Loading...
2006 03-02• REVISED CITY OF MERIDIAN MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Thursday, March 2, 2006, at 7:00 P.M. City Council Chambers "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: _X_ Wendy Newton-Huckabay _X Keith Borup _X David Moe - Vice Chairman _X David Zaremba X Michael Rohm - Chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: Approve 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of November 29, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting: Bring Back to Next Meeting B. Approve Minutes of February 2, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting: Approve 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: Approve as Amended D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: 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: Approve E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 06-001 Request for an Indoor Entertainment Facility in an 1-I. district for Yanke Warehouse by Gordon Jones Construction — 724 West Taylor: Approve F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 06-003 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for addition of a drive-thru coffee shop Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — March 2, 2006 Page 1 of 4 All materials presented at public meetings shall become propeifij of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings please contact the City Clerk's Office at 838-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. REVISED at the east end of the existing building for Office Value Remodel by Dave Buich — 3055 Fairview Avenue: Approve G. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: 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 H. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: 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: Approve 4. Continued Public Hearing from February 2, 2006: AZ 05-058 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 49.95 acres from RUT to a R-8 zone for Keego Springs Subdivision by Todd Campbell — 5910 North Black Cat Road: Recommend Approval to City Council 5. Continued Public Hearing from February 2, 2006: PP 05-060 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 201 building lots and 9 common lots on 49.95 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Keego Springs Subdivision by Todd Campbell — 5910 North Black Cat Road: Recommend Approval to City Council 6. Continued Public Hearing from February 16, 2006: 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 16, 2006 7. Continued Public Hearing from February 16, 2006: 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 16, 2006 8. Public Hearing: AZ 06-005 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 58.56 acres from RR to R-4 (32.86 acres), TN -C (14.54 acres) and C -C (11.16 acres) for Knight Sky Estates Subdivision by Sea 2 Sea, LLC — northwest corner of Chinden Boulevard and Linder Road: Continue Public Hearing to April 6, 2006 9. Public Hearing: PP 06-004 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 126 residential lots (22 townhouse lots and 102 detached single-family lots), 7 commercial lots and 26 common lots on 55.83 acres in a proposed R-4, Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — March 2, 2006 Page 2 of 4 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. ' 4 , . 1 22YY ¢ k xb .fN�k ni;+q"` NOR, 41.0 Al *,i.":Y'�' $a t� x 3 `e'^ '. fS54Sa, �,rs".�d V i. ... n iq r x a xa i�,� 3�tFs ' t x 4 t s s,�`,, y,.,.9,� ' t — 1 loll ,n REVISED TN -C and C -C zones for Knight Sky Estates Subdivision by Sea 2 Sea, LLC — northwest corner of Chinden Boulevard and Linder Road: Continue Public Hearing to April 6, 2006 10. Public Hearing: AZ 06-003 Annexation and Zoning of 24.03 acres from RUT to R-8 (12.31 acres), R-15 (7.53 acres) and C -C (4.19 acres) for Hightower Subdivision by Hightower, LLC — southwest corner of Chinden Boulevard and Jericho Road: Continue Public Hearing to April 6, 2006 11. Public Hearing: PP 06-003 Preliminary Plat approval of 106 residential lots, 4 commercial lots, 2 private street lots and 25 common lots on 22.94 acres in proposed R-8, R-15 and C -C zones for Hightower Subdivision by Hightower, LLC — southwest corner of Chinden Boulevard and Jericho Road: Continue Public Hearing to April 6, 2006 12. Public Hearing: CUP 06-004 Conditional Use Permit for a Mixed Use Planned Development that includes single-family detached, townhouse units, commercial uses, private streets, a neighborhood park and a vehicular access to Chinden Boulevard for Hightower Subdivision by Hightower, LLC — southwest corner of Chinden Boulevard and Jericho Road: Continue Public Hearing to April 6, 2006 13. Public Hearing: AZ 06-006 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 10.01 acres from RUT to C -G zone for Knighthill Center Subdivision by Sea 2 Sea, LLC — southwest corner of Linder Road and Chinden Boulevard: Continue Public Hearing to April 6, 2006 14. Public Hearing: PP 06-005 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 4 commercial lots and 1 common lot on 10.01 acres in a proposed C -G zone for Knighthill Center Subdivision by Sea 2 Sea, LLC — southwest corner of Linder Road and Chinden Boulevard: Continue Public Hearing to April 6, 2006 15. Public Hearing: AZ 06-002 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 0.43 acres from RUT to L -O (Limited Office District) for Strada Bellissima Subdivision Outparcel by Strada Bellissima, LLC — 3015 South Meridian Road: Recommend Approval to City Council 16. Public Hearing: CUP 06-005 Request for Modification of a Conditional Use to allow zero lot line setbacks on Lots 1-6 Block 27, Lots 1-7 Block 28, Lots 1-7 Block 29, Lots 