, ~r, ;~ ..; ~:~.t, M~ ~:~ i ~t ip~ , .. ;:{w. ~. . ,~ . ~r, : t." f~F ~s~..~ ~. ~.:; ~~~ ~:_ , , . ~_ -; f` ~:" w ~}~ ~~ ~~';` ~: ''~ ~,.. s, ;_ , `, ~~ ~::::; >; n ~..~- ~: << ~~ ~:. ,,. aF r• l~( ._:. ~~.,: >- ~. ;; ~~ ~~' n ~~: t~, ~. ti4 _:. S? ~, r, ~~ - ~z° ~;,. =' •: v, ~~..,'~ . - ~} . ~ ''' F._ Meridian Planning & Zoning Commis ion Meeting February 16, 2006 Page 57 of 95 sure we will have a bypass there. This isn't as neat, but it's somewhat of a bypass. This would make a bypass on this side. And it would be signalized here and here. I would like to see it signalized there. And it requires this one to focus their traffic there as well to meet that warrant, I would believe. Both sides have to be feeding into it. But it appears that what staff is asking for could lead to that, as long as it wasn't cul-de- sac'd. Guenther: Well, typically, ACHD is going to look for a full road section. The Bienville section is not a full road section, that is, actually, only a commercial drive access to Eagle Road, which isn't going to facilitate a light, even if it has the vehicular traffic. ACHD has specifically said on both of these sides they don't want any public roads within a quarter mile of Eagle Road. And this is approximately a quarter mile and when it was talking about the ACRD representative, he says absolutely no closer to Eagle Road than that. And again -- Zaremba: But it would be right on the margin of the quarter mile; right? Guenther: It would be -- no. No. No. I'm talking quarter east-west of Eagle Road, not a quarter mile south of Ustick. Zaremba: Okay. Guenther: They want to maintain no public roads within a quarter mile of Eagle Road, which means that when Sadie Creek came through here, their public road ends about in the middle of their project, where this one the public road would end in the middle of the project. It would not approach Eagle Road. The Eagle Road access points would be commercial access points. Apparently Eagle Road is planned for a full median at the quarter mile, with an allowance for a u-turn design. When I met with Wade Christensen from ITD, their district engineer, on Tuesday, that was the design he was recommending at a minimum -- or at a maximum in these two locations they may get right-in, right-out, but they would not foresee ITD giving access permits for full access points, as well as it would be a miracle if ITD gave a light and it would have to have a very strong recommendation from our City Council to have that light, as well as ACRD would have to accommodate a public street to that point and ACHD specifically has said they will not. So, I'm sorry, I've gone off of track here again. Newton-Huckabay: With that said, that it validates, basically, statements that were made on the other one. I think that we -- if we move forward, our recommendation should be just as we have done on the west side of Eagle Road, on the east of Eagle Road that we push for a full access to Eagle Road, because the properties to the north on the corner have got it already. If I remember right, you can get -- or you will have it eventually. Yeah. Because you can go back behind Lowe's and out beside the church and out and if I remember right from our hearing on the Kohl's, you're going to go up behind Kohl's and meander around and out to the street and if I remember right there was talk of a light. ~ ~.x'~ r~, :: _, :,,, ~~', ~ _S i ~ _,~ .. i ~. ,~ ~ ~7~ '~s z ~l ~ ~ .~~f', .. .,k.. ~.~~~ ~`~` it~E1~i G ~t 'r i` ~: ~~ a qi+ ..i-: T ~. ~Y a1'a > .:, t .z a '. t r'.''F ~(` ' ~` ~ ~K~ ~,, a. 4 ,~~,~r:- t ~: S: ~ _Z - ~ r~y4y'.''(6( f - i{•~h " t`,L3 '~;c% Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting '`'` February 16, 2006 Page 58 of 95 Moe: I don't remember the light discussion. ~~ ~~:: Newton-Huckabay: It seems to me like there was -- there was no commitment there, but I think there was a desire. Rohm: Yeah. I think at this time it's appropriate to have the applicant come forward, please. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission -- Joe, if I could have you cue up my presentation. My name is Tamara Thompson, I'm with Landmark Development Group, 1882 Taluka Way in Boise, Idaho. The site is located at the southeast corner of Ustick and Eagle, which -- Guenther: Is this your development? Thompson: No. Guenther: Which disk did your have? I haven't seen a disk. Did you hand it to somebody else? Thompson: No, I handed it to you. Guenther: You didn't give it to me. Thompson: Maybe I thought I did. ~-.~ Guenther: Is it this blue disk? ~~;~ Thompson: No. It's this one. These later hours you get all rummy. Anyway, we can go °`: ` forward. We have 23 acres on the southeast corner of Ustick and Eagle and we are '" ~ proposing to develop a commercial, retail, restaurant, and office development. The '= exact mix will depend on the conditions at the time of development. With our site k, ; 7 ;~t plan -- '~?ti , Guenther: We got a new computer and it doesn't appear to be the fastest one in the ~ building. Thompson: We have complied with all of the necessary landscaping easements and setbacks, so we have the 35 feet along Ustick and Eagle Road. The property was 2~. annexed and rezoned in early 2004, I believe it was April of 2004 that everything was finalized, so we are just coming back for the preliminary plat at this point. At that time of the annexation and rezone a development agreement was entered into with the city and `.`~ the property owners have relied on its content, including the concept plan, which I "" understand you didn't necessarily get to see before City Council approved it. So, this is ''a k ~'~ the site plan as we submitted it and from what -- the aerial that we were looking at just a + , n few minutes ago, it, actually had the notch coming out like this and it, actually, cuts into ~S r x= r +~+i ~~`~ f ~ ", ,, . ~ ~;'~ ~t .~ = ~ , ~< 4 ~~ `• t k ^ _ t4 ~{ a wt~iad n ' ~ ~ ai . x' .~~'A~ ~~: ~ ~.cp t -~ q ~ .~.. ~ , t, f~:~ a s.[ ~ ti y : . . ~J ~ ~~ //~~rr~~ t ~'~ ~T~~ '. ~{ 'fFt J.. ~ t f)~ ~~ i ., , cx ~ ~ r ~,w'v~ri t`y' ] +' ~Y +Sk~p L'~ ~ ~lr ~,' _ ~,.~ qY h kt ~~"~ .`~ ~:iY .. ~'..,. ~r ~ ~ ~~~ e :.~ ~ `~.. t ~ ~ ~ ~ .',',~ p . ~~'~. t ~~ee~! ~ F: 1 ='' "r . f ~- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 16, 2006 Page 59 of 95 the property, instead of out of the property. So, this line right here is where the Una Mas southern property line lines up. Back in October of '05 we held a neighborhood meeting and the Una Mas folks to our east were pretty much the only ones that had any comments at that time and due to the sensitivity of the new office uses that they are proposing, we have worked with them to come up with some mitigations for their concerns. Along our truck docks, which -- let me -- can you go to the next one, please? This is the revised site plan that we just submitted today based on our meeting that we had with ACHD and Una Mas yesterday. It shows some -- ACHD wanted a longer throat here on our -- the last one we -- basically, you came in and you could go east or west. This one they wanted a longer throat of at least 200 feet. It worked best with the Una Mas site plan, if we can get that back to 350 feet, and that's from center line to -- center line. So, we have pulled that down and we got rid of the large mass in here and put a cluster of pad buildings at that point. In order to mitigate their concerns with the truck dock areas, we have agreed that along the edges of -- if these, in fact, are recessed truck docks, we don't have -- we are currently marketing to high quality national tenants that some do have recessed truck docks, some don't. Some just -- you know, somebody like Pier One, for instance, just has a roll up door at grade level and they don't get the big tractor trailer trucks. But somebody like Michael's, for instance, does the recessed truck dock. So, we are showing worst case here where every single one does, but depending on how the tenant mix comes out, they may or may not have them. So, anyway, for the ones that do have the -- have the truck docks, we have -- we have agreed to a solid wing wall that comes out to help mitigate the sound and the visual, you know, so you're not hearing the backup buzzers from the little forklifts and that kind of stuff. We have also talked to them about the -- the backs of the buildings, making sure that those have some sort of architectural elements on them, as well as color bands or a split face block band or something like that, so that they are not just a plain back of the building, but they are -- the people that are in there, those office complexes, actually, are looking at something other than just a plain back of the building. Although, it will be a back of a building where we are not proposing carrying rock and towers and that kind of stuff along the back, but definitely giving them some interest with color. The landscaping along the property line -- we have put two cross- accesses that work for both their site plan and our site plan across here. City staff is asking for a third one down here, which is not a problem. That one can be added also. As far as the landscaping along here, we have talked to them about putting a three foot berm with some ten foot trees at the time of planting on that, so that there is some height there, so that they can -- to give some blockage. Let's see what else we had. And, then, the other one is in the staff report already, where we have to -- any dumpsters have to be confined to trash enclosures. We did meet and so I think we have accomplished what staff wanted for the cross-access. Like I said, we have got -- we have got two here, we can add this third one here, and, then, we have another one to the south at this location. The report still has in it the frontage and backage road, which at the time -- well, from the first time we talked to ACHD they asked us to -- to use their road, instead of adding another road at this location. Also, with that concept plan -- was not involved in it at that point, but I have talked to the -- to the team members that were and they don't remember that being basically a road that went through there. The north-south access could meander through parking lots, which this one definitely did, `~ ~ ¢ Gary - ~• Y ,_,~ - h~~F r~+ r 3 ~~. ~ i ~y f X'f ~ ~ ~ { ~~ ~ ~~~~ u ~~ z-_ e - ~ "'" .~ ~ 7^ t fi ~~ ki C~ ~ ~~ 1yy~ r ~ ~..~ M 4 5~` "~ itu.. ~- ~ ~ }_ -'. ~, 3~ t Oh~~yy P ~.F ~ G! 3 ~- pp ~ 62 ,ats~ i~~ ', dt.T~S 4 T ~~ ih £-' t ~ ~ ~ s +~ ~'N~: ~ 1 ~ 3 F~~` y a `S c fl~.? S t ~- tht i ~f: ^+C ~4tpa ys u j y~ ,; 1~ .( Yry {; r 'Y 7 t Meridian Planning & Zoning Commi• n Meeting February 16, 2006 Page 60 of 95 where you can meander through the parking lot to get -- to get down here. That transitional use, as people remember it, was, basically, because this was residential up until earlier tonight and so that transitional use was meant for a buffer against -- against that use. But, in any event, that staff report as it references frontage or a backage road, I believe that both ACHD and city staff now have confirmed for us that that is to move to the Allys Way, so that the reference to that in the staff report should be eliminated or changed. That was one of the big issues. I think the second big issue is the language in the staff report where it calls out the clustered retail. With national retail tenants that we are -- that we are looking for, the high quality tenants that we are looking for here, we have looked -- we have looked at how we could -- I mean what staff is recommending is, basically, pulling these buildings forward to here where you would have parking on both the front and the back side have access on the back side and the front side. Essentially, what that does is it eliminates these pads and you still have all that parking along here, but you don't have -- have the break that the pads allow and -- I mean retail tenants right now are -- are being extremely picky. They have a 25 page list of what their site criteria is and I can tell you we are not going to get the quality tenants that we would like to get if -- if we have got to go to something outside the box, if you will. There is issues with loading, how you load those types of buildings. Basically, what -- how I envision it is it would, basically, be something like the Boise Town Square Mall where you have got loading areas on different sides of it, but we don't have the sides that accommodates that, so I don't know how you have loading areas anywhere and, then, you know, trying to get pedestrian customers through there, just isn't a safe situation. I don't know how well this shows up, but this is our vision for how the front of those major tenants would look, where we have got some -- some nice pedestrian areas with some outdoor seating areas and, you know, with different facades and tower elements and, you know, you can make that so -- in my opinion this isn't a strip retail. Strip retail to me is something that looks all the same across and, then, you have got different tenants that go in it, but you can't necessarily tell where one building starts and stops, where these look like little townhouses, if you will, where they are all different colors and architectural styles and architectural elements where they flow together, but they are not necessarily the exact same. So, anyway, this is -- this is what we have put together as an architectural vision and we have always added architectural guidelines to our application -- or we submitted that at the time, so that there is clear materials and that type of stuff that we would like to be used. So, I believe we have addressed staffs concerns. We can revise the preliminary plat and landscaping plan according to -- to the new plan that we have. Mr. Kissler, who is going to -- he owns all of the property at this point and my client is looking at buying the northern 17 acres from him that -- Mr. Kissler is ready to go. He's outgrown his Norco building on Fairview and needs to build another one here and he's -- he's ready to go. So, he's in a little bit of a hurry. So, we would -- we would like to just add conditions, basically, to take care of any concerns that you have and be sent onto City Council with your recommendation. But if we can't do that, then, being continued is the next best thing. So, with that I'll conclude. Actually, can I see one more slide? Here is -- this is the staff report and I'm sure we are going to get into traffic, so maybe I'll just talk about it real quick. Back in 2004 -- and you probably can't read this -- but the B -- or the A down here -- it says ACHD approved accesses. The B says ITD approved accesses. And so we have got A's here and here -. , _.-x S F ~ 4 "`I .. 2y,fR a,:k ~ ~+ ~r' ~ F ~. [ ~I RBI ~ SP+ x yy}j ~3" ^$Idt ~ ~ T S ~ 4 ~ +S'S 1~F 4 a •~ •K 3 i , fie a~1G. ~d~x 4 i7 ~Y,~ 1 ~~~ 1' } ~ ~ 1 Nil 1 ~ +-i rlf n`~ I ~` ~~~ i ,.,~f ~;y~ ~Fi79 ~; ~~?F ,~ z.„ r ,~ , -~ .. ~. ~., + ~. k ~ a. ,1 ~'`' 1~ ~Y<;, ~i ^y' l~ '.',r: . F~ Meridian Plannin & Zonin Commn Meetin g g g 'r~ February 16,2006 Page 61 of 95 and we have got B's here and here. And the property owners always thought that this '" was approved and so, you know, come -- now that we have the new ordinance and `~ ~ everything -- and Mr. Kissler actually does have letters from ITD that -- back in 2004 -- October of 2004 granting him the two accesses at the locations that we are showing on the site plan. We have formally submitted to them for right of way application and I '''~i should know tomorrow. They had their executive permits committee today. So, "' should know tomorrow how that all went. One more. And this one you really can't see, ~~_ but this is -- I had our traffic engineer do half -- this is Eagle Road and I had him go a half mile in each direction to show what currently is approved on the north side and ~; what's being proposed on the south side and from the intersection going north at 700 ~'"~' there is right-in, right-outs for both the east and west sides. At the quarter mile mark there is a full access point for both east and west and, then, at the 1,700 feet, which ''' 4 approximately is 400 feet from that one, another right-in, right-out was given to the west side. And, then, eventually, where this new light is going right here, which your memory does serve you correctly, it does connect down through here, which, hopefully, "- eventually, will come through. This -- this road -- Mr. Moore is -- I think his property only goes to about here at this point, so he can't make that full connection, but he will be ~`~~ building that road. And, then, on the south side, at approximately 700 feet, which is consistent with here, is a right-in, right-out. This one on this side has been pulled back a little bit further to 860 feet, just because there is -- just to accommodate for the extra `~`' stacking here, so that it, actually, wouldn't just completely stack up. And, then, this and ,:f~~ the -- what Bienville is proposing do line up at the quarter mile mark. And, then, like you a.> said, you can't get to the half mile point on the east -- I'm sorry, the west side here. ~~ ~` And, then, this is the new Allys Way, which I believe is scheduled to hook up to the half mile point here and, then, eventually, they like to get it down to Fairview. So, just to ~;_~~ kind of show you how the entire system should work. With that I will be quiet and -~. answer any questions that you'd like. ~~°# Rohm: I think you have made a very nice presentation and I think that everything that 4 r F ;~ you have said is in line with working with staff to move forward with a project that could ~~ gain approval by the Commission or a recommendation for approval, but the bottom line ~~ ~ is we don't have a staff report to support things that have been presented tonight and I ~.~:~.~ don't think that we want to write a staff report tonight. _-:: ;Sf Thompson: And that's fine. But we would like some solid direction, if that's -- -~, ~f Rohm: And I think that maybe after having heard your testimony we might be able to <~'a*~ have discussion amongst the Commission and provide some kickback to staff in terms `~m« of some of your comments and give the staff some direction, but I really think that -- that s: before we can act on this, it will have to go back to the staff level and be given due _~~~ consideration with a staff report that we can hang our teeth on. And so I seriously -- think you did a great job, but, I'll tell you, without having polled the balance of the Commission, I think that we are going to have to at least kick it back to them for a complete staff report and if there is some comments from the Commission to help direct _~ u that, they will be coming. But thank you for your testimony. ,, _ ~-,,, ~~ r~~w i[ r 'h,4 ~~ ~ ~. ~ '' ~. ' ~ ` ~~ s~; ~ ~,~ ~~~. ~. p~ ~ f~ ;S C. 4a ~~E. i!~ CIA ~.` ~IM3 y. ,.IY J `;r ~~,, i1 ..' 9 ~ '., `~ g 1 f \ ~ r~' Tt, '~J-y'/.~' H.,, r ~~ } ,, ~ i ,.'4 ~~T wy, ~~~ ~ ~; i% ~ ~5r~~t ~ 1 `~ ,~ '~~ ~'~ t L ~' `~=. ~ ~ ~~~~ r`i, ~~. 1 ~.Fi it ~ c;~ :r- 41rt ~ _ t ;_.~ ~~ ~'~~ ~~~, 'r<` Meridian Plannin & Zonin CommZS'sion Meetin g g g February 16, 2006 Page 62 of 95 ''..,z Moe: Mr. Chairman -- don't go anywhere yet. ;. Thompson: Okay. i r Moe: It's now question time. 'yr iti Thompson: Okay. Moe: In regards to the -- the roadway on the south side. Go back to the -- _r~ Thompson: You want the aerial or the site plan? Borup: That's good enough. Moe: Right there. I just kind of want to make sure in regards to the roadway on the south, would it be your intent, then, it will line up with Una Mas, even though they are a little farther to the north and, then, just on the boundary would you be doing the sweep `'~< up and into their property? Thompson: Well, what staff has explained to me is they are looking for half of a 42-foot right of way. So, on this bottom portion they are looking for 22 feet that just trims this corner, basically, and that's it. Borup: Where is the other 21 feet coming from? Guenther: The Red Feather future -- the future Red Feather Estates development. ~ `~`~ Thompson: Yeah. There is another third party in this that -- :~;~:.,. Guenther: Yes. That is true. There is -- the portion that is south of this property -- get back to my staff report. This property right here is all zoned C-G, but we don't anticipate ~' that all coming in for general commercial or office and, therefore, multiple access points ~_~~_ for residential developments would be preferred. So, if they are proposing some sort of residential development here, they would need access not to a collector road system in ~' ~ only one location, but multiple locations to facilitate north and south direction -- directed "" traffic, as well as into their commercial projects. '` Borup: So, Una Mas was also a 21-foot -- y Guenther: Yes. It was half of a 42-foot wide -- ~- ~~~~ Borup: But going right down that line there. .~ :z:; a ...:,~ {, ,M4 Guenther: Right. And right into that -- that kind of angle that she showed you just now. ~ , , t i j'~T ~. ~ -~ ~!fr ~; ~ r ;? ~ - g ~~ 7 4~A y 3 ~ Z r'~' ~~ ~ ~ ~y a ~i l b i~ +F' ~ F H~N.i'S CC~~ '~Y r . i ~'~ S - 'v %tl ; ` (, t F d A ~Y~ ''S l ~~- ~~ e ~ ~'NL¢FS1KY~' G S ` ~R .=t . ~ ..~., r ~ ~ 1 TS~£u i.Nr'1~- Y' ` r ff~ } .i - t T y _ 6 ~. :`, t' j Comm~sion Meetin & Zonin n Plannin ridi M _, g g g e a February 16, 2006 ~ Page 63 of 95 '3l ; . Thompson: Yeah. And, like I said, that doesn't bump out, it comes in this way. It's not exactly -- ''' Borup: No. It comes out over here and right down this property line, I believe. ?~~=. Thompson: Right. But I'm saying that that corner isn't part of our property. Ours has a little notch out of it, not added to it. ~~.: Borup: I think it does. Your property comes clear to here. Thompson: Oh. Yeah. :~~: Zaremba: That is not in the right place. Thompson: Yeah. You're right. This line isn't in the right place. It is, actually, over ~~~ here. _, Borup: Yes. Thompson: Sorry for that confusion. Zaremba: Well, staffs last explanation about Red Feather -- is that what it is? Guenther: It was annexed as Red Feather. Zaremba: It's even stronger that this ought to be a real road that comes across there. Borup: Your point was that it needed to be residential access -- ~,~ ~#~ Guenther: Yes. Borup: -- coming from anon-public road, then, according to ACHD. Guenther: It would be a residential collector accessing a public road. Borup: But you said they didn't want a public road accessing Eagle. `~~"~ Guenther: They don't want a public road accessing Eagle anywhere within a quarter "A~%~~ mile. The quarter mile would start here and move to the east as a public road. ~~~: Borup: Okay. Just traffic to Allys or whatever it's going to be called. ~= ` Guenther: Yes. Yes. Facilitating public road access to Allys Way or Allys Street or {'~ whatever ACHD is calling that. ~. Newton-Huckabay: So, if they turn left, they are turning into the parking lot. ~ ~~ ~ ' =r .~ ~ ~' ~, i ~+ r if d ~~. r 4 , L , _ ~ ~. ~ rt ~~ 4 ~ r<h t '~ ~ jt ;Y~ ~Ch ~'~'S~.~i ~i r c Z ~ E' ~5 ce ~i V ~~ i . J ~~ - ~+.~y p..^~; ~ :1 ~~ry~ ~ ~i ~; ~~r ~'7~1 r r'~~_. ST ~~ ~ ~« . r ,r . .. ~ ~« t ~ ~~?~ ~~ t~ ~ 3 ~, ' -~ `~ ``~~ f~ "~ Cv ~ ~~ ~~7~ ~` ' ~A~- ~ _4 ~ ~ ~z *:~<' fC ~ ~ ~` «ah e~ y iT. , ~:- '~ ~r. ® ~ ~ _ n Meeting Meridian Planning & Zoning Commi February 16, 2006 -::a, Page 64 of 95 Guenther: Yes. " Newton-Huckabay: They need to have a road there. Because they are going to use it :x as a road. Borup: It's already been approved two years ago as a road. ° i ~'~~ Guenther: I know. If I may -- '~« Borup: On the other three corners. Guenther: The problem with it is that ACRD had brought to us a recommendation that we could do a public street. The applicant is showing here correctly that Mr. Moore, his _ development here, has -- this is a public road. ACHD allowed this access point and ~,? light to be a public road. If this Commission so chooses to have another quarter mile public road, they should petition ACHD to have them connect that road. Currently, as staff we are getting everything from ACHD saying they don't want any public road ~;~.~ connection to Eagle Road. And ITD keeps telling us they don't want any -- any access to Eagle Road in that location either. So, we are, as staff, very much torn between what ~ r we are getting from other agencies and what the Commission is telling us, which is why . ='~ I would really like more direction from the Commission as to what they want to forward '`~"' onto the Council, who is also getting ITD and ACHD -- rr Zaremba: My comment would be that I agree with both of them everywhere except here. I don't want to say I'm generally in favor of accesses all over the place, I agree `~'~? with them that there should be a median down the middle of Eagle and that there should be very limited accesses. This one intersection has the potential to be far more heavily =~ used than even Fairview and Eagle is right now and I think the need to have some kind of a bypass system -- and I appreciate this drawing, because it's an illustration of what was trying to say in words before. There is a way around here. This is going to be `:~:~:, ' signalized. ~r~ Newton-Huckabay: It is signalized. _.1~ ``~~>° Zaremba: This is -- yeah, it is now, as a matter of fact. This is going to be signalized. And I agree, I think Winston Moore is going to connect across here and that justifies this being signalized. I would, actually, have rather seen this be a continuous connection , .~. «= and a public road, but I think the same thing needs to happen on this side. There needs r ~ ,,fi to be -- it's not circular, but there needs to be this whole bypass concept in that area "~ around this intersection and in spite of what ACHD and ITD are saying about this one ;',~~ spot -- I have to say, I design transportation systems -- I have done so in every major city and run transportation systems and managed transportation systems, I work with ._>;?_' their infrastructures, Ihave seen good ones and bad ones. I have been doing it for 30 `~ years. I do not have a professional engineering degree, but it's a side line of what `';?~-°• have to do to get transportation systems going and this intersection needs a complete =;s,: ;.y ~1 .~'. -'-J F ~. t 1 .~'~ w.i.~~Lfy~,i t K • l {j ~ fi ". ~~` ^.. Y~~'} T1 '~~•'S f ' f ~~.r ,fir S ~'~ area =,q~ ;; k 3~ x ~+, ~ ~^~'~R C..~~ x r: .~ ?{~~ ~ i ~»~;t F e ~ ~ `~ ~ ! F y Y ii~ t FpG' ~C( ,~y eli ti ri ~,: ~ / Y fi ~~-w; Meridian Planning & Zoning Commis`STon Meeting February 16, 2006 Page 65 of 95 bypass all the way around it. That's my personal opinion based on 30 years of doing ,. that kind of work as a necessary component of my real work. =tr Borup: Mr. Chairman? ~_:~ Rohm: Commissioner Borup. Borup: I think the other important point is if this -- when this annexation took place and access points were approved by ITD -- and I don't know if ACHD was involved in the same -- well, they were for Ustick. That was in 2004 and I think the owner of this property had the expectation that what was approved then is what was going to be approved now and went ahead with the design with that expectation. I don't know how they can do a complete turn around in that length of time. It just doesn't seem fair to the property owners to me. Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, if I may just real quick. I remember this project when I was at ACHD on staff and ACRD does not comment on annexation ',~.Y applications as there is no development associated with them. So, the access points to ~A_ Ustick Road were never reviewed or approved by ACHD when this came through for -:~, just annexation. So, when a development comes that's when they will approve access >; points. The other point is they can only comment on ITD roadway. They aren't going to say that a public street can or can't enter Eagle Road at a certain distance, because it's not their roadway. If someone constructs a roadway to meet their standards, that's all they can do, and ITD is the one that actually gives the permit to access the highway. `~"} So, it truly is up to ITD and respecting Commissioner Zaremba's take on this, also ~: respecting our code, newly adopted code, but the spacing of that, just getting a signal -- n t 30 but 'ust that uarter mile and, and working with ITD for several years myself o j q ;~ z; then, the speed limit of that, the spacing and the timing of those lights on a highway '~,R where they are trying to keep the speed limit 50 miles an hour or thereabouts, I just '`:'°~~ know they are not real keen on that. Now, that's different than -- being a full access is - one thing. Being a signalized access is something different. But I just wanted to clarify `° ~'" that ACHD has not approved any access points for this project when it was annexed .: ~,: ~~_ back a couple of years ago anyways. `~~,t` Borup: And I may have misspoke. I think the applicant said ITD's approval, but -- and - ~ I'd like to see that letter. },r, } ~4 Guenther: In 2003 the applicant made -- Mr. Kissler, actually, was the person who signed the application to ITD for all three access points. The report that I have received #'.` on Tuesday from ITD's district engineer was that they did not approve them at that time }~_ and the letter you have dated February 6 from ITD also indicates that any desired >~ access still requires a permit. That has not been issued. So, every indication from ITD ` '~- that I have says that even though they have put it on their site plan to the City of Meridian, that it was not approved at the time of the annexation. ~. t X43 4 ~y, 2 Y ~ i ~-p .'4 ~~ iv ~: .. c L tr y ; .:~ ~j - .:;; fi .= ~ . ,y, c p~..~. ~ ~ a, h .. ~. is ti , ~x ~;; ~ ~s . .r a~~.~ ~~y~~, . 3 ~frt ~~ J ~ ~ ' ~ ,~~ ~'~ ~ C + ~~ :t r ~~ sa ~: i ~. : Y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ { -~ Yx {~ z i , ~x _ @,y'1 a "cM = r -P a ~ , n it ~ ~ ~ ~" a "~ `: i ~ Meridian Planning & Zoning Commi ion Meeting February 16, 2006 Page 66 of 95 Borup: So, that approval letter would have been a good thing to submit with the application. ~ry ,: Guenther: Well, they should have had -- there should be an access permit with their application. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Even with that -- excuse me. Even with that being said, I think that it's this Commission's position that there be access to complete that loop, regardless of what the applicant's existing rights are anyway and so, if fact, this Commission wants to make recommendation to ITD or ACHD to have access, that's what we are here for. So, that, notwithstanding, Ithink we can make those kind of recommendations and see where it goes from there. So, that's just my thoughts on the roadway. So, with that being said, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I was just going to recommend that we just wrap up this conversation and to make those decisions -- Rohm: That's kind of where I was going with that. Newton-Huckabay: Clarify what the applicant needs to bring back and -- Rohm: I want to go to another subject for a moment here. Newton-Huckabay: But that's not in line with my suggestion to wrap up the conversation. Rohm: Well -- and you're not running this. Newton-Huckabay: I will be. Rohm: Not for awhile. Okay. With that being said -- Moe: When did we go to a dictatorship? Rohm: The applicant has asked that we consider their proposal to have their commercial building pushed back away from the roadway and indicated that staff report had asked that they be pulled out more into the middle. Just to find out where we settle on that, how do you feel about the applicant's comments about reasoning for pushing it back? Is that something that you can live with? Guenther: I still don't believe that it addresses the gateway corridor standards of the ordinance, which says that no more than certain portions of that area must -- may be allowed as parking lot, essentially. It's not the City Council's intention when they adopted those standards to have nothing but a few trees and, then, see parking lot `~ a ~";' 2 E ~',';4 :~ ~': iia~i+. Y ~ } ~ r .- .. . ~ d y _ t ~~r~~j, L~ ~ .N!S !i ~ r ' ~ ~ i ~- ~ ~ + k ~, ~ ~ Y~ ~''~ +og u , xY. s \ ~ f: ~. ~'~ .. _ ?t': t i a i 14n-. ~' S y ti C. t~ d "~ r ~ t ~; ~^ ..r : i- '~ + "` ~{~ '~ ~ r pt,~,~t ~'`~r - a ~ ,r~. ~~'' ' f ,`t 1 ~~ S "f , ~ ~i'~. k4 t. ~: a ~; ~. F 6"-,{t ;. N~. '~i9Y~r~ e a~~P V ~~~'I ?t: Meridian Planning & Zoning Commis5'lon Meeting February 16, 2006 Page 67 of 95 again. And that's where they were going when they adopted those gateway corridor standards. Rohm: And I agree with what you're saying and I'm kind of thinking that these pads that are out along the roadway break that up somewhat and that kind of mitigates the concerns about the main building being pushed back to the back lot line. And I only throw that out as a comment, not as a conclusion. How do you feel about that? v-. Guenther: Again, until I see some calculations that show how that actually relates to °F our ordinance, I have to speculate that it -- this is what I see. Their new site design appears to have better accommodated that, but, again, I haven't fully reviewed it, haven't even seen it in a large scale format. ~'"'~" Rohm: And that's exactly why we are going to continue this, so that the applicant can ~ ~ ` make their changes to accommodate the gateway concerns in the UDC and work with '~`~'+' staff to something that is acceptable or can be forwarded onto the Commission with R;`:;: recommendations for approval and I think that that's enough said about that. I~: ~' ~~ Borup: Aren't we looking for recommendations? ~~:: ~. ' , Rohm: I think that -- ~~< Borup: Do the rest of us get to make them, too? ,v ; ~: . ~~ - Rohm: Oh, absolutely. ~'~' Boru Oka -~, P~ Y• Baird: Mr. Chair? Borup: Do we have public testimony? Baird: That's exactly where I was going. Rohm: We can go there next. At this point in time -- let's see. Newton-Huckabay: Where would we be without Mr. Baird? fir`' Rohm: Jon Rosin. Rosin: Jon Rosin with Hansen Rice representing Una Mas. 1717 Chisholm Drive in ~~ . Nampa. It's getting late. Commissioner and Commission, we'd like to just make a `'~$~ couple of brief comments. We have been working with the applicant on this and we :_z# ~~: agree with pretty much everything that they have said, as far as the larger trees in the -k landscape buffer between the two, kind of giving us a visual barrier between the back of _ _ their building and our office space. The screen wall hiding the trucks, we are in ~ y ~~r ~ ~ j~ ~ ~ , r F a~«~'~ ., 7 ~~ n~ Zt S ~ 3 ~ ' QQt~yy rC'?X y, *~ /J+ ' 'T.- ~~.~. f '~Yi - ,~ r ~4 ~ .~ ~ y'~~ _ ~~ C. t ?'15~YV t ~ Wrfu~~. '~ ~ '`r "i ~~ k s ~_ ~ ~.. . _ ~N,.'~... - ~. G ~'- r ~ r i ~r , "' ~~ .,.~ ,~.. ~x ~~r s t '' b~ fut~~.-~ ~,3~~ ti kcl 5 ~..~ Diu („(~.. _ t , ~~. ? . - ~~,:- a 2 ~ lN~ ~ F. ~ t ~i d k y F ~ - ~r 11'~ M C ~:~ ~~ x y 1 ~., r 's 1 v:it ., Meridian Planning & Zoning Commi~on Meeting February 16, 2006 Page 68 of 95 rt ~ agreement with that. They have said that they were going to have -- you know, carry the -- you know, some type of an architectural element or the colors, mosaic block, >_.* whatever it might be, to come around again to kind of dress up the back of the building. .' The only other thing that we would like to see or have as part of their development application is some type of CC&Rs or something that addresses that if the back of the building is a truck dock, if any of you have ever driven behind the back of truck docks, ~' ` they are not sightly, typically, trash, cardboard, and whatever stacked on the back. We - realize that there is code enforcement in place that can be -- you know, can help with `"~`_~ that, but we'd like to see something more formalized between our -- between their development and our development, so that we have something a little bit more stringent k~ for us as a mechanism to keep that looking as nice as possible. And those are the only ~.. comments that we have at this time. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to testify in this application? Strite: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, Billy Ray Strite, 1010 Allante, Boise, ,,; Idaho. First of all, thank you very much for taking the time here. As you probably know, ``"~' we were the culprit that developed the original annexation plan and concept plan. ~`=Tl F spoke to Mr. Kissler today and, obviously, he has concerns with moving ahead. We are presently working on his office retail section on the southerly five acres that he would ,~ retain after the sale. I'd like to make a point to Mr. Zaremba. And I think it was an ~~<~ excellent one. It kind of draws me back to Bridgetower and the way that they circulated '`'~' ~ their roads around the backside of the Bridgetower and it's exactly the same situation >; here. If we are able to pick up this southerly portion -- and, once again, I think only having seen this tonight, I think the dynamics have changed dramatically based on what ~ ~<- you have approved tonight west of this site and east of this site. In my mind, if we could ,, '~ `~~~-~ all get together here -- and it sounds like Mr. Zaremba is on track -- certainly I feel the _-::~~ same way and be able to take a connected road off of Eagle -- which, incidentally, Mr. :~~ . Kissler believes is deeded and I'm trusting I can find that letter, because I know that ~ ~ Commissioner Borup was here at that time. Having said that, if we could continue that ~';~ to the east, tie that into that road that's going to go north, I think it's case closed. What -- think should happen tonight -- and I think the chairman has made it rather apparent -- : ~~ that this be deferred. However, in doing so, can you defer this with a condition that a,~~-: perhaps we pursue a potential loop road, if you will, or whatever semantics you'd like to ~`~~ use and give us some direction in that respect, and, then, they, in turn, can sit down "`~ with the adjacent neighbors to the east and I think come up with a plan that would ;;~ satisfy everybody. And that's all I have. Rohm: Any questions? Borup: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Strite? Strite: Yes, sir. Borup: I assume you're talking about this is the building you're working with? ,.~~:~ r ~ ~ , ~ ~~ ~ ~, ~ y ~ Y ~,~~~'~~~ , ~ t~,_. ~ ~~ ~. ~ ~ t i ~ 4 s,^Ci ±j ~ ~ ~ '~ ~~~ I ^c r ~,,?y '~ ~`~ e _ r _, ~.w ~~} - ' `~ 4 F b Y ~ :_ ~~~ ~ N r ~;. t 7 ;r ~ Y ~ _ T~. C ~ft t : t zq~ .- ; .. - Yp Y µ` }, Lf Ji _ _ '~' r _ ,. . EY 'ik '< ' =n'~~; ~, ''~f ~3~~ ~},y k2 * ~.y ~~Ff~t. ~. - .. ' ~~` ~ y - . ~i r ' 3 t ~, I ~ ~ ~ .ti Ar kq` ~ F;. ~' rYS ;~-S mot' S`~~kn tc„a~ ~t,,~}~ ` N2 R t ~ t ~y fir. ~ a:r~~F i~' 1 h t ,:~ ~'~ i ~ R s ~•^a . ' ...,g ,, x.., ~ Ca ~ EJB~ fir? r4' ~» eC° ''*~f '* Meridian Planning & Zoning Commis~n Meeting February 16, 2006 Page 69 of 95 Strite: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Borup, that is absolutely correct. That's a Kissler building. It's a five and a half acre site. Borup: Now, the road -- the proposed roadway, then, would parallel this line right here. Straddle it I mean. Straddle this line here and, then, out to Eagle. Are you looking at a new site design to accommodate that of some type? Strite: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Borup, yeah, I think that -- and that's the reasoning for the deferral. I think we might want to go back to the drawing board, reconsider the configuration of his building that would still allow that access. In the development agreement you probably will recall that the backage road system was designated either private and/or public. So, I'm not all that certain that the road that's going to be eastbound, if you will, that would connect to that connecting road, would necessarily have to be an ACRD approved right of way, at least as I remember the development agreement. If I would have been asked to show up here tonight at 5:00 o'clock tonight, would have that development agreement with me, but I'm almost certain that the verbiage was private or public. Borup: I think that's probably correct. But now we have got that road kind of into three - - three properties, four if you count the ACRD. Strite: Well, I'm not certain that we are concerned so much with -- with the right of way, quite frankly, and I'm not all that certain we couldn't live with a public road there. I'm just suggesting that my recollection of that development agreement gave us the option to be 3 =~. either private or public. Borup: Yeah. That makes sense. E~°~;:,. Strite: And if you would just allow us that opportunity to really explore that, I'm sure that r Tamara, as the representative with Mr. Kissler's, could come back, along with the neighbors to the east, with a plan that I think would be acceptable. Zaremba: Well, (certainly -- Mr. Chairman -- certainly would say that I think the ACHD proposed new collector on the east end satisfies the backage road requirement. Strite: Absolutely. Zaremba: I felt that that was an important requirement, but I think here we have a step up from that. We have a collector proposed, which would be on the back end of these t„ collective properties. I just want to see a connection east and west. Strite: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, I -- again, I think the total dynamics have changed from what we have seen tonight. I'm even including the west side, since we are able to align this with Bienville. Zaremba: Yes. t sir ~ '"i~.~t { r t s ... .^~dnY~f~fY.CC ~y w ~ o- . ~... ~ ~i ~ '`, e. r 1: i ` Y JJ 'G ,: 9 /'~ to ary ~ t z ~:k Q ,^ ~ z~r~ F u~~ ~ 121 ' ~ j Y ' ~„v ~ _N iS ~ -. + #~Y ~~~' r " ~{44~'~. e '"'iii` r~, v ~tw i ~. L,.: . ~ ~ ~ . ~ L ~ yy'~aAy~ f_`Ti~ __ .. -.~ . ' f ~ ~~fyy ^ ...~~~P ~ 1 -~~4. t A~~ 1 #{ 1~ ; ~~ .. ~. i -.,...r Meridian Planning & Zoning Commi~n Meeting y~ February 16, 2006 - Page 70 of 95 Strite: And would ask that that be thrown on the table. Moe: Mr. Chairman? ~a Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: In regards to the Una Mas property and some of their concerns tonight when we discussed it, if we do continue this, are there materials that you will be bringing forward w, as far as what will be the screening and whatnot around the back side of the other buildings? { Strite: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Moe, that's not from me. I'm not involved in this `= project, only as representing Mr. Kissler. } Moe: Okay. Strite: But I would suspect that Tamara would, absolutely. ;, ~~ Rohm: What a guy. Moe: Thank you. 1Y ,.~. Strite: Thank you. Moe: Mr. Chairman. Tamara, if you would, please. `~ Newton-Huckabay: Is there anybody else? Moe: Pardon me? Newton-Huckabay: Is there any other public testimony? Rohm: Before we ask you to come forward, is there anybody else that would like to testify on this application? Okay. Moe: I knew I was right. `~ Rohm: Okay. You're on. '~'~ Moe: Again, same question as far as either materials or basically are there going to be any renderings or anything that -- to look at at all, other than what you propose tonight ti on the front side, I mean as far as type of materials and whatnot you're going to put on ~~-~~ the back with the screen walls and whatnot in the truck dock areas? ~. .~ f ~K }~ t v ,} P`G~ w ~ ,y.- ~.. ~ ~~• ~~ ,y'~ ~k. 7 s' ~' ~~r. 1 i ... ~,K... ,.. b ~Jr -~ -A , ~ra~C,~t6n L~ aNys K ~ .. C~ C. f µ l 4"~, 5 ~ ~:y ~, ~ 7 '. t R~~- ~ ~~ -a - 4 ~ t~~ C 1R F y.~y 3, , ~ - Y ~ k ~A .~.~ T' ` kt2 tt~ 5 ~ ,an lltlr ~^~ ;~ t F ~~~-~~ 4' y t ~ ~' ~ ' ~~~ ~ d .s fifi~ ~ w s. -~ ' ., .p .L '~ t v L ~' a ~ - ii+l .~ . -..'.A 1 r~~. ;~~;' ,; ,. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commiss3n Meeting February 16, 2006 Page 71 of 95 Thompson: Mr. Chairman, Mr. -- I'm sorry, Commissioner Moe, we haven't designed the buildings at this point, because the site plan is conceptual in nature. I could bring back something for you as far as what we think, you know, will happen on the buildings, but, typically, major tenants are block buildings with stucco and different types of brick and that kind of stuff and so on the back what I would propose is that it be a -- an integral color, split face block, that -- I don't know how high we would need to go. It depends on if it's recessed or not, but is it -- yeah, 12, 15 feet. Yeah. Probably an integral color, just because if they get tagged at all, you want to be able to sandblast them and not have to keep painting them and that kind of stuff. Moe: Well, you had made a comment earlier in your presentation that you were going to be doing something to the back side of those to take care of the office area -- Thompson: We definitely are. Moe: -- along with the landscaping changes for the larger trees and whatnot back there. I just want to make sure that, indeed, the office project would not be just looking at the back side of ordinary buildings and trash. Thompson: Yeah. That's our intent. But, you know, at this time we have not designed the buildings and -- but they probably will be some sort of block building with stucco and brick added. I did want to add I do have the development agreement and it does say private or -- it says aprivate -- public or private backage street is what it calls for. Moe: Again, you said that they are meeting tomorrow, so I would anticipate -- Thompson: No. They met today. And I tried to no end to get ahold of them, but they did tell me they thought that they would go into the evening hours and so I should know tomorrow. But I will get you the 2004 letter. Rohm: Thank you. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would comment to Ms. Thompson, if I may. The drawing or sketch or -- not really true elevations, but the front of the big boxes, I very much liked the village look to it is what I would probably call it, where it's not all the same thing all across. I thought that was great. I probably would suggest, if it were to work out, that what's displayed up there is not your newest one, I don't think, but -- Thompson: No, it's not. Zaremba: But you did have -- let's say these five are probably fairly similar. Thompson: He's going to cue it up. Zaremba: What I would suggest -- are you changing it? ~~ ~» ~ ~~ mfr r aak ~ t~ ~` ~ ~~ t i '}'` l ~ ,[~~ `' FS f t ~' ` ~V,; 4 .r; j3" ~~ ~ `3'f J'x ~K ~ ~ ~ iW tizf'PFP ~uF ,s+ k~-~1~ i ~~ ~ ~m ~`: :r- c '~ ~ k ;,'y,. 4}' x ? 4 ~3 ~f } ~{~ 4., k ` x 3~ t '?~'~ ~.~~~qq h~ t t.. n r ~ l ~+li '~.. A f `'~ ~' 9 L v s ~ ~s4~ab~.