1-7 Block 30 of Quenzer Commons Subdivision No. 9 by Brighton Development — west of North Locust Grove Road and south of East McMillan Road: Approve 17. Public Hearing: AZ 05-038 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 38.5 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — March 2, 2006 Page 3 of 4 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. e a i2 4 y a? a� _ i s� k # y i x €.ar r f .aLv:+Ab�i' of i * '4 �'� S. { e. e a i2 4 y a? i k r f .aLv:+Ab�i' of i * '4 �'� REVISED acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Irvine Subdivision by Dyver Development, LLC — southeast corner of Ten Mile Road and Chinden Boulevard: Recommend Approval to City Council 18. Public Hearing: PP 05-037 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 175 single-family residential building lots and 12 common lots on 38.5 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Irvine Subdivision by Dyver Development, LLC — southeast corner of Ten Mile Road and Chinden Boulevard: Recommend Approval to City Council 19. Public Hearing: CUP 05-039 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for single family detached residential units and single family attached residential units in a proposed R-8 zone for Irvine Subdivision by Dyver Development, LLC — southeast corner of Ten Mile Road and Chinden Boulevard: Application Withdrawn 20. Public Hearing: AZ 06-007 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 59.88 acres from RUT to R-8 for Solitude Subdivision by Providence Development Group, LLC — south of East McMillan Road and east of North Meridian Road: Recommend Approval to City Council 21. Public Hearing: PP 06-006 Request for a Preliminary Plat with 225 single family residential lots and 16 common lots for Solitude Subdivision by Providence Development Group, LLC — south of East McMillan Road and east of North Meridian Road: Recommend Approval to City Council 22. Public Hearing: AZ 06-004 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 358.57 acres from RR to R-2 (66.02 acres), R-8 (167.02 acres), R-15 (79.82 acres), C -N (17.26 acres) and C -C (28.45 acres) for The Tree Farm by Treehaven, LLC — north side of Chinden Boulevard on both sides of Black Cat Road; west of Spurwing Subdivision: Continue Public Hearing to April 6, 2006 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda —March 2, 2006 Page 4 of 4 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. 0 REVISED CITY OF MERIDIAN MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Thursday, March 2, 2006, at 7:00 P.M. City Council Chambers "Although the City of Meridian no longer requires swom 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 David Moe - Vice hairman David Zaremba Michael Rohm - Chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: r'plw_ 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of November 29, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting: Fein yhack nom B. Approve Minutes of February 2, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting: 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: Apvv ro &,,e b4 D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: 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: lgrmf E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 06-001 Request for an Indoor Entertainment Facility in an I -L district for Yanke Warehouse by Gordon Jones Construction — 724 West Taylor: .pto r'®L11-C F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 06-003 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for addition of a drive-thru coffee shop ArFrC>j,Ajf Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — March 2, 2006 Page 1 of 4 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. k t f 3 � 5 Y �gp^ $} f t'SYa'c f e,e ih' } is f f 41 k t f 4>x 5Y ,;�-5�.d x wnv � rX e,e ih' } is f 41 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. REVISE Hightower Subdivision by Hightower, LLC — southwest comer of Chinden Boulevard and ericho Road: Public Hearing: PP 06-003 Preliminary Plat approval of 106 residential lots, 4 commercial lots, 2 private street lots and 25 common lots on 22.94 acres in proposed R-8, R-15 and C -C zones for Hightower Subdivision by Hightower, LLC — southwest corner of Chinden Boulevard and Jericho Road: , aa P114 -/0 r, ,e o)6®a, Public Hearing: CUP 06-004 Conditional Use Permit for a Mixed Use Planned Development that includes single-family detached, townhouse units, commercial uses, private streets, a neighborhood park and a vehicular access to Chinden Boulevard for Hightower Subdivision by Hightower, LLC — southwest corner of Chinden Boulevard and Jericho Road: Public Hearing: AZ 06-006 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 10.01 acres from RUT to C -G zone for Knighthill Center Subdivision by Sea 2 Sea, LLC — southwest corner of Linder R ad and Ch'nden Boulevard: `� i'] l�-Pc� 1���/I e C' A--�r>�.� �p� 0?606 Public rY Hearing: PP 06-005 Request for Preliminary Platapproval of 4 9 q PP commercial lots and 1 common lot on 10.01 acres in a proposed C -G zone for Knighthill Center Subdivision by Sea 2 Sea, LLC — southwest corner of finder Road and Chinden Boulev rd: Public Hearing: AZ 06-002 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 0.43 acres from RUT to L -O (Limited Office District) for Strada Bellissima Subdivision Outparcel by Strada Bellissima, LLC — 3015 South Meridian Road: lcomwu��/ Public Hearing: CUP 06-005 Request for Modification of a Conditional Use to allow zero lot line setbacks on Lots 1-6 Block 27, Lots 1-7 Block 28, Lots 1-7 Block 29, Lots 1-7 Block 30 of Quenzer Commons } Subdivision No. 9 by Brighton Development — west of North Locust= Grove Road and south of East McMillan Road: Public Hearing: AZ 0 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 38.5 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Irvine Subdivision by Dyver Development, LLC — southeast corner of Ten Mile Road and Chinden Boulevard: C/ f 1 C) Public Hearing: P 05-037 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 175 single-family residential building lots and 12 common lots on 38.5 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Irvine Subdivision by Dyver Development, LLC — southeast corner of Ten Mile Road and Chinden Boulevard: Meridian Planningand Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda arch 2, 2006 Page 3 of 4 9 9 9 9 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. 