~i Meridian Planning & Zoning Commiss~ Meeting February 16, 2006 Page 72 of 95 Thompson: Yeah. He's going to get that up there for us. Zaremba: Back one. There. That perhaps another 20 feet be added, so that -- you would lose a few parking spaces, so that this roadway is not absolutely straight, it comes out a little bit, goes back a little bit, but that this center space sticks out like another 20 feet. I mean in some of -- Thompson: And add more hardscape out there? Is that what you're looking at? Zaremba: Well, just make the building a few square feet bigger. Borup: Or the plaza effect like you were showing -- Thompson: Yes. Borup: -- would do the same thing. Thompson: Yeah. That's what I was thinking, that you add more sidewalk -- Zaremba: Oh, yeah, more sidewalk with tables and stuff. Thompson: -- so you can have more plaza area. Okay. Zaremba: Just something so that it's not -- I think the fear of the strip mall is that it -- from one end it looks like it's straight across and I would just show some variation to that. Guenther: Chairman Zaremba, like I say, most of the site design considerations in the staff report are reflective of the old design. What I was anticipating incorporating into this one would be more -- of a future staff report would be more of the design criteria of the buildings that you haven't seen yet, which would be mostly reflective of the same thing as you saw off the Kohl's site development. So, you will most likely see more of those conditions in a future staff report from staff. So, I think maybe this discussion would be a little more premature and best saved for the next time we hear the application. Zaremba: That's fine with me. We are just trying to focus on what needs to change between now and then. Guenther: And I think that mostly we are looking at the site instead of building design at this time. Zaremba: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: Wouldn't it -- can I just make one comment that if there was less parking spaces against the street. I think that's visually unappealing to me is if you have r ll::. ~7 is ~. } _ ~Yy. ygSl' ~~ i L S L ~ ~ r l~f , =~ .. x'.": , s '. ~Sr-1.14' S^j~: 5~. a,:e ~ ;~ r ~~ ~~ ~~, ,~ k ~.-~ F1t~~ .z..d ~,~~ ~ r '~~' _ a s N ~~'~ x ' ~' ae xf ,~ .'if's t ~~ *.. 5 ~ ~t~ XY ~y~~. i ~~ ~.. r 'dLSJ r 2 1.. ~ _ [ G~'~f ' s }' 5 p . fa . t' ~f r ~y l ~'iti , _ , ~' y" a ~ }~ r ~ 1 ~' 's t !^ h ~ ~~- 5 ~i 5' f ~i ~ Yip 3 ~'~ 1~ ~ ' .. ,~p ~_ 1. t: ~~R ~ ! 'rs Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting '' '' February 16, 2006 ~-'` Page 73 of 95 `' `` a pad with a bunch of parking places and that kind of what -- I think that's what I think ~;~s_: the parking could be more internal to the project. Zaremba: Let me visualize on that same subject. The northern boundary of r- ~~~ Crossroads Center, I think it is -- in other words, the Fairview side, as I drive along there '`'``'j I'm not aware of as much parking as there really is against Fairview, because I think ;. -, ~;x there is a pretty good line of screening shrubbery. I'm more aware of it as I drive north on Eagle, that there isn't as much screening. And I am aware of the parking that's >;; there. But I suspect that along Fairview there is the same amount of parking, but it's •~-' screened somehow in a different manner. Either that or I'm just forgetting what I see, s but -- ~``' Thompson: Well, along Eagle on the Crossroads, they have used their 35 feet as a big ~- `' detention-retention area. ~~~ ~` :> Zaremba: Oh, yeah. ar:": Thompson: You know, so -- and we are not -- we are not proposing that. We are ~ ~' proposing underground kind of French drain type thing. So, we are not going to have areas -- you know, so we can actually have landscaping in that area instead. I think .~ } `~ what you're seeing is they just -- they do have kind of a blank area where they just kind ,.~, of have a swale in there without -- without a lot of landscaping in there. Ours shouldn't look like that. F T Zaremba: Yeah. That's -- v; Thompson: Especially when you have a big 35-foot landscape area. Borup: Mr. Chairman? '` ~ ~ Rohm: Commissioner Borup. ~=~ Borup: I did have one design comment. I think it's been addressed a little bit, but that's, -:~-:~ again, Eagle Road, to get -- I think to get aways -- the parking lot and the percentage ~,:;;, that staff was talking about in the report, I'd like to see another building along there. :?: Perhaps make these buildings not as deep and a little bit wider, just spread them out ' ~'~' this way and maybe get another building in there and I think that would -- that would ~: ~r serve a lot of the purpose, I think, with -- I assume that's what Joe was talking about, to ~' ` get -- ~, ~_ ~~ Guenther: That is correct. If not, some sort of a corner L-shaped building in here in the ~`~="~' intersection that would be possibly multi-tenant or something along that line. Something ~` ~~ that could provide an intersection type of screening to the commercial development. x,,. Borup: I mean -- and they have done -- they have accomplished that up here -- ' ~ x~~." ~ ~~ ~ w~u;~;, .; ~ ~'~ ' i''.. ~_ '_ ' ~ ~ i i 1 f '[ ~+1,} - L F ~~~~I~ r ~~ `.:.~ . S ; ~„ ~ ~ ~ =~ '~ ~ ,fir ~ 3t_ _ ;~1~ ~. a ~~. -.. ,. ~~~ is r; $~~ ~'~ k F ,'r K ~~!i""~ .~ }} y~'}7p, L, .y ~. .~ ~ V ~ 'e ~ ~ ik k h~, ~~Y r; ~. r ., ..~ ~;.~ y~ Meridian Planning & Zoning Commis• Meeting February 16, 2006 Page 74 of 95 Guenther: And as I said, this site plan I didn't have until 4:00 o'clock today, so -- :~~~ Borup: Right. Yeah. But the same idea down along here. ~~"'~~ Guenther: At this point -- ~~. .. ,~r. Borup: So, that would be my recommendation for the new design. 1 Guenther: It might be at this level to continue it at this time and give me a shot at that. Borup: Well, hopefully, it will be in the design for you to look at. Guenther: Yeah. `'_~ Rohm: Before we take a motion to continue this, I'd like to go down the row and have `; ~._,;;. each Commissioner, if there is anything specific that you would like to have the ~~, , applicant and staff consider, this is your opportunity for -- to bring up your points of ~`~`~, interest. Commissioner Zaremba. x;: ~~~:~4a~ Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I may have failed to mention this before, but I certainly would ~_`~ '~°'~ like to see a roadway connection along the -- rf ~-. Rohm: Thank you. I appreciate your comments. Commissioner Borup. t;;, :~, ~:° '`a` Boru I think eve hm has been stated that I was concerned about. ~;~ p~ ~ 9 ;~.~ ~~ "'~ Rohm: Okay. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. - ` Newton-Huckabay: I have nothing more to say on this application at this time. ,; ilk `?~~ Rohm: Commissioner Moe. u Moe: Well, let's see -- no, I have nothing more to add. Rohm: Okay. Borup: Other than is there any input from the applicant on how much time they would ~~~~ need on a redesign? l'}.~*. '" ~- Guenther: Mr. Chairman, I would also like to take an opportunity to present this Commission's concerns to ITD and ACRD in order to -- because they -- ACHD still has not made a comment on this application, which I have only gotten brief staff comments. ~~~~` If I can bring this recommendation that Chairman Zaremba has as a Commission r,.,~~ recommendation, Iwill present that to the ACHD and ITD staff that I have been in contact with and get their comments for you specifically related to that item. ~. 3 ~ ~ r _~ + ~' ~~ .,, ,.~._:. 33t~ +F.f a ~r ~.i.JT t C~.s'~, tch ~ - T ~ l; Y ~j. ~~ ~~{{rr..,, YY t~ ~ Y ~ "T.j F t~? ~ ~ ~ 7 ~ • 1~. y y h l „ 3r. :A ~$~~ i x .: 7 / .. ~~~ r `~ ~ ~ } t~'~ F'.` ~yy~~..;. r t,. 14 i, JARS ~'~ . ~} ~ w w j i r . v ' !'M~ 't~ Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 16, 2006 Page 75 of 95 ``~ Borup: I think if you could present the engineer study -- or the traffic engineering study that was presented, that would help in making that presentation I would think. Rohm: Okay. All right. ~,' Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, if it would be appropriate to make a motion within the discussion of this, I would move that we direct staff to move ahead with presenting our _:yt ~ concerns to ACHD and ITD if necessary. t~:: N'r ``~~~~ Rohm: Yeah. I think that's appropriate. ~~ _ _ Zaremba: That was a motion. ,r ~:;:~ °~ := t >~,~,r x,,, Borup: Second. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Rohm: Okay. Moe: We haven't set a date for a hearing or anything. Borup: No. He's doing a different motion. Moe: Oh, we are going to do that. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we direct staff to work with ITD and ACHD on the interconnectivity -- Zaremba: Traffic and interconnectivity concerns. Rohm: -- concerns and -- Zaremba: And the need for a bypass for this intersection on all four corners. Rohm: With our desires to see that interconnectivity. All those in favor say aye. Oppose same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. } -.;_w Guenther: Mr. Chair, you might also ask that we forward that recommendation or ~- consideration to the City Council, since they are the deciding body. And we will have ;', the director present, along with ITD and ACRD recommendations. Borup: That's what he meant. He was intending that. Zaremba: That's included in the motion. _ t <~~ ~ ` i y~ ~- <a ~i~~,~ , ~. i Y M { ~ N ~ ~~ ~ ~~t , _ n^tk ~ ~' -T~T.j ~~, ~. r~ 3 I J ~ ~. -~,TJ "` £ ~ w4 x ? ~S~'r e v . 5 F7~"'yT~~. t-,. -w ~`~ ~+~ ~i~ t _ ~t"g r T y ~~L~ F( n ~`f 1 s "t, ;,z;;~ ~ + ~ ~-.. ~~ „g, ,rY t`h f r ~ _ ~ d - - ^ uz: f ~S~i L .. ~ ~.. ~~ t~ A . 1~4'~P;. ~ tp1~~( :~ 1 ' Ul3 ~ ^.3- 1 '~iM.3k rAy y. ,r ~~ xf ~ ~~ ' u~~~& ~ , }~ ~ ~ N ~jA 7 l {, 1 J:2 ~F Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 16, 2006 Page 76 of 95 Newton-Huckabay: Second. Rohm: Okay. Zaremba: So, are we ready to continue this one? .~ Rohm: Yeah, Ithink -- ;~ Zaremba: Ithink the interests are known. Rohm: Ithink that the date that the staff would like to see this continued to would be the March 16th date. So, if someone would like to make a motion to that effect. Just first that -- do you think that you can work with staff and get a -- Thompson: I can get things turned around fairly quickly. That's much more time than I need, but I don't know what staff needs. ~:~ Rohm: Ithink that -- Borup: They need ten days. ;.,,,~ Guenther: We are looking at -- from March I'm looking at least another seven projects ;y.Y and I had six tonight and one continued, so if you want a sane staff member, you should probably at least give me a month. Rohm: Okay. ri~L Zaremba: Well -- and you would need to have it ten days before the next hearing, - because if it's that far revised, it needs to go out for comment again from the other ,_;~ agencies. Guenther: That is correct. Rohm: I'd entertain a motion. "~~ Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we continue the Public Hearing on PP 06-002 related ~``~;~ to Gateway Marketp0ace, to our regularly scheduled meeting of March 16th, 2006. ~'~ ~ Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we continue the Public Hearing on PP 06- F:. _,. 002 for the regularly scheduled meeting of March 16th, 2006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. _~~~ MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. ~,: s '~1k~n~~' , N ~.} i~ J ~ k'. ~ ~ y, . yy. rf7 fiY r=~ r x ~ r~ ~• ~~' t~ .j~ 1t ~~~ ^~ N4 ',~A t ;.t ~ .,1~• t r+., t 9 ~~ k~ fi ~ ~' f.,, F L - ~ti . _ ~F~ ~ 4 a`f' . b'~.~: .. 1y.~ . ':~~. ~s ~AH7L~~ ~~ ~~~' (~ ;, ~y~ ~1 S ~~ ~ ' ~ ,.7Ti ~ - ~~ ~t '{'4 ~' ~ ~ r.r ~* ti c.- t ~~ x l e Wl'~ ,,,'-y~~,, " (~ . ~~ .'r=~ ~ ' ~: , '~~' ~' +T3. {i ~r ~~ ~~ ,~ ,.^I~ l ~ ~~ T ~,:.tS ~p ~u ~~` ~{ fZ ! i~ Ali` - ~j ~ ~1 r ~ ;+y H~ Y ~ r R ~~--:~. . ~,` Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 16, 2006 ~'~ Page 77 of 95 -~ ~.-~~~ Item 16: Public Hearing: CUP 06-003 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for ~,~", ~`~~ addition of a drive-thru coffee shop at the east end of the existing building j for Office Value Remodel by Dave Buich - 3055 Fairview Avenue: ,;~ `~~' Rohm: Okay. We are going to move real quickly into -- I actual think -- we can move y"I real quickly here. I'd like to at this time open the Public Hearing on CUP 06-003 related P~' ~ ~~ to Office Value remodel and begin with the staff report. A .' Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. I'm going to hit the ~µ~`;'`; highlights here. The applicant has requested a Conditional Use Permit for adrive-thru ~; , ~~ ~ ~ coffee shop on an existing building located at 3055 East Fairview. It's located generally ~ at the corner of Eagle Road and Fairview Avenue in -- let's see, the Treasure Valley -- I i th th r` ere s e screen think business campus or business center. And the blue square on ~` actually one lot off. We are talking about one lot to the west. This sight is currently ` zoned I-L. It has retail uses on it through a planned development that goes back to the °~ ` early '90s at the very least, maybe back to the '80s. It did allow retail uses on this I-L k ', ::- ~, property, provided they went through a Conditional Use Permit process. So, that is why ~~~ ; the application is before us, is because the previous approval does require that it comes x, .. ~: before you. Some of the staff comments, conditions. With the drive-thru the applicant `~~ has also requested some facade renovations that do require design review approval. ~ ~ ~ Those are an administrative approval and this may be the first one we have, but when ~ ~ one is concurrent with a Public Hearing item, we do kind of mention it in the staff report ~:< and let the Commission consider all the aspects, but typically that design review is an ,.,; ?~ _- administrative level approval, where the CUP is the Commission level approval. o, ~~~{; ~ there is some discussion in your staff report about that design review application. The '`~' applicant's proposal does meet those guidelines, with one exception, and that's a ~' `' ~ pedestrian connection to the sidewalk out on Fairview. And I did highlight that in the - -: ~' '~ staff report. Our main concern and probably the main topic of discussion here -- and ~ ~ this application directly ties to the Denny's application that's on the agenda later. It is , `~ the site directly to the east. They do share a drive aisle and are proposed to share ~ some parking. Staff is not supportive of the parking shown adjacent to the drive-thru °` that does back into the drive-thru lane. The applicant has proposed seven compact ~~ ~:r spaces -- and that light's really dim. I apologize. I'll use the mouse. There is proposed to be seven spaces here that would back into the drive-thru aisle and, then, would exit ~` ~ ~ out the drive-thru. They have indicated those are for employees only and that the . H t tenant -- possible tenant is adamant about keeping those. However, staff on both the `~ ~`~~` Denny's application and the Office Value application have come out consistently that we ~' do not support those parking spaces. Other than that, there is some landscape _~ improvements to be made to the parking in the back -- or in the front and the rear and ~.. some signage and striping that will be required to make sure this drive-thru safely I think with that I will end staff comments and take any questions. functions H . Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of staff? ' '~ ~ ,~ ' K ^ 1Cf fw 4 i ~~'~ L rF y ~ 2~ ~ 7:' ` ~~ a ~ I :~ E ~ ~±_ ~.~E ~Y~h y ,~ . I. ~~Yy,yy - '~F'.' F . ~.. ~~r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' y ~ ~+ 5: ,° ~. , ~ _ ~~~ ~. r c° . ~ ~ ~~. q. ~~a~•v ~ ~- '`~.L ' ~t"~' i'~. 4T ~_~. 13. nr Wa ~'~~~. 3 r i, ~' ~ Y ~~~ h ; ~tL ~.,-. V T ~,_ u sot i ~, ~ ~ e, _ `#y 4~~V ~ 2 t 4' ~~ t ~ ~ ~,._r +. ~` t ~ a r' ~ L; 'spa - ~ .. -, U~,1 i=... _~ Meridian Planning & Zoning Commiss on Meeting February 16, 2006 Page 78 of 95 Borup: Yes, Mr. Chairman. On that backout parking that you're concerned about, does that meet current Uniform Development Code as far as -- Wilson: It does. Dimensionally. I don't have the number on top of my head, but behind ,._; a 60 degree angled spot like that our drive aisle is minimum, the requirement. Thirteen or fourteen feet or so. _ Borup: If it was -- if it was signed employee parking only or something like that, would ~` ` that make a difference? ~- Wilson: I guess from our standpoint, no. There is so much other parking on the site that it's kind of hard -- it's hard to justify spaces like that that could cause a problem, if ~--~~ you can avoid it, and the site has quite a bit of parking. -. Borup: That's true. Employees could park in the south, couldn't they? That's all, Mr. '`'' Chairman. Rohm: How about if the building were to slide -- ,..:~. '' ~K%~' ,;~ ;; Borup: The building is already built. Rohm: Oh. I guess it's not going to slide, then. I guess the property at the east could expand in there, but let's take testimony from the applicant. Strite: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Billy Ray Strite, 1010 Allante, Boise, Idaho. I'm here on behalf of the applicant in support of this application. Quite frankly, we are pleased with the positive findings and I think that the only thing, of course, is the content -- is the angled parking. I'm not going to tell you who the tenant is, but it's a coffee shop everybody knows. They do not have any access to their unit from the south of this building. The only access they have from the building is the front door and one door on the northeast corner of their building. That puts their parking some 85 feet away from the entry door and there are security issues from a national standard, they will not allow that type of distance, because they have to be there at 4:30 in the morning and so they have asked us to provide those parking spaces immediately adjacent to that door on the east side and that's the only reason they are there and I think Commissioner Borup aptly mentioned it and it is on the plan that they are signed employee parking only. And, if necessary, (suspect -- I won't use the name, but we could say coffee shop employees only, if that's the wishes of this Commission. My position is that if it is employee parking for that particular user -- and we make that clear tonight, that there isn't going to be a conflict, because those people are in there, they know how to get out of there, they know there is going to be drive-thru traffic coming through there. So, I don't think it will create a conflict and that's the reason that the tenant has asked that we provide those spaces that close to their only entry door. With that I'm happy with the staff report. Rohm: Thank you, sir. r~ ~ r s ~ .~ ~P it ~~~~i , ~. z ~~ ~ ~' t~ 7~ ~~ t ~'"~t ~~ Y x ?e ~~ ,,~? $ ~~ ` GY~ 1 S! ~p~#t, tv r ~ fC 1 •_ ~. •fC t *i?t K ~~ ~~ ~ P ~ ~ ~~ t , I ~ ~ w~: ~ i6 ~ ~,~ 1 _ g ~ ~~ @~ r~ r g~ ~ 5h~ :$ [ '~ 1 ~ T 1 ff1 r. ~'L . ~~ 3s~ ~ y" ~ ~ A h E S L ~ r V 1C,j~-; ~.~ '' Meridian Planning & Zoning Commis~on Meeting =~ February 16, 2006 Page 79 of 95 Strite: I will answer any questions. Rohm: Any questions of the applicant? ;c, Zaremba: My only comment on that would be that I can understand the concern of the current client that you're pursuing, but in many of these spaces there is turnover at some time. My thinking is we would actually want to record it on the plat or something =`~~~ that these are employee only spaces for some future tenant should that happen. Strite: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba -- Zaremba: Is there any way that -- Yt. Strite: -- can that be a condition of the approval? This is a conditional use. ~~:.~ Zaremba: Uh-huh. Right. ~~ Strite: If that is a condition of the approval. Zaremba: Can we go back and change a plat? Strite: I think the conditional use -- tell me if I'm incorrect here, but I believe the '~~: conditional use goes along with the parcel, with the building, so that if they do change hands, that conditional use is still in effect. :t "` Baird: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, even if we were at the platting stage, don't think the county assessor or who -- given the late hour -- anyway, whoever checks the plats wouldn't want that on there. Strite: Engineer. Baird: Thank you. Thank you. But, yes, if you do make it one of the conditions with regards to compatibility, that can be enforced through code enforcement if sometime a future tenant took down the signs, so you could require that they be for employees only. Borup: So, they are concerned about their employees walking a few extra feet, because there is a lot of muggings going on at coffee shops. Strite: You know, I think it's the latter. Borup: I mean I'm not understanding why they have such a concern. Zaremba: Well, I would add that spaces around the back of the building are not going to be visible for the employees. s~ ~3=`~ ~~~1 23"4 r* 4.,: !` 3 1~. S. '~1 ^ iYi:.. 'h a ~i y~ ~' t r ~: S' ~ 5 ~fi. ' Hoc,.: vL~ a ~=' ~.~R a ;;. ~ r P'~ ~ ~. ~ x r i ~~~~ { ,e t ~~ pp ~~ ~ 1 ~ ~~ 3 „ ..~~ 1 .,~ 4Fr f F ~ } ~F ,: $37~ F~. rt ly~ -'.'-4 ~~~ ~~ ~ r' ~yy .~ t ~:; k _ gy ~>c '~ _ ,~ • p-lit,,. b ~ }pq ~ ,~. fA "YJ~ l~~k~ ~ ~ lYt ~ ~ ~/~ 4 ~` f .. ~~ rte' ~~{y + Y, f~l '" ~ i ~ L Y t y~ ~ ~_ ~ ~. 1' ~^.7 ~ "1't ("~f i $ ~ J. Y8~ ~ _ t ,Id{~..w; ;,, ,y. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 16, 2006 Page SO of 95 Strite: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners -- and I think maybe David brought it up earlier or maybe it was the other David, about the police department wanting to make certain that they have visibility in all these places. The only parking that they have is in the back side of that building, means that they have to walk all the way around the back of the building and keep in mind that in this particular business it's predominately women. So, in future -- or in comment to Commissioner Borup, I think that it is a condition of this approval under this conditional use, it is subject to code enforcement if those signs are removed. Certainly we would be prepared to suggest that as part of the approval, that that is a condition. Borup: And do we know how many employees they normally have per shift? Strite: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Borup, they wanted seven spaces and that's what we provided. I think, obviously, if it was for everyday traffic, people pulling in there and backing in and out, then, there could be a potential conflict. But in my mind these are employees that know this business, they know who is -- they don't know necessarily who is coming in and out of there, but they certainly know the traffic pattern, so I don't see that as being a conflict, just particularly because of use. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. At this time I'd like to ask Norman Moore if he'd like to come forward, please. Norman must have gone home. I wonder why. Okay. Is there anybody else that would like to testify on this application? Okay. Seeing none -- Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, once the -- those parking spaces are not there now; right? Once they are there, regardless of whether there was a Conditional Use Permit, when the coffee shop moves out, they are not going to tear out the parking spaces. Rohm: But they are still going to retain an employees only parking sign. So, I think the point is that's all they are to be used for and whether it's a coffee shop or a hamburger stand, it's still employee parking only as being -- as proposed as part of this CUP. Moe: I guess a comment I would make that because of the fact that -- I mean as far as parking, it meet requirements and so we are not regards the UDC and whatnot, if you could meet all code, the condition is that the staff is just -- just doesn't want to see this happen. I, quite frankly, am a little bit concerned for security purposes if, in fact, the only entrance in the facility is one door off the east side of the main building and having employees parking on the south side with minimum visibility from Fairview Avenue and whatnot, and, in fact, they are opening at 4:30 in the morning, I would be very concerned about safety and I would like to see those parking stalls be there and I think if we do put the condition on it that it's employees parking only, I would support that. Rohm: We do have someone that would like to testify. Lyons: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, as the father of -- my name is Mike Lyons and I live at 1267 Sour Creek. As the father of a daughter who works in this kind of an establishment and knowing the things that she has to deal with getting in there at, you ~, _ ~. ~~ T` hF' 'xS F 1 ~~ i ~~ L ~ F4 ~, y k; ~~": ~u ~'c ~~~ ~~ 3 , ~'" ~ a ~w ~s :~...,,. r~.3 r 4' _ ~~ ~r . , b ~ ~ ~.fr e e~ °~ ~; - .~ ~ r ~F . $. > K ` ~C `, ~ { a }may ~~ ,' . ~ ( ~ . i6n f ~;.Ti~ F 1 .-~ 10 q p,' '.k ~A t ~? Kg`~,~ x ~~~' ~ ,,: ' ~ K ~ ? i r ^ ~?a, r jr ~N' k > w ~ a ,, trvar~giM,~}~ r i ~ Meridian Planning & Zoning Commiesion Meeting February 16, 2006 Page 81 of 95 know, 4:00 o'clock in the morning, this is something worth the Commission's serious consideration. My daughter has worked in this field now for probably going on six years and this is something that even here in Meridian that the store that -- the bright yellow store has to deal with these issues on a regular basis. Rohm: Thank you for -- Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Rohm: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: We all know which one he's talking about. Rohm: I think that we are ready to move forward with possibly closing this hearing. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move we close the Public Hearing on CUP 06-003. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on CUP 06-003. All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Okay. Now for the motion. Zaremba: Before I make the motion, I would like to confirm that there are possibly a couple of typos that need to be changed. On the staff report I'm looking at page four, the top paragraph is paragraph I, and about the third sentence says the applicant is proposing to record across-access parking agreement with the property owner to the west. I believe that should say east. Wilson: Yes. Zaremba: Okay. And -- okay. That one is correct another time. And I think that that will take care of it. Okay. Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move that we forward to the City Council recommending -- wait a minute. Borup: No. It's a CUP. r ~ ~~ ~ w 1 °t> _ wp ~ ~Z 7.'^ ee °~r~k - t ~ ~ ~. F~ _ ` . `. i ,~ r..'. ~. ~~ s 3 ~ 7l .1 {~ 4t ~ x ~ ~ t 4 i i r ,~ ~s ;'~' f _ ... q. .. ~i ~ ~~ ~k u : 4 ~~} 4 yy y,. , 1 4 rv~i 34 ~WJw [ Y ~ x ~ ~t1~ ~ a . ~~^ `~y~"~4~, ,~ dam ~; , ~~ r3+4 ~~ ~. fi _ N ~~ v ';rz f " . .~ i{, ~ ~i ~ ~~ ~ k1 ~ 5 ~~ " ~ <:: 1 t ~}~~'t Y ~ y.M.r~r f^ ~~ ~~^:. ;~ '' . ,~~- ~, x Meridian Planning & Zoning Commiss• Meeting ~ February 16, 2006 ~~ '<~ Page 82 of 95 Zaremba: We are doing it; right? Borup: Yeah. Zaremba: Okay. All right. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, move to approve file number CUP 06-003 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 16th, 2006, and the site plan labeled CU-1, dated October 26 of 2005, with the following modifications to the conditions of approval and that is that on page -- I don't have a page number, but it's Exhibit B, number one, planning department, sentence 1.2, the proposed angled parking on the west side of the building adjacent to the proposed drive-thru is not approved. No parking, et cetera, that that whole paragraph be stricken. The word should have been east, but we are deleting the whole thing, so that doesn't matter. I believe that's the only substantive change. End of motion. Moe: Would you not want to put something in regards to the employee parking in that same spot? Zaremba: I'm sorry. Yes. Let's do that. Borup: Oh, yeah. signage. Zaremba: This will be a new paragraph 1.2. The proposed angled parking on the east side of this project adjacent to the proposed drive-thru is required to be employee only parking and signage shall indicate that. Borup: For each space? Zaremba: Do we want to do that for every stall or -- I believe there should be -- Borup: I think so. Zaremba: -- signage in every stall to indicate that it's employee only parking. I don't care whether it means employees of this or of the Denny's that's going to be built next door, it just needs to say employees. Or do we want to specify that it has to be this shop? I think employee parking is good. Rohm: Employee parking is -- Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we approve CUP 06-003 to include staff comments with amendments as stated. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. ;~'a '~~ ~ ~ ' .:; ~~ ~` }i < X f~2~ .~ T. ~~ A +-+:.. r~ _ ak~-~i ~'8j'•~ ~~ ` ~ ~ L ~ S Y y!R 3 S . • jz`: ~~ - r`~~ ~- x ~ r - ~~. ~a ,za , _aa.~'~ ~,~ F 1 I ~V~ F ~M L: Y .' '1r :.2 l~3 f / y ~ f,. ~~~1 ~;.,: ~~-tom ~~~~~ Fh ~° ~~~ ~.L ~' Meridian Planning & Zoning Commi~n Meeting February 16, 2006 Page 83 of 95 Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I missed a piece of that motion as well. I will either add it or make a new motion that I further move to direct staff to prepare appropriate findings document to be considered at the next Planning and Zoning Commission hearing. Rohm: I think that that could be added to this motion. Zaremba: Okay. Does the second agree with that? Moe: Yes. Rohm: Okay. Zaremba: Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 17: Public Hearing: CUP 05-059 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a drive - thru within 300 feet of a residential district for Silverstone Towne Square by Rudeen & Associates -1660 South Jade Way: Rohm: We are -- it°s getting later. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on CUP 05-059 related to Silverstone Towne Square and begin with the staff report. Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Familiar topic here. We are discussing adrive-thru aisle on a commercial building. This one is for the bank portion of amulti-tenant retail and office space located in Silverstone Business Campus at the southeast corner of Jade Way and Overland Road. The area plan doesn't read real well. Sorry for that. The applicant did receive a certificate of zoning compliance approval to construct the proposed building and, then, was caught by the -- any drive- thru within 300 feet of a residential district needs a CUP. There is a residential district on the north side of Overland in Ada County -- I think Jewell Estates or Jewell Subdivision. Jewell Subdivision. So, that's why it's here before you for a CUP. The building is under construction with the requirement that they came through for the Conditional Use Permit for the drive-thru and, then, submit a new CZC before construction of those drive-thru facilities and use of them. I believe staffs only condition regarded the addition of some trees along the south property line in order to meet code and that a certificate of zoning compliance be submitted for the drive-thru before its use. And with that I will stand for questions. Rohm: I don't believe there is any questions of staff at this time. Could we get the applicant to come forward, please? Falwell: Mr. Chairman, Byron Falwell, Rudeen and Associates, 199 North Capital Boulevard in Boise. As you can see, a fairly straight forward three lane drive-thru for a bank tenant. Due to its orientation, we were sort of just caught by the 300 feet and that's why we qualified for conditional use. Due to the orientation of the drive-thru we ~~~ - ~~~ , '~, ,. J__s. ~~ ~,~rv f~, ~ r ~. ~; ~ -, ~tr ~~ ,~, '~ ; ~~1. ~-~f~K7~:~.. A c _ ~, 3,ae . $. . { . .' '.?' J,`. S '~'" GCa~A~~' ~ 4 i"J } ~ f:~,. r VAY ~h_+ Kit M ti~:: ~,~ ~~ kr~k Tt is A 7 ~ 31cI -Sr !; ~ Yj^~~ 4 i. ~ }' rte' Y Y 4 mot- ? ~ ~. ~~~ ,.. r{~~ H~ I ~: ~~ ~ ~' F ~~ ;I ~+ {p }'y. 4. ~ ~~ u~~7 31 ,+ .. ~L'.i3F{g. t ~: ,.,. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commn Meeting February 16, 2006 Page 84 of 95 don't believe that it will have any adverse effect on the residential area within that 300 feet, headlights or sound or smell or anything like that. The drive-thru will be just sort of integrated into the building permit setting. That will go through another building permit process like was mentioned before. I think we have some color elevations. If we need to see them we can. They are similar to the design of the building, so it's part of the building design to begin with and, then, just had to kind of separate it out once we determined that we were part of a CUP process, so any questions? Rohm: I don't think so. Thank you. Zaremba: I do have one, actually. Can you go back to the site plan? But I agree with ' ` you that sound and microphones and stuff shouldn't be a problem, but is this landscape ~~~ along there, is that bermed in any way or raised at all? Falwell: Mr. Chairman. It's slightly bermed by about three feet I think. I don't have it front of me. But it is. And there is trees as you can see. Zaremba: The next question was going to go to your statement that headlights wouldn't be a problem across there and -- Falwell: Right. <<<~~: ~` -~H r:: .'~': ~:~?t ,_ Zaremba: If this area is lower than a berm or something there, that could be true. What I was going to suggest is a few extra low bushes right there just to make sure that there is no headlights, but it may even look like that exists already. Falwell: Right. Yeah. Zaremba: Okay. So, if that's slightly bermed and there is some low bushes, I could agree with you on the headlights. Thank you. Rohm: Any other questions of the applicant? Thank you, sir. All right. Is there anybody else that would like to testify on this issue? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on CUP 05-059. Borup: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on CUP 05- 059. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. ~~ .~~~~ ,. ~~ ~~ ~~. r r w ~, sxx,~ ~~,; T~ .~ F ~~~ ~ >,;~ 5 . _ _ f r~. ~~~~~ t s S ; f~ ~: c r , ~. ~~' ~ ~ ~.~~N ~ ~a , r.hF Y .~. ,: p~;y~ ,y+; k: r ~H { f ~ },i ~^. ,~ f~}, ~71t - I N ' ~1Y 3 •. .nf~ `~~ c~ ~ ~yyy ~ s 3 } . x ~ ` ~-~ ~` bb Y~~ - ~ 9 ~~yy may; . ~~ If~~ 1 }~ ~ ~ ~. h ~~~~ F, ~'~ ~tr i „ ii~ ~ {~ y '' ~ z ^'' .,.~ 'YA., ~4. Meridian Planning & Zoning Comma ~sion Meeting February 16, 2006 Page 85 of 95 Zaremba: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve ~`` file number CUP 05-059 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 16th, 2006, and the site plan labeled CU-1 dated October 26, 2005. I further move to ,,~ ~~`" direct staff to prepare an appropriate findings document to be considered the next Planning and Zoning Commission hearing. End of motion. ~,,.t, ,; Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we approve CUP 05-059. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 18: Public Hearing: AZ 06-001 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 4.99 acres from R2 to a R-4 zone for Buckeye Place Subdivision by John Fackelman -east of Black Cat Road and south of Cherry Lane: Item 19: Public Hearing: PP 06-001 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 16 building lots and 2 common lots on 4.99 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Buckeye Place Subdivision by John Fackelman -east of Black Cat Road and south of Cherry Lane: Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on AZ 06-001 and PP 06-001, both items related to Buckeye Place Subdivision and begin with the staff report. Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Buckeye Place Subdivision is located south of Cherry Lane and east of Black Cat. It's currently zoned R-2 Ada County. It is surrounded by previously approved and developed subdivisions, Castlebrook to the southwest, Rod's Parkside Creek to the east, Pintail Pointe to the north, and to the south there is a -- we have Ten Mile Creek, Fuller Park, which is owned by the Ada County Recreation District, not the City of Meridian, and, then, some other existing subdivisions. As you can see, it is one of the last parcels in the area to develop. It does have a stub road to the north property line that is proposed to be continued into the project. That did require a cul-de-sac variance for the length of the cul-de-sac. Staff does support that. There really is no other option. Ten Mile Creek is on the south and west and there are developed subdivisions on the north and east. So, this is their only roadway connection, their only access to the site, and staff is supportive of that variance. A couple things to mention. There is a pathway connection from the southern terminus of the cul-de-sac connecting to Fuller Park. There is a City of Meridian multi-use pathway that moves through Fuller Park along the Ten Mile Creek. The applicant is proposing to do some off-site improvements to connect to that pathway and also bring that pathway through their storm water drainage lot. Staff is supportive of that design. You won't be able to see it probably on this plan, but in the southwest corner there is a 225 square foot lot, Lot 9, Block 1, that will be donated to the City of Meridian to be included with that pathway. What that does is gives the pathway a little ;~ ;, ~x7 >~:~ ~~ 1:; ;~ ~ ,~; L'`~ N 4 ~` ,ZY ) T ~; t $ 1 i 1~~ 4 i MI < ~ .~ ~ A t1 ~ $~f - .4 j iS~ ~ y ~ ~ ~C~w {{ f ~ ~h - y ~ ax Y 'Sv! ~ _ ,j~ r ~ ' _ !i 3~ t,n,. I~~tR. a~ ~~F Y ~ S - l 1 ~. r Hx LF ~ .9 ~ ~ ' ~~ k ~ ~ ,; ~ +~ ~ "7"rJ 'f 1 ~ `fi`g. ~~ j Kr ` ~ t~ ~ '; h ~ L F ~.? y, { ` 't C 5 ~, ~; ~ ~ ..: - . -, ~ _ . . xr .., ....... _ .. . . .. ,uYV` >;=.m Meridian Planning & Zoning Comm ssion Meeting February 16, 2006 Page 86 of 95 `~ more breathing room as it rounds that corner. It's extremely tight. We felt like that the ` ~ safest and most efficient routing of that pathway would be accomplished by kind of "`'` clipping the corner there. The applicant agreed to that. So, that is their proposal. The fire department did restrict on-street parking on Lot 20 and Lot 18 at the north edge of Fy the property, due to the landscape island that restricts fire access through there. So, have added a condition that there is no on-street parking on those two lots. I did speak with some gentlemen in the audience that did have to leave, had some concerns about ~~~ traffic, so I will -- I will voice those to the Commission for them. They were the `-~~ homeowners association presidents of the surrounding neighborhood. I believe they ~_ti said to the north and to the west. They were concerned about traffic at this location s here. And, I apologize, I can't read that street name. Golf View. They were concerned _ a; ~ about the additional traffic and construction traffic that this subdivision would add ., '-r~~ through that intersection where they represented there has been many close call accidents. So, I did tell them I would present their concerns. They are going to submit '-, their concerns in writing for the City Council hearing. I guess on that note I would just `' or both required that this property be stubbed to, it was dd that when ACRD or the cit y a anticipated that any development on this property would connect to that stub and route through that subdivision. They did ask we consider some off-site improvements. It's kind of outside the scope of this subdivision. They want some speed bumps and stop f~~ signs elsewhere in this neighborhood. That would be outside the scope of what's before you tonight. And, once again, this traffic was anticipated by ACHD when they required that stub street. So, I think with that I will end staffs comments and stand for any ,.. ,: questions. _°,Y Rohm: Thank ou. Questions of staff? >~~~ y ``~~ Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, just a comment on the portion that's going to be deeded to ~- ~;_ Meridian, probably the parks department. I noticed that in the staff report as I was reading through it, but I didn't question it until you reminded me that the rest of Fuller ~.: , ^~ Park doesn't belong to the City of Meridian, it's Ada County Recreation or something r r~ ``'~_ like that. Would it make more sense to deed this portion to them and let them maintain `~~ the whole thing or does the City of Meridian want that? '~~ ~f~ Wilson: The pathway is ours. I think -- and I could be wrong, maybe I'll let the applicant ~.4, help me out here. I think Ada County Recreation District's ownership is clipped at that =~ corner. I do not believe it continues around the corner. And so the pathway is the City of Meridian's, so that's where that came from. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. The second question, actually, would be for Mr. Cole. `'~_ We have a letter from Mr. Mark Goins, I believe his name is, and on the first page of the k letter, line 20, he says: I am also concerned that if the catch basin is allowed to be this ,.y; ~ small, runoff will regularly overFlow into Ten Mile Creek and, then, he goes on to ~~~~= describe how that happens and where it happens other places. Have you had a chance `~~``` to review whether or not you feel that catch basin is adequate? .~ rt fir` { :'^ ~sr dy . G ° '~ . , } ~~ ~ ,' A ~ ~r a ° ~ , '. ~ s { ~~:~ ~ y, S .y ~ Krr ~~, ~ ~~ f ' enr ~: : r ~ „ r~1 fI ~' ~; fi ' s r ~ St ~!! 4~' ! ~s ~~ . y~ , 6 '~~ ~ (?~. J r ~ i~. } L~ Ly i ~r 7~ ,fir ,~..c ..59r~ ~,... (• i ~~ ~~ ~rt~ n~ ~, r ~ c ~ ~~'.. is ~~~ ~ t , Ali ,~ ~- r i ~ ~ ~: C. . ~ ,.. `>''t Meridian Planning & Zoning Comm scion Meeting ' February 16, 2006 Page 87 of 95 Cole: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Chairman Zaremba, the catch basin I assume he is talking to the retention pond. Catch basin is, generally, a term used in a street that catches the water and, then, runs it through a pipe facility to a underground ~~~" subsurface facility or a pond of this nature. ACHD is actually the governing entity of the stormwater runoff. However, they do require that it's designed to take a hundred year storm event. So, this -- he calls it a catch basin, this drainage pond would have to be r;; designed to maintain a hundred year storm event. In addition to that, if they did have an overflow facility to go to the Ten Mile Creek, which is a standard procedure when there r-'~ is a receiving body of water that they enter into a license agreement with the receiving body, they can't discharge pre-development flows to that. They would have to enter into ~~~ a license agreement with that receiving body, at which point they would have to prove that it was treated out to meet any EPA Clean Water Act regulations for the clean water. '` I don't know if you wanted -- there is some other questions. I read Mr. Goins' letter 4:~_. ;3 about wetlands and some groundwater issues. There was a geologist report from a professional engineer that we reviewed prior to -- during the submittal of this that had the water at over five and a half foot deep for the seasonal high is what his professional recommendation was. He noted no wetlands on the site. It's possible that the water that Mr. Goins was looking at was due to flood irrigation or just standing water of some sr'`~`~ nature. I think that was everything in his letter that I saw that I could answer to and I would stand for any questions. Zaremba: Thank you. You answered mine. Rohm: Would the applicant like to come forward, please? Harris: First I'll say good morning. I'm Kevin Harris. Business address 1800 West Overland Road in Boise, representing the owner John Fackelman. This is a great in-fill project, you know, nice size lots for an in-fill and, you know, a pathway system connecting up to Fuller Park and we agreed with all the conditions your staff has and I would stand for any questions. Rohm: Great presentation. Thank you. Any questions of the applicant? It doesn't ``'~~ appear as we have any. Okay. But we do have quite a list here. Felix Dias. Jim `"~~~` Beam? Maybe that's better. Is there anybody else that would like to testify on this ~` ~'° application? Please come forward, sir. ' "~~ Goins: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, I'm Mark Goins, the writer of the letter. I live at 1267 ~~~~~, Sour Creek. And my primary concern here is -- you know, I agree that Mr. Fackelman has his property and has a right to develop it in a responsible way. My concern is as ~'°~ somebody who's lived -- and I live a few feet -- a, ti~rv~ Rohm: There should be a -- { Goins: Oh, that's right. That's right. I live right here. Okay. And this cul-de-sac here drains to the drainage pond here and it routinely will flood all the way from the cul-de- '~`~~ sac more than the drainage pond can handle and, then, it has to flow out to the Ten Mile ~~~ ~r ~ '»~ 4 r' . ~ `~`' i" "x1~a~krF ~.. LN~~~ :'?S' i'.4 C1's14 S .tJ Y- ~ ~. ry f { 1 - ` ` T 1 J ~~ '~Rf! T~~Si~ 3 .~ . ~y's.~"hA; h, s ~ ! 5 .T ~ p Fr.., i ,~ cn.~i ~:~;... ., N' ~~ 3 Y 2 5j 6~' ~Y ~~ i~ `'~ r tr, ; 1 { k~~ M+ .~. ~ z~ h'~ ~~, f y- ,w~ ~~ ~ r.. ~ ~ ?: ca ~ V c'~ ~ ;~ ~. 2 . ~. '~I n . ~'~. ~t a t s~~5. .fit, Y ~ {'. 7r .'. P.' ~ t a ' +~`~ ' 3! Meridian Planning & Zoning Common Meeting ~~ ~":_~ February 16, 2006 Page 88 of 95 '~ Creek. I have talked with ACHD about this. I have talked with them many years ago ~:~ about stormwater issues, and even before we were either phase one or phase two, you ~'~ = know, Boise is phase one, we are coming up on phase two permitting this summer and z:y` they didn't seem to have a clear understanding of how to -- what to do to keep that water from overflowing, because they didn't seem to want to regulate that and my concern, based upon the history of what's happening over here is that what we have ~~~1`' here is not going to be adequate and as somebody who came from an area where water quality became a major issue, the issue that happened that -- what happened with that is once we had a few contamination situations into like Ten Mile Creek and such, we had people coming into the affairs that we really didn't want showing up. Sierra Club and all these other organizations. And so my point is that we take a proactive position in being conservative about these kinds of issues, rather than with all the development that's going in Meridian and that five years from now people from outside the area come F,~ in and tell us how to run our business, because we were a little bit lax in running our business today. And so I'm asking that this study be seriously considered as to whether it's adequate. As they said, the water level is five years -- I mean the water level in the height zone is only five feet down. Well, we have floods up here every -- every strong rain we have we will have a flood there. In fact, we have had neighbors drain pools and _ flood that, so -- in fact, the City of Meridian hasn't had the wherewithal to be able to do ~~~ ~ anything about that, so that's why I bring this up over here. If we can't even control what's already there -- and this is a very large drainage basin, it's what appears to be `~`~~' the dry retention type, but it does have wetland vegetation growing in it, as I stated in t my letter. So, that's my major concern is that we need to be good stewards of the water ,:.::,, that we discharge at Ten Mile Creek, we discharge at the Boise River, and so I just want ~:~~ to make sure that's well designed. Thank you. ~ Rohm: Thank you, sir. Mike, would you care to comment? ~,,, ~~ Cole: Mr. Chair, I couldn't really speak to the storm system that was installed with the ~y.''~,~ Rod's Parkside Creek development. I think that's the subdivision. I don't know why `~ that's flooding. I know that today that you take the square footage of the asphalt that's u~' being proposed in this subdivision and half of the grass for the lots, take a one inch acre over that whole site and a hundred year storm event and that pond that -- their retention °`~ ~ pond that they are proposing has to maintain that entire event, plus they will have some r sort of seepage bed facility in the bottom of that to -- that takes the water in as it's coming in, but it will be designed to hold the entire one hundred year storm event. So, I -~rt° don't -- I don't see any possibilities of the overflow to the Ten Mile Creek. '~:; Rohm: I think it's suffice to say that the design of this retainage pond is not necessarily "~~~.,^ going to match that of the one that was brought up by public testimony. ~~~ Goins: That's correct. _ ~Y. '` ~~~ Rohm: Thank you, sir. Okay. Is there anybody else that would like to testify for this -~~ application? Okay. That being said, I'd entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing. ~;; ~s f~ ~ ~ ~ SF "~ :.: ~~~ 44 ...pCfc•~+. ~ .~3t ~. 4 Fj "^> '' 4 t' r, ~v -~: f '~ , y l "~ ~ ~ y~, g ~ A ~F ~ Zy~!?~ { ~,. !~ t ~: ~, n ./ d:; F ~ Tom . ~ n~:. *` K .-~:.-V _ ~. i' , p c~ 1f . .f i~"+y$ ~ ~1~ ~x .rte. 7 ,-x F r~ ~ . -~ '- x +~(, :, `~~~$ . ~: >. ~~,ye r-~ ~^ L !;y" Meridian Plannin & Zonin Common Meetin g g g February 16, 2006 Page 89 of 95 <~ ~ Zaremba: Would the applicant care to respond to anything that's been said or -- Rohm: Okay. Any comments from -- Borup: I move we close the Public Hearing. Rohm: Thank you. -; Borup: If someone wants to second it. y~ Newton-Huckabay: Oh. Second. ~w~~~~ Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-001 ~t.:~, and PP 06-001. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed same sign? Motion ~. carries. „ . MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. ~~'~ Borup: Mr. Chairman? '~~} Rohm: Commissioner. °-~ ~' - ~::; ~~ ~` Borup: I move to recommend approval to City Council of file numbers AZ 06-001 and ' `~ PP 06-001 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 16th, 2006, . ~ with the preliminary plat dated November 30th, 2005. End of motion. Moe: Second. '~~~~~`~ Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 06-001 and PP 06-001. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same ~~ sign? Motion carries. ``~"k'~',. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. ~~ ,~ Item 20: Public Hearing: CUP 05-061 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a 12,680 square foot commercial building housing a Denny's Restaurant and retail uses on 1.7 acres in the I-L zone by Mark Chang - 3155 East Fairview Ave: Rohm: You know what, we are going to do it. Mr. Strite has been very patiently waiting for this last one, so at this point in time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on CUP 05- 061 and start with the staff report. Thank you folks for coming in. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. Hopefully, you remember, just a little while ago, there was an application for a coffee shop with adrive-thru. This site is directly to the east of that site and it is for a Denny's restaurant and future retail ~ Fti'f r,.1 ,~ ~ ~ 3 i ; c ... v - ~ t .tee w - 2M '~ t -, ~, ~~r ~ r. ~~~ ~ ~ ~ L ~ ~~~ r vii ~:~~ 4 ~ "~ ~ f ~ YA ~~~~, .p ry4' . i ~ ~~ ~~ .. ..: fi t~~ f ar,a` '~ t rs. "~ t=~ i.~ ~~' r .`cn.' y sit ~ ~. n'K4~V, ~~~ - ~' 'i$ t t ~ kr '« a~ l~~ £s ) y, SC }.' ~~ ~. •y «i+ ~ j 1' ~L S" ' - K ~ ` $ iv ~r F } '+ ~ i to- H! r t ~ Ml .1~~~ , f i -_'~' l'; r-J. Meridian Planning & Zoning Comm• n Meeting February 16, 2006 !:•: ~ Page 90 of 95 uses as well. The square footage of the building is escaping me now. I think it's somewhere in the neighborhood of 12,000 square feet. A little over half of that will be for future retail business use. I won't belabor the application. There are some elevations. As Josh mentioned, this is on an entryway corridor and the applicant has submitted a design review application. They do comply with all of the design review standards for this building, architecturally, and site layout wise. I guess the only -- and I apologize, I didn't pull the condition, because I had one similar to Josh's that prohibited that parking along the western side of the building. It doesn't show up very well on this site plan. If anyone can find the condition quicker than I can. Yeah. It's on that side. So, Denny's is actually on the opposite side. That's the other retail uses. This, actually, does a pretty good job of showing the property line, because half of those parking stalls are on the subject site and half of them are on the adjacent site. There is just a clarification. I won't belabor the point. I think we have already hashed through that and you guys have made a decision. I guess just for clarification, the width of that drive aisle was not discussed. It's about 20 feet wide from curb to curb or the back of the stalls to the curb of the building there. And just for clarification, that 20 feet, we do need a 13 foot back up area, one way drive aisle for 45 degree parking. As currently shown, that would only leave us a seven foot wide drive-thru lane now. Most cars are seven or eight feet wide. Our standard lane for one way traffic each direction area 20 foot one, or, I guess to put it in other terms, you can get two-way traffic. So, if we are getting two lanes out of there and some to backup and someone to also wait in the coffee line, it looks like you need about three more feet to actually back up and meet code. So, just for clarification, if you want to strike that condition that says remove the parking, that's fine, but if you can word some condition that says either just generally comply with the UDC for dimensional standards for backup and the drive-thru lane width, or 23 feet would give them a ten foot wide drive-thru lane and a 13 foot wide back up area slash one-way traffic for parked cars to exit. That would be my only request, I guess, of the staff report. With that I will end my comment and stand for any questions you may have. Rohm: Thank you, Caleb. Any questions of staff? Borup: That was on 1.2? { Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, Commissioner Borup, the 1.2 -- there is a couple of parking stalls that were a little shorter than what are generally required by code as well. The 1.3 would be the one that refers to the angled parking. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Caleb, do you have a -- more of a pulled back view of this area that shows like all the other developments that have gone in right in there? ~t 1~ b x ~ ,~ ~ ~ L G ~ .~ ~~ ~~~~ `y'y'~ . 7 cG ~e ~(~. 0.~ _. t.... YS ` ... ..r ~)v~. A~ ~~ ~` , ? ~ t '~'~w ri i ~ ~111'R~1T{y ~, ~ ) @~ 1 ~ P R~1~¢''~r" 1~' ndl~C..~.'~''- `~ ku? ~' ~W} h '.~fi~' i, ~ I ~'k ... a"~p: I~ t .~ Y~+ .~±'. !~ f r, 4' S t .t1ti }4jll .Y;~ ~~~ "~. I file ,~` , S k~~, t 2 ~~~`~ w ~ ~ ': . ! ~ . _ .i - w ~ 'b ~~f~'+ Q. ..AT ~~ ~~ S~ g , r ~ i 7~~~: r „ 4~# ~ i Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 16, 2006 Page 91 of 95 Hood: It doesn't look like there is an aerial here. was one -- L' I'm going to go back and see if there Newton-Huckabay: I'm just trying to get -- there is so much built in there now with that -- and I'm trying to get a visual about where they all interconnect -- Hood: Sure. And this is three years old now. So, the site that -- again, that's highlighted here is actually the Denny's site. Office Value is the building that's there, so that's accurate. What's between this site now and the intersection is the Krispy Kreme. There is a Blue Sky Bagel and other multi-tenant buildings there that are brand new and those are the two buildings, primarily, between the subject site and I'm not sure if Red Robin, actually, is on the same plane, but it's in between there, too. South of this site there is a lot that hasn't developed. Those four lots that are directly south, they are not buildings there today. There is a public street, as you can see on the aerial that's constructed today. I can't remember if it's Oliver or Jewell that comes in through there and, then, comes to the Hickory and this is -- the new signal is here. So, this is the last lot with frontage between Hickory and Eagle that is yet to develop. There is cross- access -- there is a driveway right here that we are working -- and that's in the conditions of approval, too. There is an ugly island in the center of that drive aisle that only leaves about a 12-foot wide drive aisle on either side of that. The fire department has complained about large trucks, you really have to slow down on Fairview, even if you're just driving a regular car, to make that turn there. They are going to be removing that, but just to orient you a little bit more, there is a calming -- this spine road almost, really, for the subdivision that ties Fairview back into Jewell, the public street system, I guess, internally. So, hopefully, you can use your imagination from 2003 and kind of -- Borup: So, we do have good cross-access and interconnectivity -- Newton-Huckabay: Well, see, that's my -- that's my complaint, because when I'm in there -- I mean I'm aware of everything that's in there, but that is the most awkward piece of land to get around in in there and Ijust -- I'm trying to get -- you know, now we have added all the -- but, then, there is also -- one of those roads is actually closed right now, too, I think, for -- Hood: It was. It recently opened -- Newton-Huckabay: Did it reopen? Hood: -- just a week or two ago and that's what I was saying that cross-access road, they had it closed for construction and someone had parked a trailer or two in one of those drive aisles. If you tried to go around Red Robin you had to go back out around. That should be a temporary inconvenience with the subdivision Treasure Valley Business Center phase one, that was approved late '90s, I believe. There were three or four access points on Fairview Avenue, so that's already predetermined. There is a larger -- and some of this has re-subdivided, like the Krispy Kreme lot is, actually, a re- subdivision into three lots of an original lot of that first phase. There is an existing •LT r5S7h~2kFYP~ } ~:~~ r~. ~ ., ~ e ~ ~ '~~3'"P 'ue ff!' ' ~ ta:E 4. E~,. ~`T ~h~t~ti~. ~ ~ ~ ~ y ~ ~ ~ .~5.,~ L ~~:~.. n u M ~~~• r k 3 a ,~T,~ ,, .. rr Y ~ I ~ 4~ ;~ ~~ c y S l ~~~SAy', ', r ~ ~ 1: ~- ~`~ G f ~ ° ,~, - ':sue. H' ~s£ ~ `-''F:, Y ~ . ~ ~~ H ~ x ~~~ r W q - l _ y j $ + e r i~ -+e `~i~iw- ~ 4 ~ l ~~ ~ ~ , ~~ ~ ~ a ~ ~~ _ .'4'i .'+ ~~ - Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 16, 2006 Page 92 of 95 agreement for this cross-access. I don't think that parking is covered in that agreement with the plat back then. The applicant is proposing primarily I think the ones that are on the shared property line there, but as a general rule of thumb there is cross-parking there. I did also notice when I have been driving by there recently that cars are parking along side of this driveway that is -- what is the back side of Blue Sky Bagels and I believe a Shanghai Restaurant or something like that. Newton-Huckabay: Fusion. Hood: Fusion. That also should be temporary. There is a little over a hundred parking stalls proposed on this site and, as Josh mentioned before, I think there is about a hundred on that Office Value site, too. So, some of that overFlow I imagine will probably come this way and when you get the lot to the south to develop again -- Newton-Huckabay: It probably, actually, will improve the parking overall in that area. Hood: I believe so. Newton-Huckabay: That was my only question. Thank you. Rohm: Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward, please? Strite: Yes, sir. Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, Billy Ray Strite, 1010 Allante. We are pleased with the staff report. If one could make a motion to delete item 1.3, we would be consistent with the previous application and I'm ready to go home. Rohm: Thank you, sir. Zaremba: I think the question Ihave -- would you be willing to shorten the retail building by about three feet to make those parking spaces longer? Strite: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, there is room to push those over if we need to anyway. We have about seven feet, eight feet, between the building and that side of the curb. Zaremba: Oh. Okay. Strite: We just thought that more landscaping would be preferable to more paving, but if that's asuggestion -- Zaremba: To make the drive aisle behind them a little bit wider. Strite: Yes. Zaremba: Three feet, is that what we were looking for? ~, ., t; ~ .~ ~ „3 v i MJ~ . ~ - ~~~ , ~ ~ ta `:aY~.... K ~,ti ~~ ~ ~ 4 ~'~} r yK, j ~ }~ '!' F ~~ ~~~ x ~ i+ `; C t ~ ~ #: ~. ~x3 i; ~_..w~~_._ .. ~ a.~~f ~~ ~; ^~ k ~ ' _ ~,n, ~!~.+~~t:: 3 ~ 5 ~. t_ •+ r~s: k. ;: y r ,~ ~~ ~+ ,r n M~+ ' F i Y 3 -f .p~1r /~~. l Y Y ~ ~~~ 3 Y ~" ~~ t~.... .... ~. r.. ~ .. .. .L - 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ j ~7 ~,~ ti ~ ~ ~~ X ~~~~ t' ~ Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 16, 2006 Page 93 of 95 Strite: Yeah. That would be absolutely no problem. ~~}~ Zaremba: It would have to happen on this property, not the previous one, because all '`'4 that is is the painted tail end of these parking spaces, but the front of the parking spaces s. R: is -- Strite: No. We would move them easterly, if you will. Zaremba: Enlarge them to -- Strite: Enlarge them if you would, yes. Zaremba: Yeah. Strite: That would be fine. Zaremba: Okay. Rohm: Any other questions of the applicant? Strite: Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to testify on this application? Seeing none -- Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move the Public Hearing on CUP 05-061 be closed. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on CUP 05-061. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? ~`~~ Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. .r ~ Zaremba: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve '~~~. file number CUP 05-061 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February ~. '~-~~ 16, 2006, and the site plan labeled CU-1, dated October 12, 2005. I'm sorry to interrupt r~,;; here, but those numbers sound familiar. We have had that same thing on two or three "~'`~ other ones. Are we sure this is accurate and not just boilerplate? ,~, Hood: Mr. Chair, I'm fairly confident. The other applicant was also BRS, so they may have used the same sheet number. Project numbers are probably different. ,~_~.- ;; ;~~t ` ~~ . ~ ~ .. ~~ b t `~ ' ,. ~~ V, ~` ~~ ,~.z _ ~k ~ ~ ' j a; s ~. ,< ~~,~~~_ ~ i~ i~ r` ~ tto-`„1"' ~'F t:-. ~1t 1 ~L~F ' f .~;.u r, Y "~ '~ ? of , l~ } S ~ i • 7, 'r " T ` Y ~ ~. ~.. ' 4 . ~~lll i r^ y ~. f ~ A~1. T ~' ~.Yi ~. r~ ~ '& ~ s.y. J~~~'~1~. s ' !~ ~/ ~' C ^~ x in c 1~1` i ~ ~ , xlm.l~., -, 6-:.`°"~ Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting "'~ February 16, 2006 ',4 Page 94 of 95 ~__ ~'~ Zaremba: I'm, actually, looking at it and this is accurate in what it says. Let me -x"" continue. And the site plan labeled CU-1, dated October 12, 2005, with the following ~`~ modifications to the conditions of approval. That would be on Exhibit B, page one, '~~- paragraph 1.3, the proposed angled parking on the west side of the building adjacent to '`~t ~n:.. _~ the proposed drive-thru on the property to the west, is approved if the spaces are ~`~ enlarged and moved to the west to enlarge the drive aisle behind them. ~~~~ Borup: And comply with the UDC. ;=::~ Zaremba: And to comply with the requirements of UDC for angled parking. ~.. Moe: East. Yes. That you moved to the east. Zaremba: They moved to the east. I'm sorry. It's the west end of the building, but the spaces will be moved to the east to enlarge the drive aisle behind them. End of motion. ~~~ Borup: Second. Rohm: Moved and seconded that we approve CUP 06-001, to include all staff comments with the amendments as stated. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Yes. ,`r Zaremba: Since we have already dealt with Items 21, 22 and 23, I move we adjourn. ~'~~' Moe: Second. ~~ .. :-~'~ Rohm: Moved and seconded we adjourn. All in favor say aye. -';~ MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. >-~.~ Rohm: We are done. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12:24 A.M. ~_ ~~~ - ~~ ri ~ ~ ?;,; ~~~ - ~~:~ ,~y,~ +.~, 't. Y t1 ~~`V k~ n } ~C IF i ~. ~ ~S3~M~. ;,~ da r ' r ~ ` n ~ ~~i~ 4 1 rv1~ tr r- ?~ ~ N qq'~~.~ L ,~iC 4'~ 55~ ~ ~ Q ~ i ;~~ ct tip,, f'.' ~t 2 d x y ~F y,e 4 r hey ~ ~ `` i t .r by -~ "h`RV~ f ~~ + r ~+(~ c e , ~ ~~~:;' tat Y ~ ~ Y~ Z I,y1 ~. t ~~17f{A~49~ - - C ~~4 1 , -t: < Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 16, 2006 Page 95 of 95 (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED: MICHAEL ROHM -CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTESTED: -~~ LLIAM G. BERG. JR., CITY CLER '° °~ ~~Y 1 7} {C. f: ' ~~1 L r ~-1 I f ~ ~;! 2'~ ,r, :V 1 _ ~~ . iif a a sZ .,i_ t a ~ r ,f ~ ''~ s 5 y. K ~~ y - ~ g ..i w{' ~h A¢ J~ ~ ~S(~~ } , ~Y ',' i ~i '~~' a'~ .YY~ k ~ r ~ ~~ _,_ , ~ .pn 4 C ~ ~ ~ ~~. e ~7 - hS ~?k~ i r ~~ ~ ~~ s - Mr. xi ~ Y s xx_~ Q '~ ~ ~ ~.. a~ ~~ r~ c ~ `~ ~t t ~~ s f. ~~~"~ ;;~~',~~ '+3~ s r ~ r ( ~~ ~x ~ 5 ~~ y r l 4 A i } S.~' tK` ^' ':. f i+ .,r; J F :s@: _. ~~' ~,~. .. s ; ~3 .,~~. f: ~; ;; ,~ ~: `~ ~r ~., .: ~~; ';'r "?~ :, 4: ar ;- t{ `~, :.~., ~: r6 ~ ~.l' ~.. ,• -a.~, < i~: r, ~: -; ~ i~r 0 ~ CUP 05-054 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING February 16, 2006 APPLICANT Ada County ITEM NO. 3~~ REQUEST Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law -CUP for a new facility for Ada County Weed, Pest & ,, 4 it l~ ~~ ~ ~ y 'S~. }~ zt;`; r : a,~; `'~: .::~, ._ A- f~. ;_~: .~~ ~€ 'r .'~ ~~~ fi: r tt 'p`. S~ ~" 7 .Glf vx. ~.lti l ..ti f.S:H~,~ and 2 storage buildngs in an I-L zone for Weed 8~ Pest Control Campus - s/o E. Pine Ave & w/o Locust Grove Rd Mosquito Abatement Operations consisting of a main administration building, a covered vehicle storage building AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See attached Findings CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. :... • • ~ ~~~. ..~.. .~ ~'~ ~ : Y ». ~ c rFV' rr~ ~~~'~,,~i`~' ~ ~,~~ _ e CITY OF MERIDIAN ~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ !~ FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF - f, ~!~•`~~? ~~ LAW AND tQar, DECISION & ORDER ~ `~~' °'3 i `~ ,,~ tiu: ~' i~`. . ~~'.: In the Matter of Ada County Weed and Pest Control Campus, a Conditional Use Permit Asti:': for detailed approval of a public, quasi-public use in an I-L Light Industrial District. ~' Case Nos .CUP-OS-054 ~,,_ O ' ` For the Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: February 2, 2006 ~•.; .., . ~~,_;E A. Findings of Fact a, ..: "` 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of January 5, 2006 F '~` incorporated by reference) ~, ~~ 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of January 5, 2006 ' "' incorporated by reference) R.' ;~ ~;~, 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of January „~ 5, 2006 incorporated by reference) f ~°~ t 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the ~,, -> ~ hearing date of January 5, 2006 incorporated by reference) `~ :~ ~ B. Conclusions of Law ' I F'k '~' ~' 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 (LC. §67-6503). `~ ~ 2. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission takes judicial notice of its Unified ~' I Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps ' thereof. The City of Meridian has, by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted August 6, .: 2002, Resolution No. 02-382 and Maps. 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § ''' 11-SA. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER ;~, CA5E NO(S). CUP-OS-054 - PAGE I of 4 k` 4 s.i ~ ~ ~J,t phi - .ti . i n~ri i, .,:~~:w'F'..:, (Y~v'A'E iii;i.i~`±"ry!~ obi. ~":1.~,.- °'~ ; :~1:::. ~;. nay ,. ~.~~ ~~ ~ ~ *~ ti ;~ ; ,xs °'~ . . r ~~ :. 11 .fir t ~ ~ n.b ~ } Rai " `~ ~ ~~'' J i t ~, n ~. ~4 ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ T w^P T~ N i r X~ ~F~ ' r i. ,i y ~ R k Y b i t {k ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, } Sn~ ~ ~ u d ~f. ~ ~t~ , t _ ~ ~ ~ 4 M~' J ~ "` ~ r! ~ i`~ ' 7~ ~~ t f:61 ~~t. ~~ ~l ~ i,,. y~. Yr 2k r ~_ k 5 ~ - _ ~ ~ ~ r~ ~ ~ } ~ ' , ` ,~ ~3 G`SM'?.': . r ,. .. i ~ ~.. ~. ^ '~ { g, k,' ;6 5 ~3 ~. ,, a '_ ~;, ~. 3. ,, ~,.~E ::; :~f 5' 1, ;.: y • L_J 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in acco k and then opy selrved~by the shall be signed by the Commission Chap an~~t the Public Works Department and Clerk upon the applicant, the Planning p any affected party requesting notice. 7. That this approval is subject to the Legal Description,ri 1 date of J January onditions of Approval all in the attached Staff Report for the hear g 5,2006incorporated by reference. The conditions axe coo f a ud o al of the apple ationa the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition pp C. Decision and Order & Zonin Commission's authority as provided in Meridian City Pursuant to the Planning g Code § 11-SA and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant's CUP Site Plan as evidenced by havingdsubmitted the Site Plan dated November 14, 2005 is hereby conditionally approved; an , royal are as shown in the attached Staff 2. The site specific and standard conditio5s200~ uzcorporated by reference. Report for the hearing date of January D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits (as applicable) 1. Notice of Eighteen (18) Month Conditional Use Permit Duration Please take notice that the conditional use permit, when granted oved b ethe Cityr a maximum period of eighteen (18) months unless otherwise app Y During this time, the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord wi oval, conditions of approval, satisfy the requireme construction of peermanent foot gsor and acquire building permits and commen structures on or in the ground. For conditional use permits that also require platting, the final plat must be recorded within this eighteen (18 hm~, a~ P o°~e fir s phases In the multiple phases, the eighteen (18) month deadlines pp Y event that the development is made in successivsuccessgveuntervalsnof one (1) year phases, such phases shall be constructed within from the original date of approval. If the successive phases are not submitted within the one (1) year interval, the conditional approval of thanetfurior tohthe terminationuo the void. Upon written request and filed by the applic p 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 CITY OF MERIDIAN FI 4D PAGE O~ 0 4CT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP-OS OS ~:., ~~ 1 r' ~~ ~' _ . . .