3 REVISED 19. Public Hearing: CUP 05-039 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for single family detached residential units and single family attached residential units in a proposed R-8 zone for Irvine Subdivision by Dyver Development, LLC — southeast corner of Ten Mile Road and Chinde Boulevar : 20. Public Hearing: 06-007 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 59.88 acres from RUT to R-8 for Solitude Subdivision by Providence Development Group, LLC — south of East McMillan Road and east of North Meridian Road- 21. Public Hearing: PP 06-006 Request fora Preliminary Pla ith 225 single family residential lots and 16 common lots for Solitude Subdivision by Providence Development Group, LLC — south of East McMillan Road d east of North Meridian Ro4Aex /�,�, �G 22. Public Hearing: 6- 00 4 Reques ora' na ��Zonin of 9 358.57 acres from RR to R-2 (66.02 acres), R-8 (167.02 acres), R-15 (79.82 acres), C -N (17.26 acres) and C -C (28.45 acres) for The Tree Farm by Treehaven, LLC — north side of Chinden Boulevard on both sides of Black Cat Road; west of Spurwing Subdivision: Con�ln�� Av A�(,•I G, Zcoco Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — March 2, 2006 Page 4 of 4 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. CITY OF MERIDIAN MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Thursday, March 2, 2006, at 7:00 P.M. City Council Chambers `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 David Moe - Vice Chairman David Zaremba Michael Rohm - Chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of November 29, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting: B. Approve Minutes of February 2, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting: 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: D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: 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: E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 06-001 Request for an Indoor Entertainment Facility in an I -L district for Yanke Warehouse by Gordon Jones Construction — 724 West Taylor: F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 06-003 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for addition of a drive-thru coffee shop Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — March 2, 2006 Page 1 of 4 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. at the east end of the existing building for Office Value Remodel by Dave Buich — 3055 Fairview Avenue: G. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: 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: H. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: 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: 4. Continued Public Hearing from February 2, 2006: AZ 05-058 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 49.95 acres from RUT to a R-8 zone for Keego Springs Subdivision by Todd Campbell — 5910 North Black Cat Road: 5. Continued Public Hearing from February 2, 2006: PP 05-060 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 201 building lots and 9 common lots on 49.95 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Keego Springs Subdivision by Todd Campbell — 5910 North Black Cat Road: 6. Continued Public Hearing from February 16, 2006: 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: 7. Continued Public Hearing from February 16, 2006: 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: 8. Public Hearing: AZ 06-005 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 58.56 acres from RR to R-4 (32.86 acres), TN -C (14.54 acres) and C -C (11.16 t acres) for Knight Sky Estates Subdivision by Sea 2 Sea, LLC — j; northwest corner of Chinden Boulevard and Linder Road: 9. Public Hearing: PP 06-004 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 126 residential lots (22 townhouse lots and 102 detached single-family lots), 7 commercial lots and 26 common lots on 55.83 acres in a proposed R-4, TN -C and C -C zones for Knight Sky Estates Subdivision by Sea 2 Sea, LLC — northwest corner of Chinden Boulevard and Linder Road: 10. Public Hearing: AZ 06-003 Annexation and Zoning of 24.03 acres from RUT to R-8 (12.31 acres), R-15 (7.53 acres) and C -C (4.19 acres) for Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — March 2, 2006 Page 2 of 4 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. 'r . �gx. tY 1, y{.tih «? 5 i C i . 2 hfi ,f��+ru�.3p€.