~ ~ ~ Y ~ y ~. ~, e ,~, x;4' 4~~f ~ ~ F:. ,„, r ~, s: ~ ~?, ; 4. Y . k ~, .. ' " [ ; S ~~ ~l ~ : ~ 1 . ~ fi , ~' ~ - ~ } . Y, ( f1 x ty'y~-~ i ~' F ;y:,: g>, ~ ~ { t l } .:, ~ , { 7~~ ,.; t v y }. ~ ' 4 d« 1~ C ~ l l.y t. ~~ {L l i rt ~ ~ :~ ^' 4 ~ t1r ,•~~~', w pP } ~ t ~: ;_ b ~ 1 > `~~?' r ~ . 1 ;. j ~ t:' i rlt y r r}. ~ j..r '~} '~ x A, ._~ ~~ A ' time extensions up to eighteen (18) months as determined and approved by the the Director or Commission may Commission maybe granted. With all extensions, require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11. E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis 1. The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code 67-8003, nd a a ysis. plat or conditional use permit entitles the Owner to request a regulatory g Such re uest must be in writing, and must be filed with the City Clem nssue~ A request q the matter `~' twenty-eight (28) days after the final decision concerning for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review maybe filed. ' bod of the City of 2. Please take notice that this is a final ac6521 an aaffect pe son being a person who has Meridian, pursuant to Idaho Code § 67 an interest in real property which maybe adversely affected by the issuance or denial of the conditional use permit approval may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of ,, ~~ this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. F. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of January 5,2006 ~~ x ~. Y. ,dG By action of the Planning & Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the ~l c~~'''` day of ~1~~~-~ -~ 2006. VOTED~_ COMMISSIONER MICHAEL ROHM VOTED COMMISSIONER DAVID MOE COMMISSIONER WENDY NEWTON-HUCKABAY VOTED VOTED COMMISSIONER KEITH BORUP -VOTED COMMISSIONER DAVID ZAREMBA CHAIRMAN MICHAEL ROHM Attest: CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP-OS-054 -PAGE 3 of 4 i.,. t: 7 4'Y"t '' ~~ ~S,x ~ 4i. i '` S r' ~ ~ ~ ~h,~ ~ 1 . ~ ~ ~ c .r, `479w~ Y '~ ~ C~„... ~ k4 ?~t t~ z L ~~:'S R i *~ Y 1~~ ~,! T ~ z~s~ . 1 4~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ SZ +i r k z ~ o- r# ~ ,, ;~ ~ .: .y l ~ ~ ~ } S =~ A ~ ~ 1 - Jy ~ Y'. i~ s ~V„, ~` ' :~~ ~ S ~ Tl .4 Y ~``~~~I ~ jV~` i ""~~ a ,~ = s ., , ~ rrtre~~~~'' V Tara Green, Deputy City Clerk ,_.. .~..~ ~~~ ,~c~ Copy served upon Applicant,"T1-~~~~~~en~ ~,~~~~ e Attorney. Public Works Department and City By: r/ Dated: b~ ~ ~ -d City Clerk's Of ce CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP-OS-054 -PAGE 4 of 4 u •, ' ~~''-? ~ f ~ nc ' ,. ~ ~ s j~ =~~~ ~ ' n r ~. ~` ~ zy ;~1 ~ ,:z~ ~ ,~ ~ '~ . r v: ~ 3" ~' ; ; rf~~ j ~ ~ '<.. y, F ~ Y ~ y Y ' ~ ~ ~ ky ' F ~ !~ x i _ ~ to 5 Hh _ Y S t~ u~ Lr ~ ~;~ pa :~~~X * Ur w _ ~ ~} 5. A' ~t• _ ai y 5 ~ 1 ~ ;.;i V ~y ry • f '~, ? }fA ~i ;. 5 iE z~ i/li ,{ ~ !.~ Yi 1. ~1 . F -k t u~ ... ~..+~Y'.e ...t ~+{ I~. -.tip fi ~, ar a~{d r ~~:, Y, ~~c.~ ~ ~,~ ~, ~~ =?~ ~ ° 1~:F !'r W x ? t ,-,~:P: ~`" rY'x r-~ ~'_f {`_ ti's >> > ~.. li. 4F .; ?` ';fix . nn `~~~ +,,~. ~% ~ } 1: . ~. ,_ ~~f ti._ ~. ~~ .~-:.~ .~>,, ~~ ~ ~: "'~vY`. rx~ ~ ~' -:,::, ~~' .f~:,t5 ~_,~ cn. 4~ ~ .ti } Es ,. . a~~ y:~','. ~~ N~Se' sJ! e CUP 05-055 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING February 16, 2006 ITEM NO. 3' 6 APPLICANT Grace at Fairview Lakes, LLC REQUEST Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law -Modification to existing 5 zonerfor Grace at 40-unit congregate care facility in Phase II of Grace Retirement Center m a Fairview Lakes - 824 E. Fairview Ave. COMMENTS AGENCY -- CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See attached Findings 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: Phone: Date: Contacted: Staff Initials: Emailed: Mgtedals presented qt public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridign. it s'e" CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER w ~ f ` ~?. ~;"~ ` r~ 9 •~ i il3'~" r'ir~ ~~''~~~-^~ l `~ ,~ ~ iy. ~~ , ~ i~a; In the Matter of Grace at Fairview Lakes Assisted Living Center, a Conditional Use Permit to change the use from independent senior living to a 39 multi-unit assisted living building. Case No(s). CUP-05-055 For the Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: January 19, 2006 A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of January 19, 2006 incorporated by reference) rocess Facts see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of January 19, 2006 2. P ( incorporated by reference) u'" ~`~ 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of January F1.. - 19, 2006 incorporated by reference ~~ .,, 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of January 19, 2006 incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law Pr i ~, . I' The Ci of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the "Local Land Use ::;v~ 1. ty ~- -' planning Act of 1975," codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code (LC. §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, x; 2002, Resolution No. 02-382 and Maps. ~ 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § lf, '~~ ~~ 11-SA. ;; ,' ,'6 `~ CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER .` CASE NO(S). CUP-OS-055 -PAGE 1 of 4 >~~_ "kn~~ !tA'~-~.a~< :ice f•;:.7~Q ~~ ~ - ~ o- ~~ y ~ 7 .; r y v~. a s r~ ;~ i ,~ ~ ~ 4 ' ~~ YN. ;` w F `j` Y~ ~ ~ Sir ~1 ~ ~ - jrz Kirk ~1 T i fr~:'~ ~ Y. h ~••x { t r, ;~ fi} ; e s > ~ ~e ~4 - ~ ': _ ; r P r~F y ~,~, ~.' . ~ f 1 ~ ~~ f ' x 4 ' -1. ]~ b~~ •~ ` 4 `L . 4 ~ P cc 4 vA ~~2 _ f ~' f xY' i~ {~ ~1~ ic ~ f <<- i ~,~.* Y f`~~~ { :4~ S ~r .~ 1 ~ ~,.5. I t A ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~. °~, ~ <:=` ~;, <_ . ,,5 i .-t ~ 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not i impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. II ,'. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this Decision, which J . shall be signed by the Commission Chair and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk upon the applicant, the Planning Department, the Public Works Deparhnent and any affected party requesting notice. 7. That this approval is subject to the Legal Description, Site Plan anal the Conditions of Approval all in the attached Staff Report for the heanng date 19,2006incorporated byreference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the Planning & Zoning Commission's authority as p of Fat which are herein Code § 11-SA and based upon the above and foregoing Findings adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant's CUP Site Plan as evidenced by having submitted the Site Plan dated I , August 16, 2005 is hereby conditionally approved; and, ii 2. The site specific and standard conditions of approval are as shown in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of January 19, 2006 incorporated by reference. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits (as applicable) 1. Notice of Eighteen (18) Month Conditional Use Permit Duration Please take notice that the conditional use permit, when granted, shall be valid for a maximum period of eighteen (18) months unless otherwise approved by the City. During this time, the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or ~ structures on or in the ground. For conditions use permits that also require platting, the final plat must be recorded within this eighteen (18) month period. For projects with multiple phases, the eighteen (18) month deadline shall apply to the first phase. In the event that the development is made in successive contiguous segments or multiple phases, such phases shall be constructed within successive intervals of one (1) year from the original date of approval. If the successive phases are not submitted within the one (1) year interval, the conditional approval of the future phases shall be null and void. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11-SB-6.(x.1, the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the use not to exceed one (1) eighteen (18) month period. Additional CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP-OS-055 -PAGE 2 of 4 ,_; ; s r ~~...;. - '~ i . k' j } j - .: tir ~~ / ;s _ ~ C ~ z .,? a~''£ " ~ z ~ t a ,, ` ' ;, ~: ' :`; ,7 ~~i . h ? ~ , q ~. ~s ~~~if , i:, " ~ 5 .~~_~ ,c «- r ,: r ~_ a ~ '~ raj ? ~; ~, >; 4: },, Jtij , a a c = t'~O : ~ ' H •- i . ~. ,7l ~ ~ ~`i +"`w t.;.y i ~ ~ 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 1. The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code 67-8003, a denial of a plat or conditional use permit entitles the Owner to request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than twenty-eight (28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review maybe filed. 2. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian, pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521 an affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which maybe adversely affected by the issuance or denial of '`' the conditional use permit approval may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of z~,. this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Id o Code. ;,,:, F. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of January 19,2006 By action of the Planning & Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the I l.D~ y~ day of , 2006. _ COMMISSIONER DAVID ZAREMBA VOTED ~~ COMMISSIONER DAVID MOE VOTED ;:~ ~. , r _~ COMMISSIONER WENDY NEWTON-HUCKABAY VOTED `~" COMMISSIONER KEITH BORUP VOTED .-. COMMISSIONER MICHAEL ROHM VOTED (CHAIR) CHAIRMAN MICHAEL ROHM s;, -. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP-OS-055 -PAGE 3 of 4 T' '~ :: l i' S'. 9 1,. 4 A , r~ay~. a ~~~ ry~~ ~~ ~ ''j' ~~ S Attest: `` `°°s,~ ~~•~`. jp ~ bR ~ ~: ' o ~~ ~ c ~ r_~ ~ 7 ~ y~, _~ Y r ~' ~~ ../ `~ Tara Green, Deputy city lerk ~~'''~.. r ~ ~~ ' r~. ~~`~_~,~ ~.~ `~ i~le~gT ,~ J~ ~~i ~~ ~gpartment, Public Works Department and City ~ e li~ A d _s, i ` ~&~,~q pp upon Copy serve ~, ,,,, , ..,, Attorney. ~s ~ f~~, ~h ` ~•f ~ D ted: ~ ~ ~0~7 ~ ~ - ' a l ~ w By: ~./l G} ~~~a City Clerk's Office - y ~ _ r :~: ~~,.. ~:~ ~ ,T~ ;.:; f. r, ~T i 5 S- r _.:-,~-~ A i:l `. -0. ~' k .` M'.: ;;-' rah 6f r nor' `- 'z £:, ;s ~;: ~,H., :Ji~A, ~.~._~, i ~~, ,, L';,: z CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER '1;~;, CASE NO(S). CUP-OS-055 -PAGE 4 of 4 r=~. ~ `~; , .. ~. t~ r.. , , '~]} : .. h:'~' ~ '' . F MERIDIAN PLANNIZ~EPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE I-IEA~ DATE OF JANUARY 19, 2006 CITY O ~' rt ,,~ , Ufa ~~ ~ttl ~~ t STAFF REPORT P & Z Commission Hearing - • ~~ , ~ tis f'' ~ ~ spa - ~4r~r ~~ d i L~ Heann Date: 1/19/2006 , ,r~.,,~-,~~ ,~' g ~. : r .. ~'~~. ,r +f4: - Commission •' .,^~-. ~..~- 'n & Zonin ~F _ Planet g .:.R. g -a TO. ~ ~ .. _r;~,w,ii ~lg-.: v,t Tn'k~~f=;..+F 'rwF'1 FROM: Joseph Guenther, Associate City Planner »~. SUBJECT: Grace at Fairview Lakes Assisted Living Center • CUP-OS-055 Conditional Use Permit for the Grace at Fairview Lakes to change the use from independent senior living to amulti-unit assisted living building.~,~ 1. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST ~` The applicant, Fairview Lakes, LLC, has applied for a detailed conditional use permit (CUP) to construct ` a 34,377 square foot, 40-unit assisted living facility as phase two of the Fairview Lakes/Devon Park `! development currently under construction. The Alzheimer Building and the first phase of the assisted living center are already complete. This portion of the development ilri t~enters. The Master Site Plan for '' `' very north end of the overall project with the two existing assisted by g 7; II Fairview Lakes shows two future phases of the project -one for independent senior living units (east of the assisted living building) and the other shown as a `Future Building" (west of the assisted living building). The applicant has requested to change the independent senior living buildings to one unit for I assisted living. li . 2. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION ~" Staff recommends approval of the subject use request with the conditions contained in Exhibit B. NOTE: ~~. ; The development agreement for the Grace at Fairview Lakes Subdivision requires all uses to be conditional in the Devon Park Subdivision. a. Summary of Public Hearing: i. In favor: Doug Tamura, The Architects ii. Staff presenting application: Joe Guenther, Associate City Planner b. Key Issues of Discussion by Commission: i. -Phases of project, compliance with original approval; ii. -Landscaping along the eastern property boundary; a `; iii. -Multi-use pathway. c. Key Commission Changes to Staff Recommendation: i. To allow the amendment of the 5' landscaping buffer in the fire lane on the eastern property boundary. F ,;~ 3. PROPOSED MOTIONS Approval ` I move to approve File Number CUP-OS-055 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 19, 2006, and the site/landscape plan dated August 16, 2004 with the following modifications to the conditions of approval: (add any proposed modifications). Ifurther move to - direct staff to prepare an appropriate findings document to be considered at the next Planning and Commission hearing on February 2, 2006. - Denial ;i. ~; Grace at Fairview Lakes CUP-OS-055 PAGE 1 I r z, .., ~, T .. ~.' i I ~ ~ ' ~ ~w y ~ .. +F • ~ ` 7 ..1 ,. 5e • M • S r y~ R `^~v4 v . ~ aX 4 i~A '•`" 4 . ~YYn: `„y,~r ' ~ 'r. I Y., XA ~ . 'i' T so-'Ra}~+,.~ .^ n~d''> 1? `;~`: ?~4 ~ ' . , 111 rv ' ^ ,~{+ p~' b ~~+` st "i `may` - .R, ° ' t F = ~ F r I }v n~~ryi i~ { ~S?.YS ,y' k4 ~p - ' , ^ F 1 ' 1 ~ $t:A' ~ W}:w~i:. AFd~ ', r ~` . ~~I _ L' F 1 G. . 'F • I Y1 ' - ~ r ~ ~, u - . i.F. .,, .+ r 1 -.:• s w`~t ~~ `~jj y ~7 . ~ k n y, j ~ ` ~ ~ . . - ~ ' ° ~~1' ` } ~.. ~r ..t ... , C ._ , i 7dr . s .(F ~~. ' ti , r •'. • r ~aFaW f-' ' ~r ,fief'.. it:I i ~ r .~F..te 1.. ~.;". .. .. ~ :. .y..r t l "d ,k x ~ , . it: ' ~ , C. n :~':G.`Y . (~ +~ ' t ~ • { t •v .F, r,.e,. +' « , I F.x•'., c- .er4"aw' ;~•~ ' i T ' ~ I ~ "V6, x.~ :" il- ,~,t. . y ;mo x,- ~V i,C. _~ I 1 ~~y b w :.y,r~ - :t •i 1 ~ x °{~"~• f a~k~~°'"i~f~ ~ I YY ~ ~ ~ . ^i' y~ i ~, .3~ - - , F i';~. J ~ ^ ! ~' I w• j ~:K';t,~', rt.~: T~ Y~ I ~. IIf ~ ~ ARi,'k_%. ~.~( ~ 1`~ I I' ~ t ,.~ ~y~,.A'7~`~+ ~Y~'' -d, -.1 ~ g~yy^,,~~f ,~yy..... '1 R 4 {~t-~`~•Ctz: i~ ~^i1x pp y }' A;~:~e 9 ~ ~ F ~I .~4. y ~ ~ r , M~$ • ~ Pt... ~"xj+.~~..:j`.~ P it,t' ~eF ~ `i '# Yt - ~ ~..'n _ }p, . "i .c m ~ . r I ' ~ }~ ^ d ,~- q t P } .k + +` M•'~ , +. $ F t t D~': ::ti ~ , ~ e . ~ ~. M. ,~ ei .} ,f , i . '.t' d' :~S i I .. '. r ~~ ? ` I ,.~sr . Y, ~ ~. ~••`'•~ •`s~.s •a. , " _ .S, , fir;},y sJ :, ~' ,, ; ~~ P' .R ^-'s~+~; .xF~t. ..I . I i r (• ` 4~ ~T '.~ _ ' . ~ :'.L,'•'^. r'~;xy~,a ~~5'+3."'t~Y^.. # t ~,, r: )~t`q„ 5 3 ~~ ~ ~ ~- II ~. c ~ n: -.7 ..F., 7 I ~ ~, ..,~ ~: ;Sn~i '•; i i~ ~. I I '~ its :'kt ,~'.:i; ~ I ^ ''~'" `" .~ , ~i' „~ . ...,. , .~ ,...', u~ ,r • ~' ~ . .:. rr, ..,.: { ti i' ~ ~ ~ ~ . . '~ r ir ! ' ~ : t ' ~ } e ~ . ,n .. ~.. • ~ i I • .: ' ., . . n o ~ ~. r.F" e~ ' x. ' i '•} ' ';r.'= ' ' } K ~ I ~`~u'~>~"`is ~' E ' 3~'L° •F• a ~ .3 F7' ..i 4 ~i " S.4 '~~ ~ ~k : ^ Xtf F ~ T'~ ~ F ~ ~ 9 ~ ~ n~ +h=,r ' ., s r ..r ., tt ~ di . :: :'i •t " xf - ', '" r I. ~•:. •},"'i~*"' ,: ~^ •. • J .^r~~~ s ~.r-'S .::I Y ~ ~ ~~• ~% ~ krf ^~' "'=:~"'~t'~ ~'f ;k~. .,y, .`Yxttv.' ,r ~, ,"s' a: «~° ` :• .. ~ i 4 ^ I . A J• iq1 ~ ~~.: I "~ t. ~' . ~ ~+',.> ` i " ` ' I ;,~~ I f r , i • =rm s ~, . `~~ I ~ y"t9'T t E~'~ . tF I ~ I.: J,SYj 4~~~#A:..~ Wr. fr ~:~ .. ~ ' , ~ ~'~e' Y.: {: II I 1 ~ + (' ^ . F' s ,=t .. .. . .;. , 3 yy • ' i , . . p~ ~ . 3 Gk~ '::~i.fe• ' ~ ! - +, ,'., 'f •~~: •f. ."..fssr ~y .. ,~~..., . ~ .. .. ... .. ; , .... .. °rF. . • la .. .. .. .Fp'if„wi r.. 7 z k ~~ ~. `^ '.i Y s;~.~.eyw~q~"y~~.- „r~,<~{ •r s s ( .'~~~ ~•.~ ... ~:e x{ ~ x . - r~PxxA~ tr.n t x ^ , . b, 1 .k r N . A 6 q .kn,• ~ ~ '._ ,. , 'i".~f'. iiFF ~ I . ..h r" ~n,.l: :,:;n is ~" " + .44 f .iy `r x , 'p: }•~~ ' . • S.Pa'~ ~, ;re = ~ ~ •• ' ~ `y4-~ , x ~..,~t, ~ ~ ~ . S ` `~~ ? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~• ~ f ~ • , C a ~ t ~~ 3 ~. ' i- ~i `~' / .. { i ?tit :.t _~? ^',:_ .~_,,'4 . y •? ~R ~. r~', ~~ w F. . ~~ CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANriI~EPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA~* DATE OF JANUARY 19, 2006 I move deny File Number CUP-OS-055 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 19, 2006, and the site/landscape plan dated August 16, 2004 for the following reasons: (you must state specific reasons for denialtion for ha ulroval~eI sfurtherhmovel to direcg staff dto the application to gain your recoinmenda Pp prepare an appropriate findings document to be considered at the next Planning and Commission hearing on February 2, 2006. Continue I move to continue the public hearing for File Number CUP-OS-055 to (date certain). (You should state the reason for the continuance.) 4. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS a. Site Address/Location: The property is located on the north side of Fairview approximately a 1/z mile west o Locust Grove Road. The property address is 824 E. Fairview Ave. SW'/4 SE'/ Section 6, T3N R1E b. Owner: Grace @ Fairview Lakes LLC 499 Main Street Boise Id 83712 c. Applicant: Tamura and Associates (The Architects office) 499 Main Street Boise Id 83712 d. Representative: Doug Tamura, Tamura and Associates e. Present Zoning: R-15 f. Present Comprehensive Plan Designation: Mixed Use Community g. Description of Applicant's Request: 1. Date of CUP landscape/site plan (attached as Exhibit Al): August 16, 2004 3. Date of Building Elevations (attached as Exhibit A2): May 26, 2005 h. Applicant's Statement/Justification (reference submittal material): The applicant which submitted a letter which is a continuation of the approved assisted living community required all uses to receive Conditional approval with the original Planned Development. The proposal is consistent with the underlying district and will provide an additional assisted living building to the existing campus containing an Alzheimer's building and phase 1 of the assisted living center. 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 UDC 11-SB-6, a public hearing is required before the City Council on this matter. PAGE2 Grace at Fairview Lakes CUP-OS-055 -~~.r~: _ E, ~. ;1; ~, ~ ~ `, ,,~~ h~,~ ~ s t ~ ~ -_ } .~x ., ~ - t ` r ~ f (2 ~ F , .y; 3 ~• d f` i } ~f ~ ~~ ..{~ ~ 2_ Y ~~ , 1 ~ ~ ~ y~ R ~ ; (. J~1,~~F ~~ Ht , L S ??Tiii ' ~ ~1 ~ - _,;. ~ y ~ _ } ~f ~ ~~ r '~ ~ y k ~ .. F f t7 ~~ , 4 ~ K/ -~ ~ C~.- . 2 3.~ ~ , . z7 ~ t '' _ ~~ r.~ ~. v; rt ~1 s~~ r J r,~~, r ~~7 ;. ~ :1 •~ t ) r ~ ~~~~ r-: = 1~ 1 ~' w~+ ~~ r .y.~ ~ ~ ~ r~. °~ f -~ ~ 1 +v ~~~ J ~_ ` YS_.:{ ~~ } S ~, 4 4 '_ ~2 y .~ Y!'.~LT.~. :.lr~ 14 ~ - 9z i CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNII~EPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA~ DATE OF JANUARY 19, 2006 ~` r b. Newspaper notifications published on: December 19 and January 2, 2005 c. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: December 19, 2005 , :- d. Applicant posted notice on site by: December 26, 2005 E US LAND 6. acili ial care f ' in Land Uses : Resident ty Exist ( ) a. g b. Description of Character of Surrounding Area: Existing single family residences and commercial properties to the south and west. c. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning A~ North: The Willows Subdivision, zoned R-8. ~`~ South: Commercial property, zoned C-G and R-8 (a car lot). East: Settlers Village and a car wash, zoned CG and R-8. West: A mobile home park (Fairview Terrace Estates) and commercial property, zoned R-8 & C-G. ., d. History of Previous Actions: Annexation and Rezone (AZ-02-011), Conditional Use (CUP-04-037 and CUP-02-014), Preliminary Plats (PP _0 03 and MI 03 007) CZC OS 006 SCZCO05 024. and FP-03-055) and Miscellaneous (MI-02 008, MI 03 0 e. Existing Constraints and Opportunities 1. Public Works Location of sewer: Clarene Street Location of water: Clarene Street Issues or concerns: None 2. Vegetation: Developed 3. Description of Use: Planned Development f. Conditional Use Information 1. Non-residential square footage: 34,377 2. Proposed building height: ~31 feet 3. Number of Residential units: 40. g. Off-Street Parking (non-residential uses) 1. parking spaces required: 20 with this phase 2. parking spaces proposed: 56 with this phase additional parking is provided with the other phases of the residential care facility. 3. Compact spaces proposed: No compact spaces are proposed. 4. Off-site parking proposed: None. h. Summary of Proposed Streets and/or Access (private, public, common drive, etc.): The access streets, fire turn around and parking requirements were approved under prior approvals 7. COMMENTS MEETING On December 16, 2005 Planning Staff held an agency comments meeting. The agencies and departments present include: Meridian Fire Department, Meridian Police Department, Meridian Grace at Fairview Lakes CUP-OS-055 PAGE 3 ~. F \L PLANNII~PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA~ DATE OF JANUARY 19, 2006 N sU CITY OF MERIDIA Parks Department, Meridian Public Works Department, and the Sanitary Services Company. ent on the project with the stipulation that all previous conditions of = z.': The agencies made no comm approval for annexation, plat, and use approvals be maintained. Staff has included all new ded actions as Conditions of Approval in the attached Exhibit ~ ~i I comments and recommen 8. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS , ~ ' ~, d ories of the Mixe t b ic gn b eg -ca Mixed Use. There are three su ally developed s that are typ e lland use designation will provide for a combination of compati n is to identify key areas which ti i o gna under a master or conceptual plan. The purpose of this des are either infill in nature or situated in highly visible or transitioning areas of the city where The intent of this designation is to ed . innovative and flexible design opportunities are encourag ree of design and use flexibility. r de t g e offer the developer a grea f The following standards will serve as general guidelines for development in these Mixed ~ ~. Use areas: i. ; All development within this designation will occur only under the Conditional Use 3; ` Permit process, I ~~~ ' 4- Mixed Use-Community: The following standards will apply to this category: ~, I Up to 25 acres of non-residential uses permitted within the Mixed Use-Community areas as areas that are not Neighborhood unit C ~{' y omm shown on the Future Land Use Map. In Mixed Use- I ~; f non-residential uses shall be permitted (through the CUP process). Centers, over 25 acres o ential buildin area sid g -re Up to 200,000 sq. ft. of non y' _ 4° Y Residential density of 3 to 15 units/acre Sample uses include: All MU N categories, clothing stores, garden centers, hardware stores, I, _ s t Y,• . ore restaurants, banks, drive-thru facilities, auto service station, and department s ~~~ - Furthermore, the proposed development meets the following goals and objectives of the Encourage compatible uses to minimize conflicts and l IV : Comprehensive Plan: Chapter VII Goa maximize use of land. Objective A: Address conflicts with e noise odor air pollution, and visual i i e t1 p z m m M l ct on Chapter VII Goal IV Ob~echve A A ~ pollution in industrial development adjacent to residential areas. ,, z ~ ,~ 9. ZONING ORDINANCE f Zone: The purpose of the residential districts is to provide for a range of t ~3 ~~'; o Purpose Statemen housing opportunities consistent with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. Connection to the City of uirement for all residential districts. Residential distri ets re i hc ~ _y I ~E" q s a Meridian water and sewer systems t t distinguished by the allowable density of dwelling units per acre and corresponding housing typ idential districts have a R i es ty can be accommodated within the density range. R-15 Medium High Dens maximum density of 15 dwelling units to the acre. UDC 11-2A-2 Nursing or Residential Care Facilities are listed as Conditional Uses in an R-15 district ~; with specific use standards listed in Chapter 4. a;. UDC 11-4-3.29: NURSING OR RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES: ',,X A. General standards: Y~ L '"i Grace at Fairview Lakes CUP-OS-055 PAGE 4 ~ I i I - ~: ~.. >..' :~ =;~:;~~ ' (~; I I t . ~ ~: ;~ ~: ;;'~, ~' ~ t : 4 f ~ r ~ .:C~ 1 .i . ~ ~ . >. •~; :6 f :'2 r..S .'' K4 x, ,, A , t+ f•. +".I :: i • 3 ~ ~ • ~ ~ f ~ ~ i'~~'i+.'tiyti:3i:°. ,T ~-C ,„ ~' , ; ~._ . 4 :l +! ~~{yke,~;'Al; ( ;S . R +i~"• 111 I ' ~ ~ y tYS ~..,n S K':' M ' + : ~ R},ti. , '..+n•."w'~ . 4 3 f .%~ w_ I R S1r-','~,~.a ,.xt~" ,, ; p t ~ i <, 3: ~ a ~: .3au i,~ •i ..L;' ,:.F'F ;•isfe e"~.T:Y.. » ti•: 3 . t . it 1 ' " I rvA' ~ f ";'F~`x'`~a'~ ; ny~r~-. '•; [' s ~ w ,. ~,. ~ If ~• ~ rr I ~ I . ~, , I r ~ su~~ h, i;4~•.... '.~'; .. c # , ~ u , ~ ~i ;- ~ ~ '§- ~ i r . . { ~ a ' M r ~Y x i ~ " v 33,, }ryr , .T S ' ~~j• {:.. '~^:~T'r fl''C. ~. b3' ~ ~~ + i~~S Y, ,i t 'R~„r. (~ ~~ 5 '~ ~ ~"" ' ' ~{ :.. p t i ~.: r ~ . ~5~~~. ~'~ i C ,?:, . .,;, f~J ,+ ~•'r,.r l~l i ~. +~+y l .. .. AP; ~": ;~k`si...;~;tt~ .'n1 ` ;. ~ : { 'h !!. a~n r. ~~ lF • fj '¢' ~ • - 4 ;} '~ 3• r y ~ i FsSm 1 ~ . ~.. 1 `i i I ~.(-~f~ ~. "fF. .~ Se"." .fix. F"s? r,~ ~ } ~ - t i ~ I . . ;1 '}i:'is-•"-r~, .;y, .,M ;~~a.fr¢ ; y ~ „~,)...[..,,s~~yy.. ,.~+,r,.•~i a", 't " ~ s [ X°. _ , Z .1 , L .Y ~?-, ii ii . ~ 9k e: ;Mg;C ; . k s ' a,^f'i.•'Wi: s~«.*h, <+' L 'v az' • i. C` ; ,. k `• ^ix,{'~':'r gin. .+ rc . ..^~ ~:i t?i.~.,' ,.i~y. • S.~`'9 ` ~„ . ~1~ b L f '.S~ } i • 1 h7' . M1, .uS "sl' 3 I .. ^nF'.. :.3 ' S. ~ l . Y'- t f:' Y V~.,si'•+{A'~a`.a~ f ` ~i + . y 3. „ : F ;. '~ {. ~ , fr.. A t y'i y'r 1 I . F ' Iw . .: .. ., .. r a+,, .., .., .. _ . ~~' .t •~ 4 ..n. S,, t .. 4.•aa4, 4• . .. i ~. Y . ... . a,. .. tr M ~~ ~~ t 1 f e ., i. •~i2r f f r .. .. t . , .. ~qy? ~, ,r ~ rros ~ ~ :ar. - • • ~ ~ ~ ~..' : ~ I Q.~ ~ ~~,a.. ":f •'i '.W; a. ~ fi • • r ~b. ~' •S A. ~i 1 r • . I ~"~ 'aie;,f I ''{~ .C,~J k.Yi'~`.a . ~R ..~a' . 4, rtie~ e~.. %{ ^ . ~ f ~.. z~•' 1 ~' • ~k.,q ~ .I f~ I ., ~; I ( I U, '', : ,)y'.i: Y f'E ~"] w .,~ .. . ; ' ;;rte: •> .~• aa ±~ ~' ~ I d ~~;,>5-°. <^; °~',t&.~~ y ' gq .5. ;~ `y .:3;?:r's~'~"~,f`<.ii I ( . i. I F':. _••~~,y.{,. ~ ;~`:;.t: •n'fE*1~'=~'~~ d ~f. x '7 '~ ~ ' ~ ~ r ; ~ + ° ° ~ ' ^ j iE , ,.c~P, y', x "x;'' :~:~. ` .}+~ - ,.~ , •t.. ~ x i • c~kK1 T ? ;~' . .p• l "k ~~: _ M~, , ~ v~~^^gg~~~ ,i r`~..]•,> S F r.4i + II I I { •~'hU.i r'9f> ~ J'~ :e'F': r . < .' Y. 'd'am f 9: K ' , a i . ~ . • ` tYF w jw' ~.7+ °~° ` ~ a ` ~ ,~ . . ~... -, A~..F I i ,g,• .u'..~°J.'•ti: ~;± '~ : S~~i'~.~~ ~, '' :,~a".fix,' ~. •S:~.f . _ _ Y~ 1 f 1 I ~ ~ y . .~ • j , q r~o~ 4..~ N ~rybax,~.'f~2,:+ii •!-• "% :S~k;... '"'~' .2r ;7;~~~~v i ',.Y:. i~~yV'~"3L s~'+-xN ~ ~ # I ~ ~ I 1 ',¢31?° ~Xd~p ~ ` _J•.'T;' ~ „~ ~ Y-c'rt :~ ~ f 4€ I I { 3. f ' ~ ~ k' r A ~ II t E ~.ti~e~S~F` fi' ~.i~•<`,='.a,.'•3.~ 1 .~K. y h~~~y Z ~:> f, • ~ ` ~e ~ b,t I. , 3 h .+. C 4 q:. fi, rn. '• i ~ t I - c. ~. ' ~ ~r r• ~ ss.~ . ems. ~', ~ ~ ~' I ~ " ~ x:; ~«r :; ' ~ : w . ~ ;. .I ~ u i . ~ y .~ A "~: b~YS'' ~ ; . •; Y M ~ ~.. • ~,! v: . n. 1 ~. + n Y ! °' ° ~ jL, ` '~,+a~ '~ :~ .. ik~,'ap ~4. ~ r f iy ~ ,,, ..:.isik.,.,'d, < 4~~x: .lC`,~'~ ' :~ .. ~2 fay ~., s'. i 1'.'~ ~ . 7.. a ~ . ` Y..e•aYs czn, ^y.. ~:. ti DATE OF JANUARY 19, 2006 F I pARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA~ CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANK a dwelling at any one time, the - 1. If the use results in more than ten (10) persons occupying 1 for a change of occupancy as required by the applicant or owner shall concurrently app y ~, Building Code in accord with Title 7 of the M 1 d~~e and aintaml a h cease from the State of 2. The owner and/or operator of the facility shal ' a Idaho Department of Health and Welfare-Facility Standards Division S SI Y AL 10. AN a. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation z, IONAL USE PERMIT ANALYSIS: Based on the policies od meat with tmhe Zoning ,x CONDIT Comprehensive Plan and the general compliance of the proposed deve p ;~ dinance staff believes that this is a good location for the propose a pdubanfic Pleases ea Exhibit D - _ Or , proposed buildings will promote the best interests of the City of for detailed analysis of facts and findings. ~~ ~~ ial Streets: The preliminary plat approval was completed under the Meridian City Code Cornmerc _ here MCC 12-13-10-4 required a 10-foot wide street buffer along bu~ei c onsistent ywith the v' lat. The required landscap the prior approval for the preliminary P ~~ ~, UDC. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of approval for Devon Park Subdivision which contains the ACHD conditions of approval for this site. nditional use permits issued and overall planned lat co . n relimina p ~ have bee ry is Prior A royals: Thep of the re Lured unprovemen np d most q an n io t truc cons development have already begun Certificate of Zoning Compliance shall be requured. - made. Additional review through _ royal of CUP-OS-055 for theda eaof January 19 ,~ b. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends app Lakes assisted care facility phase two as presented in b eDstaand ~ bject to the ce od g ions of approval as 2006 based on the Findings of Fact as listed in Exhi aced findings consistent with this - listed in Exhibit B as attached to this report. Staff has prep recommendation. 11. EXHIBITS - A. Drawings ~~ 1. CUP Site/landscape Plan (dated: August 16, 2004) 2. Building Elevations (dated May 26, 2005) B. Conditions of Approval 1. Planning Department `':~ 2. Public Works Department r ~~ C. Legal Description =>> ~ 1 D. Required Findings from Zoning Ordinance i ~~ ,.~ .. ~> ;: ;, PAGE 5 Grace at Fairview Lakes CUP-OS-055 -~ ~ -, ~~ ~:: f - _ _ {: { ,~ t L~ ;5 z i .- ,~F~I ~'. ~i ~j~w `l~r~l ~1 f ~~~ ~~ ~ r S~ 3 `f'":f~~ i n 4 t.,. . SY,/ >~ >~" x "'. ~ ` l ~ YN ~ . i h ~f Y Y `r v` ~~~ k -~ - tfx rx 'T ~ ~ S ,~ Y rtq ~ p~c- p _,.;. ~ s ~ s ~ a ~ ~ `~ - ~ i r ~z~ ~': ~ ay .~. ` - , y- $ r . ~ , b i~' ` `, y 1 n ~ ,',!.'. ~{ t ~r > h~4 ~' 4 t :,' ~ r ~"' I •, ~ = a-~ ~ z ~ :~ ~~ , s. ~'' t: ,: tiJ ~7 Y CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNII~ppR'I'IVIENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA~ DATE OF JANUARY 19, 2006 A. Drawings 1. CUP Site Plan (dated: August 16, 2004) ._~... ^ ~ ~-~9 w ~ :: ~r, ad R7 ~' ~ ~ ~~~ I ~ I A-1 !!! °I erwony MelMad iae3 6ze ~ t~ `,Q~'el)GG «~ ~ ~ l 6H~81 M0lAJJBj 8 I~ a~ la qS U yyge°gg~4§ ~ ~. ~ ~ a ~c.cl'~:59 ~ e~~FEg ~~- B ]9~'1+~991':~ I1 '7 6' ~ ~~m. cy~~o~~ ~~R~~~~ i °o@ A'1°° ~ ~ ~~o~~ll~!a4~j'ggg a ~ e: ~~~~!"0° 19 ~ I ~~igmf 1~1~~'i~~~° 9 v ~ e@ o• ~ii9~'43~~larEO°s~ ~ II j ~~~; ~9t Be e p I°• ~i19~y~8 °@" ' 8~ -Ia iB loe 7~,~ B~ •'~"~~°l~ oQgo g9 ~~~~~~~e~~hla6! ° i1 ode°;e~®~`a~ee;~ 1°fe~llsa0~ 9g ~1lga ae~~~a'9~e~~:9~di~~as ,'~ ! ~ a ~ ~ S~ -- ;~- t ,~ e~ 9c ~ a 1 t g ~' ~: ~ , i r ' ~ 'H" ~+~ ~ ~ Da ~ , - - '°~ ~~~~, ~~~ ~ ~~ o ;` ., gB ,: '.- t . • Wis. P c+) a _ <~.. _. ~< ~' i ; 9 ~, ~ ~~~ ' ~ ~ . ,-~ ii~ ° ~ ` N 4 .~, ; ~` - ;, ~ ~>. ~ , ~ ._ ~; r -. . J (kY: ~~Tf i1 (. ~ Y y ~ ., S t .. ~ ~ ~ -: i y :.3: ~ ~ '~ ` 't ~' h u t ~'~ Y ~ y ~~'rr ~ ~t~ , 4 ' 1, 4 ~ ~_ r ti ~r o ~..:_ - f ~Y ^_ '~ 4 ~ j> }' Y '~ ~. . 1~~~ 3 3~ # ~~ 3 ~!r~ T h-.' ~~ .W ~~ r* ~' ,` ~r ~b- y ~ . m, .. 4-.-c '~ - i ` ~` Y d t 1} .}4~ f. n ; , c ; r~ ~ , ~ ~ r.~ y~ ~~~' ~ ~ ; ; K. ~ ~ ~ . ~ t~ .~- }~"' ~~~1,~ '~+i #. i `-` ptt pp4 ~7 SF 41...~ ~Y'` *t: d. t S F # T ' t i N r ~k~y. I y ~ y ~ ~ ~ Y~47~~'N i r ~ ~~~ . £~ t' L1i tti {,; u'" '`A pART(VIENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA~ DATE OF JANUARY 19, 2006 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNI~ 2.. Building Elevations (dated: May 26, 2005) A-2 Q~I{- ~!ti 1~~ 1,x•1 ~ ,q ,~ C+ 07 Y (Q ®® V .i , } Y .!~.. , # , `.. Y~ i. ~'~ :: :, ~ a~: '~ ~ .: ay.~~~.y.~.`~•r~ bf'y^.~+Y.L1:'f.±3CJ a .: ~' .: 'sex.:: ~,'sY. ~. '. .•,A... .n~; . .. .. '.i•~~y "'~~~. ~iAl:.:~ '...:.':i ~''~:;~ ;.y. '''.`v';>': ' {. ,'r pt ~9~ ::'::~:.. i^:.~ .. t.. ..- r:':.::~: ;:. .. . y{-'.:}: "" %~r~• t:.i.~ .'ryZ ~. . 4y. ... mfg, x.lY•i : q x~~A;. ~, ` r +_ r: S `rra° 4 x z ,,, . fi ~ .R+, i x '~ ~ ~ y +~, _ I ~ 1 7, , Y~ ~ i~~~ I 15""' ! j ~ ~! :Jf ~ ~~ t + ~~ S }~, .~ t t~a~'E~, ~ww. k s' k ~~ . I ." 'j 1 ^~' #; ~ ..jjam r ~f( L~j { t~ v 4 ~ t ":l.y 1 1 V~ ~} :1 F f} C ~GY. ' .~ ~f t.. t JS ~ ~ ~ y ; 41 ~ r'[ ~ ' Y .~ ~ h { ( , ~~ 3 C M x rl JY . ~ku: i lk L f k ':f 5'.'w Pik '~; ~ ` ~~~ .F ~ :~;ti , _ ~ m .~~ :, a. ~ ~°~r a • I~~~.a ~.~ ~ YL L'~'3 . ~ .t~ ~~ ~~, S b Jrt ~: ~ ~ 2 ^ y ,{ { H - F ~ ~c /~`~ .~ c';' - .. ~.~. ;'+', S ~~, .. ~' ,~. OF MERIDIAN PLANNII~PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA~ DATE OF JANUARY 19, 2006 CITY B. Conditions of Approval 1. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1.1 The applicant shall comply with all conditions of approval for Annexation and Rezone (AZ-02- O11), Conditional Use (CUP-04-037 and CUP-02-014), Preliminary Plats (PP-02-034 and PP-03- 006), Final Plats (FP-03-033 and FP-03-055) and Miscellaneous (MI-02-008, MI-03-003 and MI- 03-007) for the Grace at Fairview Lakes Assisted Living Center and Devon Park Subdivision. 1.2 No building shall be erected, moved, ad ed in use without a Certificate of Zoning Compliance structure or land be established or Chang (CZC) issued by the Planning Department. 1.3 The applicant shall submit light fixture details and a photometri Com lance applhcation forr thtes compliance with UDC 11-3A-11 with the Certificate of Zoning P campus. 1.4 If construction has not begun within 18 months of City Council approval, a new conditional use permit must be obtained prior to the start of development. 1.5 The owner and/or operator of the facility shall~ec Standards D vison.icense from the State of Idaho Department of Health and Welfare Fa ty 1.6 'The design of the residential care facility shall significantly comply with the submitted elevations contained in Exhibit A. 2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT of mains in Clazene 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 B-1 Sanitary sewer service to this development is being proposed via extension hcant shall install all mains necessary to provide service; applicant shall Street. The app coordinate main size and routing with t~ abloic Word ~~mM t~~ over over saze~'veorms of easements for any mains that aze req P mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet t~hnanents Standazd materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Dep Specifications. Water service to this site is being proposed via extension of mains in Clazene Street and North Lakes Place. The applicant shall be resdp eu ibmle Wl~ ~~1 caWorks execu es tandai'd forms of development, coordinate main size an g easements for any mains that are required to provide service. The applicant shall provide a 20-foot easementdfroanr all pThe easements shallm n t be dedicated viac right of way (include all water services and by ) the plat. Submit an executed easement (supplied by Public Works), a legal description, which must include the azea of the easement (TT Be for rXevi~w. Both exlubgt /must be'sea ed, signed and bergs and distances (marked EXHIB ) dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. Any existing domestic wells and/or septction 9-1~-4 and 9-85 pWe~t ay be used for nonom domestic service per City Ordinance Se domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. -`'. ~~ ~~ ., 1~, n { h '.~~~~ ~ F ~ ~ -F' 5 ^ fx r' r~~, ~ . j..- 9T -.~Y At~ ~ ~ ~5, 4 4 It^'~ 2 ,; , ~ ~, - } 1'r ~ ~ 1 4: 111111taaaaaaf.AA1 ~ ::, ~ .r Y ~ :. icpn ,p ~, ? }~ _ ~t Sr~r~ _ {~ ~{ r' tq _ ~ ~ ~ ,~ a ~ r ~ ., ,~ ~ Y Y F'• ~ ~ ~•~ ~.. 24+x... ~ , i f}'_{?i~k1. > ~ z.. ~ ~ 1 , ~ r~ ~, l,z ~,';~ ,~ W A Y'(' 4 ~ (tff Y. ~ ~ k-_~ . _ . 3 y~,~~ dS''?~, ~L- t F~ `~ al Sri:.: £~ ~ "" ~ f ~ ~ ~T •~i A*M1T ! 1-y~JS ',t LS,~ j ~ T ~ x ~ ~w ~ ' 1 t F , L ( ~ .` ~~ :.5 ; ~. ,f~ r r r ~~ y F ` y }~" 5„ ~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~ r3 t ~'L x ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ; , ~F ~ ~ , - ' 4 L ~ e.,. 'z ' A -ryL r ~ l fi ,~ ~~1 CITY OF MEWDIAN PLANNI~PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA~ DATE OF JANUARY 19, 2006 2.5 Street signs are to be in place, water system shall be approve nanfor building permits,installed, drainage lots constructed, road base approved, prior to applyi g 2.( All development improvements, including but not limited to sewer, fencing, micro-paths, pressurized irrigation and landscaping shall be installed and approved prior to obtaining certificates of occupancy. 2,7 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 per Resolution 02-374. 2.8 Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the City of Meridian a b eloWment feeature~s comply with 2.9 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that al p the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 2.10 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES Permitting that maybe required by the Environmental Protection Agency. 2.11 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that maybe required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.12 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post O artment for all building 2.13 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Dep pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material. 3. FIRE DEPARTMENT 3.1 Comply with all conditions of approval for the Grace at Fairview Lakes Subdivision B-2 ~. r ~~ ~, 4 t ~ ; ~ ~ ~ '~ - i } r ~'4 '~ 3 1 ~~~ ~..1 ;' "'"""1 f };, ~ t , N <~ ~ +. r~y. ~-: M~\ ~t+~' w+ 1 F{k ~ ~ti ~~ iC ~t ~ ~' 2{l` ~ S w k -~ + ~ t L~HR~'nwS ~ ~{ SL 5 ' ~ ' F ~7~Y ~ ~ ~ s , 1~ - - ~~ .~ ^_w, ~ ~ - r ~,~;, +~ t ~ w ,. ~, j ~ i , y~ ~ r r: r Z ~„ _ .'~` + fr ~' ~ .~. Y~xf~~ 1.-' r ~ " - i T, ~~ ~ ~ i { ~ ~' k Y !~ . gC. ~ A 4 - ~ yam{ ~~ ~ u k.4 ~ ~, ~t.~ ~ r ~. t 3~.Ft ~ ~ ^ . y . a F~+ . Y : .f J ~ S~ _ F, y, 4 a i C-1 WAIiRAN")rY DEED FOR VALUE RECEIVED, CIRACE, LLC, an Idaho limited liability company, the Grantor, does hereby grant, bargain sell and convey unto GRACE A7 FAIRVIEW LAKES, LLC, an Idaho limited liability company whose current address is 494 West Main Street, Boise, il) 87702, the Grantee, the following described premises, in Ada County, Idaho, TO WIT: Loe 4 in Qlock 1 of DEVON PARK SUBDIVISION N0.2, according to the official plat thereof, filed In Book 91 of Plats at Pages 10854 through 10856, official records of Ada Cotmty, Idaho. TO HAVE AKD TO HOLD the said pre[nisss, with their appurtenances unto the said Grantee, heirs and assigns forever. And the said Gr~tor dons hereby covenant to and with the acid Grantee, Utat it is the owner in Fee simple of said premises; that they are free flan all ancumbtattces E}CCEP7' those to which this conveyance is expressly made subject and those made, suffered or done by the Grantee; and subject to all existing patem reservations, easements, right(s) of way, protective covenants, totting ordinances, end applicable building cedes, laws end regulations, general taxes end assessments, including irrigation and utility rasemettts (fany) for the current year, which ate trot due and payable, and drat Grantor will warrant and defend the sarna from all lawful claims whatsoever. Dated: Jul , 2005 GRACE 13y: ,llis« Do las amtua, Member State of Idaho j ss. County of Ada ) On this ~ day of July 2005, before roc, the undersigned, a Nataty Fublic in and for said State, personally appeared Dou&las Tamtua known or ideodfied to me to be the Member of the limited liability company that executed the within instrument end eeknowladged to me that he executed the same for and on behalf of said limited liability company and that such limited liability company executed it. iTJ ~V1iN65S WHE CJF.1 have heseuntr~ st:t my hand atni affixed:mtt.t`flicial seal the day aan year to this certifieme fl above itten. M, .;~~~ FRAN~C4;, ^` !~.'~= ~,o'r.tgy idols y Public for Idaho -. _" # ~.~~ f tbRy t'otsrmis9inie Expires. _ ! ~/_~«'"f t _ P '•,•r'~ Ptrp~,.~ '~~r;?'-:Gs ;,., ',; 5~ as " t~1- rA+1,~ 4 ~*'Y~; w F `' ~ s '~ ? 4 ~ F '. t~ :i1~~ `~ `; ~ ~ ~ X51 xt~ ~~~ fix,. ~Sa rr ~c a~. ~~ y5t ~,i.f'. .~e3.Cy, w r , ~ ,~ a +t;~~~. ~rr~ 1, ~, L, _ .~ ~ ~~' ~t t 4YY _. 2L ~'3 ~C 1~ -T t ~~ - t~ ~>. ~ ,~ 5,51 ~ ~ ~},:.i . ~t. ~, 1 ~ ~ ..~ F !~' k ~$.{.i ~ '~-~~ ,' Y s .i m '' F' f t ~~ "'~ .'~, _ r c $ x~'ti ,~} 4c` t` p ur ;~t ,~ ~ m _ ~ ~ . r.. r• x.~ ~ a ~~ 7 fly ~; r~'~ CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNII~PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA~ DATE OF JANUARY 19, 2006 D. Required Findings from Zoning Ordinance CUP Findings: The Commission shall base its determination on the Conditional Use Permit request upon the following: 1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. The proposed site plan shows easterly located residential care buildings with parking on the east and south sides of the proposed buildings. The Commission is supportive of the layout for the proposed drive lanes and proposed traffic flow pattern for this lot with access to N. Fairview Lakes Drive and Clarece Street. Access points to the site have been determined by ACRD at this time and are currently paved and installed. Parking stalls for age-restricted elderly housing are required at the ratio of .5 spaces per unit. (UDC 11-3C-6A). Per this requirement, 20 stalls are required. There are 56 parking stalls provided on this site with designated handicap accessible stalls. The Commission finds that the project should have ample parking. All proposed building setbacks and landscaping meet the minimum standards outlined in the UDC 11-2B, and with associated platting conditions of approval. ~~, ~ The Commission fmds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the required yards (setbacks), open spaces, parking, landscaping and other features required by the ordinance. II 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in accord with the requirements of this Title. ~', The Commission fmds that the designated Comprehensive Designation is Mixed Use ~' Community. The property is existing high density residential zoning and is consistent with the i` Comprehensive Plan for mixed uses in a transitional area. The applicant has installed the multiuse pathway as per prior approvals. 3. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the f ratter o ha than a the essential c general vicinity and that such use will not adversely g the same area. ~`' `` The Commission is generally supportive of the site plan design. This area is part of a larger residential care facility which has been transitioning from commercial to residential projects. The Commission believes the applicant has designed to accommodate the mixes of uses as well as ss~: ~'. shown compatibility with existing residential uses. The Commission believes that an additional assisted care facility will be compatible with other useslbuildings in the area. There is a j ~- significant amount of landscaping being provided along street buffers, and the proposed use is consistent with the approvals for the Devon Park Subdivision and Fairview Lakes planned development. D-1 ', r l;~ ~ ~~ :.r::: ~ ~ ~ ' '' ~ _ , 3 ~ ~ - ,, - ,, ~~~ _~' '~ ~, ~ ,~. <, ~ ~I. p A b~4 _.(1 ?'91f'i ~s. r ~ , ,? a r i ~~ _ F, ~1 ~ Y ~~ A ~~''~: j i }t th , ~}~ ~ '~ ^_~ _~V} t : .c ~~ ~ ~T 2~i Y; `~ V ~ F `r' A`b ' i! Y Y • µi- j ~~ r1 ~ :Y.T ~ .~ . ';e+. a ~ . // V V Y ~ £~~ 6 I ~,' ~ ~t 1 s a 3 ~'i i Mrt •- - ~ ~' •V^ ~ 4 t fi[~ f,( ' ~ ~ ~~ ' C•k ~ ~ r + r •{ ~ ~~ ` ..~~ CJ~ l ~ t f~.A~ 4 . - ~i3r . ~} ~1 ..: l Jy~; CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNII~PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA~ DATE OF JANUARY 19, 2006 The Commission fords that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the general design, censtborhood and with~the ex stag andcintendedcharactertoflthe ea.ther uses in the general n gh 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 residential care facility use will not adversely affect other property in the area. The Commission should rely upon any public testimony provided to determine if the development will adversely affect the other property in the vicinity. 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools, parks, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, and sewer. Sanitary sewer and water are currently on site through the extension of Clarene Street. :T . r. esk;, '~?'~~ai "r: ~; D-2 The Ada County Highway District Board of Commissioners previously acted on the Devon Park Subdivision applications. The conditions, requirements and restrictions for Devon Park Subdivision also apply to CUP-OS-055. The Commission should reference any written and/or verbal testimony submitted by any public service provider, regarding their ability to adequately service this project. 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 zoning and subsequent development will not be detrimental to the community's economic welfare. 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. The Commission recognizes that traffic and noise will increase with the approval of an additional residential care facility in this location; however, the Commission does not believe that the amount generated will be detrimental to the general welfare of the public. Staff does not anticipate the proposed use will create excessive noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors. The Commission finds that the proposed use will not be detrimental to people, property or the general welfare of the area. 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. The Commission fords that there should not be any other health, safety or environmental problems associated with this subdivision that should be brought to the Commission's attention. ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis. ~~ c ~. . @:.. ~~ :_ ~~ ,, ' ~ ,:; n '~ ~. 'y m ~Y; ~ _ .~.s ::, ~ ~ r y .:: . x t~~ 7 1' ; + , ~ ~ x ~ h R>i~~' ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~j {~ ^ Y h ~S.• C ' y~- r~ f } t~.~y ~'{~f '. L .~~ - 9 ' T t.~ ~. .. '' }'. ~. X'5" ~~"-~SlS 5~ 1k • ; , Y t ~ ~~1 t„~p ~ . N ~ -A t k ^ ~~~J~ ~ xk~~ c ~ ~ .,~ m ,.4 ~ r '~' - ~~ {V . ''.fir. `r r ~ , ~~ A 4 ~ - d ,`'SC S ~y~ 4~~'i ~t ,..'~ ~. 3 ~ ~ ~l c a= '~~ ~ t~~ V!kr ~, i, i ~~~~ _~_u 5 i 2 ~: i ~ ,'~} i= a ~~. r -'p, ~.~ .4 ~ ~, ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ <~.~. x~- ~ ~~ ; ., >;,. rU I ; ~~~ r.'