* . �.gu-/+#k } F;3 •r;,r tii 4y.pY v t -3+.,, T J F "a �t st v} y y d F^ a: %, .,P e, y. r, h. i L' -•. Y w 9 v h wkinK k 4- -,ma.vy".'kffi#" AL�6!4r-i Q 0 Hightower Subdivision by Hightower, LLC — southwest comer of Chinden Boulevard and Jericho Road: 11. Public Hearing: PP 06-003 Preliminary Plat approval of 106 residential lots, 4 commercial lots, 2 private street lots and 25 common lots on 22.94 acres in proposed R-8, R-15 and C -C zones for Hightower Subdivision by Hightower, LLC — southwest corner of Chinden Boulevard and Jericho Road: 12. Public Hearing: CUP 06-004 Conditional Use Permit for a Mixed Use Planned Development that includes single-family detached, townhouse units, commercial uses, private streets, a neighborhood park and a vehicular access to Chinden Boulevard for Hightower Subdivision by Hightower, LLC — southwest corner of Chinden Boulevard and Jericho Road: 13. Public Hearing: AZ 06-006 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 10.01 acres from RUT to C -G zone for Knighthill Center Subdivision by Sea 2 Sea, LLC — southwest corner of Linder Road and Chinden Boulevard: 14. Public Hearing: PP 06-005 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 4 commercial lots and 1 common lot on 10.01 acres in a proposed C -G zone for Knighthill Center Subdivision by Sea 2 Sea, LLC — southwest comer of Linder Road and Chinden Boulevard: 15. Public Hearing: AZ 06-002 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 0.43 acres from RUT to L -O (Limited Office District) for Strada Bellissima Subdivision Outparcel by Strada Bellissima, LLC — 3015 South Meridian Road: 16. Public Hearing: CUP 06-005 Request for Modification of a Conditional Use to allow zero lot line setbacks on Lots 1-6 Block 27, Lots 1-7 Block 28, Lots 1-7 Block 29, Lots 1-7 Block 30 of Quenzer Commons Subdivision No. 9 by Brighton Development — west of North Locust Grove Road and south of East McMillan Road: 17. Public Hearing: AZ 05-038 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 38.5 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Irvine Subdivision by Dyver Development, LLC — southeast corner of Ten Mile Road and Chinden Boulevard: 18. Public Hearing: PP 05-037 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 175 single-family residential building lots and 12 common lots on 38.5 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Irvine Subdivision by Dyver Development, LLC — southeast corner of Ten Mile Road and Chinden Boulevard: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — March 2, 2006 Page 3 of 4 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. �3} pt-lt �5�, it Irv" n ri: 4� 7% '. a e tl 9 Yay.-1Y✓' , �n�� A F C S 4, v 19. Public Hearing: CUP 05-039 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for single family detached residential units and single family attached residential units in a proposed R-8 zone for Irvine Subdivision by Dyver Development, LLC — southeast corner of Ten Mile Road and Chinden Boulevard: 20. Public Hearing: AZ 06-007 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 59.88 acres from RUT to R-8 for Solitude Subdivision by Providence Development Group, LLC — south of East McMillan Road and east of North Meridian Road: 21. Public Hearing: PP 06-006 Request for a Preliminary Plat with 255 single family residential lots and 16 common lots for Solitude Subdivision by Providence Development Group, LLC — south of East McMillan Road and east of North Meridian Road: 22. Public Hearing: AZ 06-004 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 358.57 acres from RR to R-2 (66.02 acres), R-8 (167.02 acres), R-15 (79.82 acres), C -N (17.26 acres) and C -C (28.45 acres) for The Tree Farm by Treehaven, LLC — north side of Chinden Boulevard on both sides of Black Cat Road; west of Spurwing Subdivision: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — March 2, 2006 Page 4 of 4 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. • • ** TX CONFIRMATION REPORT * AS OF FEB 27 106 16:07 PAGE.01 CITY OF MERIDIAN 04 DATE 02/27 TIME 15:22 TO/FROM 3810160 MODE MIN/SEC PGS CMD## STATUS 05 02/27 15:25 8848723 EC --S 02'17" 004 062 OK 06 02/27 15:27 WATER DEPT EC --S EC --S 01'20" 01'20" 004 062 OK 07 02/27 15:29 2088840744 EC --S 01'23" 004 004 062 062 OK OK 08 02/27 15:31 POLICE DEPT EC --S 01'19" 004 062 OK 09 02/27 15:33 8985501 EC --S 01'19" 004 062 OK 10 02/27 15:34 LIBRARY EC --S 01'20" 004 062 OK 11 02/27 15:36 2083776449 EC --S 01'19" 004 062 OK 12 02/27 15:38 3886924 EC --S 01'19" 004 062 OK 13 02/27 15:40 P -AND -Z EC --S 01'19" 004 062 OK 14 02/27 15.42 ALL AMERICAN INS EC --S 01'19" 004 062 OK 15 02/27 15:44 FIRE DEPT EC --S 01'19" 004 062 OK 16 02/27 15:46 208 888 2682 EC --S 01'21" 004 062 OK 17 02/27 15:48 208 387 6393 EC --S 01'38" 004 062 OK 18 02/27 15:50 2088885052 EC --S 01'21" 004 062 OK 19 02/27 15:52 LAKEVIEW GOLFCOU G3 --S 02'33" 004 062 OK 20 02/27 15:56 IDAHO ATHLETIC C EC --S 01'19" 004 062 OK 21 02/27 15:57 ID PRESS TRIBUNE EC --S 01'19" 004 062 OK 22 02/27 16:00 208%86701 EC --S 01'19" 004 062 OK 23 02/27 16:04 PUBLIC WORKS EC --S 01'21" 004 062 OK -------------------------------------------------24 02/27 16:06 ADA CTY DEUELMT EC --S ------------------------------------------- 01'20" 004 062 OK V�d� Vu�4-�OrOdbGc�fia-1Mwm�al CITY OF MERIDIAN MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Thursday, March 2, 2006, at 7:00 P.M. City Council Chambers "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." �. Roll -call Attendance: Wendy Newton-Huckabay _ Keith Bora David Moe - Vice Chairman p David Zaremba Michael Rohm - Chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of November 29, 2005 ** TX CONFIRMATION• PORT �* • AS OF MAR 03 06 01:21 PAGE.01 CITY OF MERIDIAN REVISED CITY OF MERIDIAN MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Thursday, March 2, 2006, at 7:00 P.M. City Council Chambers "Although the City of Meridian no longer requires swom 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 David Moe - Vice hairman —� David Zaremba Michael Rohm - Chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: APP rpm DATE TIME TO/FROM MODE MIN/SEC PGS CMD# STATUS 02 03/03 00:35 3810160 EC --S 02'32" 004 083 OK 03 03/03 00:38 PUBLIC WORKS EC --S 