. ': ~. ~ `~` ~, ws ~_r r_ ~~ .w ~"~~~ . ~e~. `5 .E ~ 1i ;~ ~~,,~.' ~.r ~~~ a: ~~ ti:,,;= ~~ ~,;~ ~, ~,,~, .., ' S.t, r{i~ {4, H ~ eL',J hr~^. ~{' S~ Y ~ ~` k ~ a t':~,,ry 4v-~k''. JJ~~~ rF~. ;'. Y~.~'x~ jj~~ h u'a I^' 1 ~t:w 't~ ~~~ ® e CUP 05-057 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING February 16, 2006 ITEM NO. 3'C APPLICANT Intermountain Wood Products REQUEST Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law -Conditional Use Permit for operation of a wholesale lumber and floor finishing products warehouse in an I-L zone for Intermountain Wood Products - 220 South Adkins Way AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See attached Findings CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CIl`Y 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: Date: Phone: Contacted: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. '~ i • Z,4X - ~' f, ~~' MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING February 16, 2006 ITEM NO. APPLICANT esentation from the Meridia P n School District by Wendel Bigham ,,., r REQUEST I~~ ~ ~ ~. COMMENTS r°-" AGENCY r~ ~;{°. CITY CLERK: , 1 ~; ~ CITY ENGINEER: ~~' CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: ~~• ~ CITY ATTORNEY ~, ~,-;, ~, CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: ,~ .. t ,~ CITY SEWER DEPT: i ~a II ;a CITY PARKS DEPT: a MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: °. ;:-~ SANITARY SERVICES: ~' ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: ,~~ ; ~ NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: kG . < ;<=~ SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: < < ER: W O AHO P ID INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Date: Phone: ` Contacted: Staff Initials: 1 ~$,~ Emailed: Materials presented at public meeflngs shall become property of the Clty of Merldlan. , „t.,, ~',. .; ,. 3 :~ ~; „ t , ~ ,~ ~ ,~ ~i ~. ~ "'Sr `,t: :'Y r~:, ' ~y~ f <' ;+, '" t'ry`:: ~•:t;$:.. r... :1.7r .~.`~»•, ~ •.... .N ~~' .. ~ ~~I ~ ~ ~~'~si`'~,I( .., ,.. ~T~: s. "iP ::F. ... ~ .. ,....., :. .... • ~>. ~~ :. ~.:. ...., y..... :. ..:...:.. F .r.:. - t s.~ ~~~, : ; . ~, { ~~, ~ _ t ~ ~ z _ ~ ~~. t.. r cry' . ` ~ ~ x ~'".. r ~ i - ~~a. w f 1~ y- ~v ~.'. ! "{ ,~}~ ~1r ;.^ 'n{ : T' 4' ~ /`~ 6i, e t r /`~. 4 r ~ ~.6~.}'f 1 ~ 4._~. i (7 r. k { -~ =~ C. r~ ~ F :'J ., ~ , I T ~ r t z r { i r t, ~ y. ~ t _ p ^ ~ 1~ 2 - ~ ! 1- }7 ~ k $ rl J ~ h 1 u _ ~ t~( (~ "lr~y. 9 f {` ~ ' t'' ~ ~ S i 1~ > y ~. ~t ~ '~'t ;Y _ F ~* p h ~^ ;< Houses Students -Schools -Cost 02/16/06 Assumptions Elementary Capacity 650 Grades 6 Exiting 108 "' Ratios 1.0 # Houses 1,767 5,435 8,065 Planning Area Census Factor 0.8 0.8 0.8 • ~~ Middle Senior 1,000 2,000 3 4 City of i~eridiar- 333 500 City Clerk Offiee 3.1 1.5 Number Elementary 46 6/13 K-5 Middle 6-8, 3/13, Senior 31 9-12, 4/13 K-12 414 1 , . , 650 325 , , 4 348 2,000 1,000 1,348 6,452 2,968 1,484 2,000 10 Square Miles 640 Acres/Square Mile 80% Residential Consumption 5,120 Residential Acres 3.5 Ave Houses per Acre 17,920 Total Number of Houses 1,792 Houses Per Square Mile 3 People Per Household (Census) 2 . 41,216 Total Number of People 42-58,00 NMPA Number Elementary Middle Senior Students Census Students Students 46 6/13 K-5 Students 6-8, 3/13, .23 9-12, 4/1~ , . , Factor K 12 0.8 14,336 6,595 3,297 000 2 Capacdy 650 1,000 3 3 , 2.2 # Schools 10.1 . Investment Per Square Mile Elementary Middle Senior Number of Schools Acres Cost/Acre Land Cost _ r Land 10 100,000 1,000,000 000 000 4 40 100,000 , , 6,000,000 60 100,000 000,000 1 1,800,000 3,100,000 l FF&E , 510,000 770,000 2,100,000 r~.: ~~` Design 325,000 8 15,500,000 37,350,000 Construction , 835,000 9 18,070,000 42,550,000 I Colt Per School , 10.1 3.3 2.2 ' ' '~ ;, Number of Schools 766 780 99 59,581,850 94,549,504 Cost of Schools (by type) , , 253,912,119 ~~ Cost of Schools (all types) 10 ,s : ;r.-;:! Number of Square Miles 25,391,212 . Cost Per Square Mile 4 ~~~ ~ % Land For Schools 1 10 3.3 2.2 '~' , # schools . 10 40 60 Acres/School 101 132 1 ~ ~~ . Total Aces/School 367 ~'" ' Total Acres All Schools 6,400 Planning Area Acres 5.73% ` Land For Schools }F ; ~: z ~; ~i ~~n i : 1 `. ~~:_, ,,, . ~~ , u ~ F f ~ - YS ~'-~ 1 r)~ ~~ L I ]• F. C, ~ ~ ~ } ~1 u ~ e ( *; ~ £ u~T nC ~Y'$ . ~ )'+ ~ a ~ ~~ ; ~ y , S ~' < ~ ',~. Y ; r c ° ' V ~'fr ~ Srt ir. ~f .L.y_ Y . ~ fc ~ i}~~ ~ ~ : ~-,~ ~ ' 'r ~ y ~ ~r T .' I ~ ~ ,.g ~ ~41 _ 1 ~ 4 4 h v,°. ii i,: ~. ~.. i . ,~`` i _ ~~__ ^.~ ~I i ~ ' ~~ ~ IFs: ? ;; t y YJ t . W k ' +t~ t~ M ~ • ~ n; ~ J ~f } ~ 'w Houses Students -Schools - Gost 02!16106 Assumptions Elementary Capacity 650 Grades 6 Exiting 108 Ratios 1.0 # Houses 1,767 5,435 8,065 ~~ ~~ = '~ __ :Si Planning Area # Houses 17,920 Census Factor 0.8 0.8 0.8 Middle Senior 1,000 2,000 3 4 333 500 3.1 1.5 Number 12 Elementary 46 6/13 K-5 Middle 6-8, 3/13, .23 Senior 31 9-12, 4/13 K- 414 1 , . , 650 325 , , 4 348 2,000 1,000 1,348 6,452 2,968 1,484 2,000 10 Square Miles 640 Acres/Square Mile 80% Residential Consumption 5,120 Residential Acres 3.5 Ave Houses per Acre 17,920 Total Number of Houses 1,792 Houses Per Square Mile 2.3 People Per Household (Census) 41,216 Total Number of People 42-58,00 NMPA Number Elementary Middle Senior Census Students Students 46 6/13 K-5 Students 6-8, 3/13, .23 Students 9-12, 4/13, .31 , . , Factor K-12 336 6,595 8 14 0 3,297 4,~ , . Capacdy 650 1,000 2,000 22 # Schools 10.1 3.3 Investment Per Square Mlle Number of Schools Acres Land FF&E Design Construcfion Cost Per School Number of Schools Cost of Schools (by type) Cost of Schools (all types) Number of Square Miles Cost Per Square Mlle Land For Schools # Schools Acres/School Total Aces/School Total Acres All Schools Planning Area Acres Land For Schools 10.1 3.3 2.2 10 40 60 101 132 133 367 6,400 5.73% 3 ~~• ~ ~ ~' G Y ~ ~~~. ' tyM.- ~ ' Fti ~ ~ ~ c~A ~p~ ~ ;. ~ 1 ~; k~ d b° ~ yy ,'~ r2. rat ~~"+"~c I ,Yr K ~ ' } V aY ~ ~~ ~' ~~ ~~ ~ t ~ !~ ` 7 ~ . ~ d.,~ ~ Z 1 '~ .F .z~, kL d~~ `ti y L Y" ' r, } X. cy, 4•~' x." , ~ r n . ~ ~~ 7~ 4 F r~. ey,. i ~~ : ,A^ 4,~ ~ X, ¢ ` ra } ~ s~~ u s . f ~' -' ~ "„_ ;` 3 c i r s ~ r c te, i (pity ®f ~eridiara ~-a ~at~ Cle~l~ O£fic~ ~;,;: ~~ Elementary Middle Senior Cost/Acre Land Cost 10 100,000 1,000,000 40 100,000 4,000,000 6,000,000 60 100,000 1,000,000 1,800,000 3,100,000 510,000 770,000 2,100,000 8,325,000 15,500,000 37,350,000 9,835,000 18,070,000 42,550,000 10.1 3.3 2.2 99,780,768 59,581,850 94,549,504 253,912,119 10 25,391,212 ;;~,~ ;,z <<~, .~. ~~ 1~. ~.~:~. ~,~%~ d, ~::;~ n - ~.~ ;~r ~~, <" ~~t;~:. -: ~; t'~ . ' '}, `1' ~ ~ ;: ~~ ,., ~ ~: k [~ {~•~: y~K ~,.. ~~; r i. ~. y i 4 n ty~, _~• ' -i' :f :', ~~ ~'1 . ~~. Z''. ;~~; ~~ - ~_ ~: r ry,~w,., _ ,;~, :? :` s ~~~ ;'~~-~. ':;;~r ~«.: ,. by .•' ~[ •r~.~ - )'y~~ } •~ _YY. ~' -~: ~ - ,w , _ rw9 t ~~. ~' ;:',;Ji' ,f, ` a,?.~' ~~; ~;:~. ; ~.; 0 AZ 05-060 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING February 16, 2006 5 ITEM NO. APPLICANT Ada County Highway District REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from January 19, 2006 -Annexation and Zoning of . ~~ .......~ fi-r,m RI IT to C-G zone for Ada County Highway District Road Property - 3595 East Ustick Road COMMENTS AGENCY -- See Previous Item Packet /Minutes CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: See attached Staff Report 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: Phone: Date: Contacted: Staff Initials: Emailed: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. '.;; tyXv `"io', .1, s ~y ~~~! {~ xa ,~' ~ ~ °- ~` ~~ ~~ ~ s , - ::+;~ " ~,- ~5` .~~+' ~~;-~r ~t ~,~,L ,,. +~° -h ~ ~_:. pt ,,~ w ~. ;~ ~~iU, ~~ ~ '~,< :°;. '4 ~u~ AZ 05-061 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING February 16, 2006 6 ITEM NO. APPLICANT Una Mas, LLC 2006 -Annexation and Zoning of REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from January 19, 9.55 acres from RUT to C-G zone for Una Mas -3475 East Ustick Road COMMENTS AGENCY CITY CLERK: See Previous Item Packet /Minutes CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See attached Staff Report CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Date: Phone: Contacted: Emailed: Staff Initials: AAaterials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Aheddlan. ~+= :~~;> .~§~ ;' 5 ~~~~: ~. r : '",°;, ;' ti, ~x ~` ,x~.. s "~ x ,~ ?`~;~. ~.; ~, ~f ~ ~: ~~ ~~ Y t,; + t, ~~ '" (. i ~~i, ,~, a i~ ,. 7~ _;t •° ~'i :., yh+1 'rid ~, ll ~'y ~',: :~ >~ ''~,; :; y'~~51.d' ~,._ ~~ "'.Y :". ,~ r -,k~x; ,;~:~ ~_ ~{{++~''~ 4~r `~7 r' x: y.. :z.,: ,:_: ,. ,; ~~ r. =s.:~ ~..,~ 'F, -r~, yp~p~'y' r` _k ,.7 `fF; _ ~_ t'~_ ~ {~,1 -. 0 0 AZ 05-057 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING February 16, 2006 7 ITEM NO. APPLICANT Red Cliff Development, LLC 2006 -Annexation and Zoning of REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from February 2, ~~ .....o~ fry.,-, RI IT c~nd R1 to R-15, R-8 and C-G zones for Bienville Square Subdivision 2935 Norfh Eagle Road COMMENTS AGENCY See Previous Item Packet /Minutes CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See attached memo 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: See attached Comments CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: See Revised Master Plan and Landscape Plan OTHER: Date: Phone: Contacted: Staff Initials: Emailed: AAaterlals presented at p ublic meetings shall become properly of the CHy of Meridian. ?n ~` 0 RZ 05-019 {~;: ; e MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING February 16, 2006 APPLICANT Red Cliff Development, LLC ITEM NO. 8 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from February 2, 2006: Rezone of 10.05 acres from C-G to R-8, R-15 and C-G zones for Bienville Square Subdivision - 2935 North Eagle Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: See Previous Item Packet /Minutes in AZ Packet CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Memo in AZ Packet 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: See comments in AZ Packet CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See Revised Master Plan and Landscape Plan Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meddlan. ~~ ,_~ 4~t ~~. ~ ~ :~* e 'r ~. _ f' ~~~~~~ ~. r w . y, ~,:. ~~ ~; ~S"?~' kt ~ ` t` ~~ ,; C Y ~ .~~. r~ ..~ ;~ 4 ?4r ^ ~ C, _ ~.~~' ~.~~, n f 1,. ~: *;: ~;-~: ~~; 1 ~~~' ~~?~;; -, ;: ~_;., ; _s,.~, ~4 1 ~~{ ~• ~ .~' ~' y>pp~~ ~~VV ,~.: `. Y'r' i=~~~~. .i:__~{? f::;, ... :;3 3z '~ sr?~y `">-,: • PP 05-059 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING February 16, 2006 ITEM NO. 9 APPLICANT Red Cliff Development, LLC 2, 2006 -Request for Preliminary Plat REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from February 14 common lots 22 multi family residential lots, approval of 54 single family residential lots, commercial lots for Bienville Square Subdivision - 2935 Norfh Eagle Road and 7 COMMENTS AGENCY ~- See Previous Item Packet /Minutes in AZ Packet CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Memo in AZ Packet 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: See comments in AZ Packet CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See Revised Master Plan and landscape Plan hone: Date: P Contacted: Staff Initials: Emailed: Materials presented at Public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. 5;?`er ;~~<-~. ;,-~ { ~~ ~' ~:. `~. ~ ,':_ is .v.~,. ,~ r fi}"~;~ ~; A ~f :: ,ti ''s ~' ';; ~;s ,,,~ ~•~ :,` ~` =~;` :> ; ~~. fi~~! ;-' ~~ • CUP 05-052 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING February 16, 2006 ITEM NO. ~ 0 APPLICANT Red Cliff Development, LLC from February 2, 2006 -Conditional Use Permit for REQUEST Continued Public Hearing __ r... nsen.~inP snuare Subdivision - 2935 IVU7lG~.+ v.av ...~~•-.. --. North Eagle Road COMMENTS AGENCY ~- See previous Item Packet / Minutes in AZ Packet CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: See memo in AZ Packet 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: See comments in AZ Packet ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: See Revised Master Plan and Landscape Plan OTHER: Phone: Date: Contacted: Staff Initials: Emailed: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. :;~~~~ x; .,~ ~~ .~_~ ,~ ~f 'e !~ +y l,~ _ , ' °'i.. f ~,, t s4 t r 5 ~; .} ~ ":i~~~; ~~: ~~ rx 3 _~ ~~ ~~~~~~ ...~: ~y s ~' ~?. YS' ~ ~ ~. r ~.,h ~` E* , ~`;£~ ,r~ r~ ~ .' 12 ~`i,F. ~, `~-~;; k:, ,~ ~; ~~~r ~. > , i; r t. ','~ ~., ,: ! r7 n .a`~ ~. ,_.~~;~w :: fix,, .~: - ~. {.i~ ik ~ 1 a .F` ,~'_ ~,;~ ~; ~ ~, < ~_~. ~~~"~; ~.~ y T5 :~ ~~ ti ,~; :.: O AZ 05-064 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING February 16, 2006 APPLICANT Tuscany Development, Inc. ITEM NO. REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from January 19, 2006 -Annexation and Zoning of 116.81 acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for Bear Creek West Subdivision -south of West Overland Road and west of South Stoddard Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: See Previous Item Packet /Minutes CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See attached email from Becky McKay 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: Emoiled: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ~"~. ~_.:, ;, ~t ~~~ a. } y.. ~ 1' ~ ~4 ~,; ,. ~i.~ ,~;~, 1 .:.fit „. +~."i. MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING February 1 b, 2006 ITEM NO. ~ Z APPLICANT Tuscany Development, Inc. REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from January 19, 2006 -Preliminary Plat approval of 321 building lots and 34 common lots on 116.81 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Bear Creek West Subdivision -south of West Overland Road and west of South Stoddard Rd AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: See Previous Item Packet /Minutes in AZ Packet CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See email from Becky McKay in AZ Packet Date: Phone: Contacted: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meeflngs shall become property of the City of AAeridian. 4: 4~ '_ .. a,r, ~. ,~~ ~'~ ~ •~ E; ;.ti' ij ~~~ ,~.~p,~Y.;~i F~~~~• u~ ~`~.~ ,,?'=, 5 LLtyy, iy??~.',r, s ,: a: ~j ~ ~r'{;~`~ vy T r 7_.` n Ft ~~" t,', ;~„ ,,. y ~ ;~: ~ ~r ~; iajF7 ~_ r ~,~ b.+. i{~...._ ~ - f' E,ts,,. ~,:>-,; l:.k~}. .~,, .. ~~~- ,:.,;,.~ pcr ~x'`<'~~ rer~ ~ r° ~i [L~. egg i;. ?, ,~,' r~ ~!' tsL N.< >_ ,f 4 4 :1~y'ii• ~,~, ,.. G~`< o ~ ~a CUP 05-058 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING February 16, 2006 13 ITEM NO. APPLICANT Valley Shepherd Nazarene REQUEST Conditional Use Permit for a new 45,000 square foot church in a R-8 zone for Valley Shepherd Nazarene Church - 2475 South Meridian Road AGENCY COMMENTS s: CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See attached Staff Comments 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: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Date: Phone: Contacted: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. CUP 06-001 u= H?~t+?' C7_'~ti MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING February 16, 2006 APPLICANT Gordon Jones Construction ITEM NO. ~ 4 REQUEST Conditional Use Permit for an Indoor Entertainment Facility in an I-L district for Yanke Warehouse - 724 West Taylor AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: See attached Staff Comments /Draft Findings CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: 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: See attached Comments CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: See attached Comments NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: See attached Comments 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. N~,~ :. 0 0 PP 06-002 ;?~ ~;: .: ~; ~~ ~,~ I~,~w ,_. ;. >.~ :a Y` 1 kt:~1 z~'-~% 'Y ~ k iti.~. 'i f.,. uy~ .: k ~' :~:+.:-. MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING February 1 b, 2006 15 ITEM NO. APPLICANT Landmark Development REQUEST Preliminary Plat approval for 23 commercial lots on 22.85 acres in a C-G zone for Gateway Marketplace Subdivision -southeast corner of Ustick Road and Eagle Road COMMENTS 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: No Comment CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: See attached Draft ACRD Report ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: See attached Comments CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: See attached Comments SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Phone: Date: Contacted: Staff Initials: Emailed: Materials presented at p ublic meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ~ri ~, ;, K y ti, ` st r ~-~' ~;~ ~,.:~, u :~3 . ~-4'. r = "v a ... . a~~ :~ ' Es t`~'.: ~Y,~'.~ _, ~ , ~::~ "; ,.-,~;.; r ;,~-; .S . ,~ }?' u~.h„ ;`.. `•- ~~;:.; 1 CUP 06-003 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING February 16, 2006 APPLICANT Dave Buich ITEM NO. ~ 6 REQUEST Conditional Use Permit for an addition of a drive-thru coffee shop at the east end of the existing building for Office Value Remodel - 3055 Fairview Avenue AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See attached Staff Comments 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: See attached Comments CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: See attached Comments NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: See attached COt'ntYlentS SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Mcterlals presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Aperldlan. ~`~.. , ,~.-: ~,a >''rt~. ~~r~:, ~~ti i. t~ 1 j ~,Kr~` .... ~~t ~~; ~~., '~' r ,;r~ `j x'Y3 .Cf'~ y ~- ,,,,, '~"'. v? ~ ~ r'~ '; ,. M:.,. .; 11 ~C-?~.{~r 2 \t.lt<r ~~L;%i F~ ~? ~, ,~, ' ~:. ~>~ ~~ ,~ - ~ ~~~` ra~.~. . ~rE=_. `r • ~~:. `~~ , ..,,a ,' r ~' ~~F:! fit . - *~,. {:..:.. 0 ~,~ CUP 05-059 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING February 16, 2006 ITEM NO. ~ 7 APPLICANT Rudeen & Associates REQUEST Conditional Use Permit for adrive-thru wife iw3a00 feet of a residential district for Silverstone Towne Square - 1660 South Jad Y AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: See attached Staff Report CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: 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: See attached Comments CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: See attached Comments SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See affidavit of Posting Date: Phone: Contacted: Staff Initials: Emailed: Materials presented at p ublic meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. s AZ 06-001 MERIDIAN PLANNING i~ ZONING MEETING February 16, 2006 ITEM NO. ~ 8 APPLICANT John Fackelman REQUEST Annexation and Zoning of 4.99 acres fromoR Che R Lanese for Buckeye Place Subdivision -east of Black Cat Road and south RY COMMENTS AGENCY r ~ :n~ ~;-,. :,-: ~: , r,.' ~, ~,~-~,r ~_::~,~; ~::: ~, ~~ ~,~, #, ;. ~ ~~~• 14~ ~' R{t s ~{ z { , ~~' ,~. ~, ~~ ~~` '.;.,4,; t=:~. a, ~~~ ~. M" ~~ ~~ ,.~. 1, ~:~~' -~, s;~s; 3~ ~~I .~~; ~' ~ ..-:: ~; ;~;., ~,~,- CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: No Comment CITY PARKS DEPT: See attached Comments MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: See attached Comments See attached Comments CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: See attached Comments SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: affidavit of Posting See attached letter from Mark Glines; OTHER: Date: Phone: Contacted: Staff Initials: Emailed: Materials presented at p ublic meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. ,_,, , Y~ ,~ t , x ~a ~~i~ fN 1~ } r'zl r~ irR: ~. .Hl, ~f ,~:~, r:;~M.~ rv;~xv~ a . ~. A" :{{°s s ~r • ~' :~, ~~ ~y 1` 'i ~'. a~'A ~ ~1 ~' • o PP 06-001 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8. ZONING MEETING February 16, 2006 APPLICANT John Fackelman ITEM NO. ~ 9 REQUEST Preliminary Plat approval of 16 building lots and 2 common lots on 4.99 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Buckeye Place Subdivision -east of Black Cat Road and south of Cherry Lane 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: No Comment CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: See Comments In AZ Packet SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: See Comments In AZ Packet CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: See Comments In AZ Packet NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: See Comments In AZ Packet SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See letter from Mark Gllnes In AZ Packet Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ~~a; ;, s CUP 05-061 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING February 16, 2006 APPLICANT Mark Chang ITEM NO. 2~ REQUEST Conditional Use Permit fora 12,680 square foot commercial building housing a Dennv's Restaurant and retail uses on 1.7 acres in the I-L zone - 3155 East Fairview Ave. AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See attached Staff Comments 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: See attached Comments CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: See attached Comments NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: See attached Comments SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: See attached Comments IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See attached letter from Red Robin Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at p ublic meeflngs shall become property of the city of Meridian. ~~~, fJ E;.' y Tw ~ :.J ~' r ,~;~s~ ~w 's, (~~ r 3~- ~,. 4 CUP 06-002 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING February 16, 2006 APPLICANT Franklin/Stratford Investments, LLC ITEM NO. 21 REQUEST Conditional Use Permit for an Equipment Rental, Sales & Service Business on 2.28 acres in a C-G zone for Sunbelt Equipment Rental - 355 and 399 East Franklin Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See attached Staff Comments 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: No Objeciifons NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: See attached Comments 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 Merldlan. e s AZ 05-067 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING February 16, 2006 APPLICANT Insight Architects ITEM NO. 22 REQUEST Annexation and Zoning of 6.9 acres from Ada County RUT to R-15 Medium High Density residential zone for Casa Meridians - 1777 Victory Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: See attached Comments SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: See attached Comments NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: See attached Comments SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See affidavit of Posting Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ~,. x~ °,'~, ~,, CUP 05-060 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING February 16, 2006 APPLICANT Insight Architects ITEM NO. 23 REQUEST Conditional Use Permit fora 32 unit multi-family development in a proposed R-15 zone for Casa Meridians - 1777 Victory Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: See Comments in ~-Z Packet SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: See Comments in AZ Packet NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: See Comments lIn AZ Packet SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: C~THFR~ Contacted: Date: Phone: _ Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the CHy of Meridian.