01'28" 004 083 OK 04 03/03 00:40 8848723 EC --S 01'29" 004 083 OK 05 03/03 00:42 WATER DEPT EC --S 01'30" 004 083 OK 06 03/03 00:44 2088840744 EC --S 01'32" 004 083 OK 07 03/03 00:46 POLICE DEPT EC --S 01'29" 004 083 OK 08 03/03 00:48 8985501 EC --S 01'29" 004 083 OK 09 03/03 00 50 LIBRARY EC --S 01'30" 004 083 OK 10 03/03 00:52 2083776449 EC --S 01'28" 004 083 OK 11 03/03 00:54 3886924 EC --S 01'28" 004 083 OK 12 03/03 00:56 P -AND -Z EC --S 01'29" 004 083 OK 13 03/03 00:5e ALL AMERICAN INS EC --S 01'29" 004 083 OK 14 03/03 01:00 FIRE DEPT EC --S 01'29" 004 083 OK 15 03/03 01:02 208 888 2682 EC --S 01'29" 004 083 OK 16 03/03 01:04 208 387 6393 EC --S 01'29" 004 083 OK 17 03/03 01:06 ADA CTY DEVELMT EC --S 01'30" 004 083 OK 18 03/03 01:09 2086885052 EC --S 01'30" 004 083 OK 19 03/03 01:11 LAKEVIEW GOLFCOU G3 --S 00'35" 000 083 INC 20 03/03 01:12 LAKEVIEW GOLFCOU G3 --S 00101" 000 083 INC 21 03/03 01:13 LAKEVIEW GOLFCOU 63--S 00'01" 000 083 INC 22 03/03 01:14 LAKEVIEW GOLFCOU G3 --S 00'34" 000 083 INC 23 03/03 01:15 IDAHO ATHLETIC C EC --S 01'29" 004 083 OK 24 03/03 01:17 ID PRESS TRIBUNE EC --S 01'29" 004 083 OK 25 03/03 01:19 2088886701 EC --S 01'28" 004 083 OK THIS DOCUMENT IS STILL IN MEMORY REVISED CITY OF MERIDIAN MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Thursday, March 2, 2006, at 7:00 P.M. City Council Chambers "Although the City of Meridian no longer requires swom 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 David Moe - Vice hairman —� David Zaremba Michael Rohm - Chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: APP rpm �� �� �� COMMUNICATIONS REPORT AS OF MAR 03 "06 05:00 PAGE.01 OF MERIDIAN TOTALCITY P�E �"=S TOTAL TIME SEND ' 0080 SEND : 00031"5711 RECEIVE : 0001 RECEIVE : 001100151"" DATE TIME TO/FROM MODE MIN/SEC PGS CMD# STATUS 01 03/02 11:56 Fax EC --R 00151" 001 082 OK 02 03/03 00:35 3810160 EC --S 02"32" 004 083 OK 03 03/03 00:38 PUBLIC WORKS EC --S 01"2B" 004 083 OK 04 03/03 00:40 8848723 EC --S 01`2911 004 083 OK 05 03/03 00:42 WATER DEPT EC --S 01"30= 004 083 OK 06 03/8 00:44 2088840744 EC --S 01"32" 004 083 ON 07 03/03 00:46 POLICE DEPT EC --S 01"29= 004 083 OK 08 03/03 00:48 8985501 EC --S 01"29" 004 083 OK 09 03/03 00:50 LIBRARY EC --S 81"30" 004 083 OK 10 03/03 00:52 2083?76449 EC --S 81"28" 004 083 OK 11 03/03 00:54 3886924 EC --S 01"28", 004 083 OK 12 03/03 00:56 p -AND -Z EC --S 01"29" 004 083 OK 13 83/03 80:58 ALL AMERICAN INS EC --S 01"29" 004 083 OK 14 03/03 01:00 FIRE DEPT EC --S 0i"29" 004 083 OK 15 03/03 01:02 208 B8B 2682 EC --S 01"29" 004 083 OK 16 83/03 01:04 208 38? 6393 EC --S 01"29" 004 083 0< 17 03/03 01:06 ADA CTY DEVELMT EC --S 01"30" 004 083 OK 18 03/03 01:09 2088685852 EC --S 01,30° 004 083 OK 19 03/03 01:11 LAKEVlEW GOLFCOU G3 --S 00"35" 000 083 INC 20 03/03 01:12 LAKEV[EW GOLFCOU G3 --S 00"011" 000 083 INC 21 03/03 01:13 LAKEV{EW GOLFCOU G3 --S 00"011, 000 083 INC 22 03/03 01:14 LANEV{EW GOLFCOU G3 --S 00"34" 000 083 INC 23 03/03 01:15 IDAHO ATHLETIC C EC --S 01^2911 004 083 OK 24 03/03 01:17 ID PRESS TRIBUNE EC --S 01^2911 004 083 OK 25 03/03 01:19 2088886781 EC --S 01"28= 004 083 OK Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting March 2, 2006 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of March 2, 2006, was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Michael Rohm. Members Present: Michael Rohm, Keith Borup, David Zaremba, Wendy Newton- Huckabay, and David Moe. Others Present: Bill Nary, Machelle Hill, Jessica Johnson, Craig (Caleb) Hood, Josh Wilson, Joe Guenther, Mike Cole, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll -Call Attendance: Roll -call X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Keith Borup X David Moe - Vice Chairman X David Zaremba X Michael Rohm - Chairman Rohm: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to call this regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission for March 2nd to order and begin with roll call. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: Rohm: Okay. Before we adopt the agenda, there are a couple of items that will be continued tonight and will not be heard and they are -- I hope I get this right. Public Hearing AZ 06-005 and PP 06-004 for Knight Sky Estates Subdivision. That will be continued to April 6th. Are you -- Shawn, are you okay with that? Yes. Okay. And the second one to be continued to the April 6th hearing date is Hightower Subdivision, which would be PP 06-003 and CUP 06-004. So, anybody that would be here to either provide testimony to those two applications or to listen to the applicant's presentation, those two will be continued to a later hearing and those are the only two changes to the agenda from my perspective. So, at this time I'd like to propose we adopt the agenda. Zaremba: So moved. Moe: Second. Rohm: Moved and seconded that we adopt the agenda. All those in favor say aye. All opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 3: Consent Agenda: Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 2 of 90 B. Approve Minutes of February 2, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting: 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: D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 05-058 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a new 45,000 square foot church in an R-8 zone for Valley Shepherd Nazarene Church by Valley Shepherd Nazarene — 2475 South Meridian Road: E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 06-001 Request for an Indoor Entertainment Facility in an I -L district for Yanke Warehouse by Gordon Jones Construction — 724 West Taylor: F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: 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: G. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: 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: H. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: 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: The third item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda. Does anyone have something to speak to that? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of items that probably can be dealt with without removing them from the Consent Agenda. Item A, the minutes of November 29, 2005, 1 did not receive those, but I understand others did by e-mail. The majority of us got those? Did other people actually get the November 29th minutes? Moe: Mr. Chairman, I did. Not by e-mail. I was in the office and requested those. Rohm: I think that we should remove it anyway, just because you have not had a chance to review. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 3 of 90 Zaremba: Okay. Let's remove A and schedule that for a later meeting. Then, Item C, Facts and Finding for Intermountain Wood Products, a very small item. On page two of the Facts and Findings, paragraph C, paragraph two, paragraph A -- so, I'm looking at C -2-A, and the second line it says: And has volunteered to provide additional site obscuring slates and the E should be removed. That should be made the word slats. And I only make a deal out of that, because there is such a thing as slates and we are not asking them to build a wall out of slates, but to put slats in an existing fence. So, I would take the E out of that word and make that change. Then on item H, the Findings for the Denny's restaurant, also on page two, item C, item two, there is an A that instructs them to widen the drive aisle behind the angled parking. On the property to the west of this we required that they put up employee only signs on the spaces that this is referring to. Did we also make that a requirement for this one? They are physically on this property. Moe: I don't remember that we did that. The only other thing we discussed on this matter was that they were going to move the building over, so we have -- Zaremba: To gain the space in the drive aisle. Moe: That's correct. And we did not -- Zaremba: Well, the requirement for the signs exist, but it's on the other property. Although the signs, actually, will be placed on this property. My question is do we think that should be added to this one or can we leave it the way it is? Does staff have an opinion? Hood: Not necessarily -- Mr. Chair, not necessarily an opinion, but just going through the minutes that was never part of the motion. The applicant did say that they could sign it no parking, but that was never part of the motion. So, reviewing it and putting that in, that's -- your recollection is like mine, but when it came to the motion and -- Zaremba: I remember it being discussed, but I wasn't sure whether it was in the motion or not. Rohm: So, you're fine with leaving it in? Zaremba: In that case I would leave it the way it is. So, I only have an amendment to -- I ask to remove A and I have one word amendment to C. Rohm: Okay. Could I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda as adjusted? Zaremba: So moved. Moe: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 4 of 90 Rohm: Moved and seconded to accept the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Okay. At this point this is where we start opening public hearings and before we open our first hearing there is a few things that I want to just point out procedurally that I think is important for those of you that come to these infrequently and want to be heard. The procedure we go through is we will open the Public Hearing on a given project and the first thing we do is we ask the staff to give their report. The staffs report -- the intent of the staffs report is to provide insight into the project as it relates to the Comprehensive Plan and ordinance. So, they take a look at everything, they say, okay, here is compliance and here is where they have asked for consideration for maybe additional amenities or things such as that, but they, basically, just present the project as it relates to our laws of the City of Meridian. Then, we ask the applicant to give their presentation. That's when the applicant has an opportunity to sell their project to the Commission and point out the attributes of the project that they feel bring value to the city. And each of these presentations are followed by a discussion period where we have an opportunity to ask additional questions or points of clarification. Once the applicant and the staff have both made their presentation, at that point in time it's open to the public to make their presentations and if, in fact, there is a single person that is a spokesman for a larger group, say a property owners association, that individual will be afforded I believe it's ten minutes to speak, as opposed to three minutes where a person is just speaking for themselves. So, that's the procedure that we go through here and there is an opportunity for discussion after each person makes their presentation or testimony as well and, then, once all testimony has been heard, then, the applicant has an opportunity to come back up and respond to each testimony given. And so that's the procedure that we go through. Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from February 2, 2006: AZ 05-058 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 49.95 acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for Keego Springs Subdivision by Todd Campbell — 5910 North Black Cat Road: Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from February 2, 2006: PP 05-060 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 201 building lots and 9 common lots on 49.95 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Keego Springs Subdivision by Todd Campbell — 5910 North Black Cat Road: Rohm: And with that being said, I will open the first Public Hearing. It's a continued Public Hearing from February 2nd, 2006, for AZ 05-058 and the continued Public Hearing from February 2nd, 2006, PP 05-060, for the Keego Springs Subdivision. Begin with the staff report. Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Keego Springs Subdivision -- I'll do kind of a quick recap. We are located on North Black Cat Road just Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 5 of 90 south of Chinden. The applicant did apply for 176 single family homes on approximately 50 acres and has submitted a revised plat that did include half of a school site, which ended up being most of the discussion at the last hearing. Since the last hearing it's my understanding that some kind of agreement has been reached between the school district and the two properties. It sounds like that was a very late developing agreement, so I'll let the applicant and Mr. Bigham address that. For your consideration tonight, the applicant would like to move forward with this plat and staff is in support of that with some comments that were kind of addressed at the last hearing. If you recall, the applicant did provide a letter that outlined their proposed modifications to our conditions. If you have those before you, I can kind of go through and give you staffs position on those proposed modifications. But we would recommend -- I guess our recommendation is still to move forward for approval with some of the changes that we can note and carried over from the last hearing. The applicant had proposed to modify condition 1.2.6 in regards to the amenity lots that were provided at the center of the development. It, essentially, groups them on the same side of the street and in this location, instead of having them on three separate pieces. We are in agreement with their proposed language on that condition. They did propose to modify condition 1.2.11 in regards to the stub that staff would like to see to the south. We are still in support of a stub to the south. So, we would not agree with their proposed language on that condition. 1.2.12 was in regards to the necessity of Keego Springs providing a school site. They have provided a school site here, so I think that one doesn't necessarily apply so much anymore. And, then, 1.2.13, we are in agreement with the modification that the date I believe that the applicant agreed to was June 1 st, 2006. If negotiations with the school district weren't finalized by then, then, the subdivision would come back in for a modification to subdivide that proposed half of a school lot into home sites. And my notes indicate that June 1 st, 2006, was when that was going to be. I think with that I will end staffs comments. We are -- staff is still in support of the elimination of the -- if you will recall, if the stub street is provided at this location, as ACHD wanted to see, thal left this building lot in between the stub street and the school site. We would still support the elimination of that building lot. And, then, the two building lots at the northwest corner of the school site, we do not still -- we do not support those either for concerns of visibility into the school site. The police department and school district both would like to have a clear line of sight into that school site and not have this awkward corner created by those home lots there. So, we would still support the elimination of those two lots. I think that was another thing that the applicant did mention at the last hearing. I think with that I will end staffs comments and take any questions from the Commission. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Any questions of staff? Would the applicant like to come forward, please? Butler: Good evening to the Commissioners. Let's see. Is it okay? Is that on the record? Yes. Joann Butler, 251 East Front Street, representing the applicant. I thank staff for the overview of the report. Staff indicated that there was an agreement reached with the school district. We have only heard that in the grapevine. I have not been contacted, my client has not been contacted, but for the purposes of this meeting, let's Meridian Planning & Zoning • March 2, 2006 Page 6 of 90 assume that there is an agreement. We would -- we are asking you tonight to recommend to the City Council that the plat before you, with showing the school site, is acceptable and assuming that Mr. Bigham has reached an agreement -- some type of agreement, even verbally, with the adjacent property owners, we are more than happy to work with Mr. Bigham until June 1, which was the date that he felt was a date that an agreement could be reached, to see if there can be a co -agreement reached and we will certainly do that. Nonetheless, we don't want to hold up this plat. We would, however, because we don't know what this agreement will be and we don't -- we have only heard this through the grapevine -- I don't think the Commission would mind if we come back, you know, after June 1 st and modified this plat, as, obviously, anybody can, but just -- I'd like to confirm that on the record. And also if things look like they are not going anywhere, we might come back for a modification earlier, at least get it in the works, but we will do our best to work with the school district, if that's where this is. We are also willing to do this so long as the -- it doesn't make us out of compliance with other regulations. This stub street that staff would like to south -- and the engineers can speak to this perhaps even more so than I -- does not meet the offset requirements for ACRD. Now, it may be that ACHD will grant some leeway there, but we just need to be on the record that if it causes us to be out of compliance, we may have to come back for some modifications or do something to assist that. We also cannot agree to the loss of the lots. After a long discussion with Mr. Bigham in which we talked about what the city, clearly, in carrying the school district's water, in trying to encourage this -- this -- this transaction, even though the Comprehensive Plan doesn't guide the school to this location in the area, even though there is a lot more land in this area for a school site, even though our client has 15 percent of the lots in this section, we are more than happy to sit there and to go through that and try to do our best. But as I understand, the negotiations were -- the discussions with Mr. Bigham, he agreed to this particular layout of lots and Mr. Campbell told me that as I was getting up and if you need to ask him -- I wasn't there, so if you need to ask him questions about that, he's here. So, just in summary, we are asking you for your recommendation of approval to the Council with the conditions of approval, without the loss of the lots, and we will work with the school district to try to reach agreement between now and June 1 st. Thank you. Any questions? Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of the applicant? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would repeat a question I asked last time and I'm sorry that have forgotten what the answer was. Is this a pathway to the school site? Butler: Well, I don't remember the answer, so -- Zaremba: Good. I'm not the only one that doesn't remember. Butler: I think that may be a block demarcation, but I will have Mr. Campbell answer that. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 7 of 90 Campbell: We had -- Todd Campbell, the applicant. Reside at 2320 West Preston in Eagle. We had agreed to putting in a pathway there, so desired by the Commission. The way it's designated now is no -- there is no pathway there at this time. Zaremba: I sort of thought that was the answer that you agreed, but it wasn't -- Campbell: Right. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Campbell: Any other questions? Rohm: At this time it's open to public testimony. Mr. Bigham. Bigham: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, Wendell Bigham, 911 Meridian Road, representing Joint School District No. 2. Clarification. There has been no agreement reached with the applicant on Keego Springs as to the acquisition of the property. We have been unsuccessful in moving as quickly as I had hoped. The status I can tell you today is tomorrow to Monday I expect to start documenting a verbal agreement with the Volterra Subdivision to the south as to the amount and nature of the land. It has not changed significantly from the discussion of two weeks ago -- or of a month ago. Excuse me. There has been I think some proposed street realignment within Volterra, but I have not seen those drawings. The Volterra engineer is present tonight, but I don't know that it's constructive to get into that discussion, but we think we are very close to having a tentative agreement with Volterra. My goal at that point is to immediately, tomorrow to Monday, to approach Mr. Campbell to start talking about the Keego Springs site. Our desire is to not hold the project up in having it move forward. Our desire is to do those things which furthers the discussion and the immediate acquisition of this site way prior to June 1, '06. So, it's at your discretion if you wish to move the subdivision forward. Two comments very quickly. The two lots in the northeast -- northwest corner, these two are -- or the one and a half right there, in a perfect world we'd prefer that they weren't there. We can, as the school district, work around the confines of those lots, so I will pass the buck to you, I guess, as to whether or not you think they are appropriate. They do present the concerns that staff mentioned for line of site supervision, et cetera, but it is a playground area, it's just less than desiRabehl. But we can live with that. We would appreciate seeing a pedestrian connection here, because it allows these streets to get into the adjacent subdivision to the east and the discussion of the street -- I guess it doesn't show in through here. Not discounting what the client said, I tend to agree, I don't think it meets the setback, so think it could be problematic to require them and should this be a school site and continuing on down into Volterra, at first blush I don't think we would be desirous of having that on -street parking lot directly by the school. I think it will simply wad up with traffic. So, that I'm more interested as a pedestrian traffic from the adjacent subdivisions into the school site and less worried about the traveling public connecting through there through a street, because parents will stop right on that street to drop their kids off to and from the school and I think it will present the periodic traffic jam that Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 8 of 90 occurs around schools. So, again, I will somewhat side with the applicant that even if we could get it in there, we would probably be asking that it not been there, but prefer it to be a pedestrian friendly corridor, if nothing else. With that, I would stand for any questions. Rohm: Thank you, Wendell. Any questions at this point? Borup: Mr. Bigham. Mr. Chairman. We saw a preliminary site plat -- well, I don't even know if it was preliminary. A sample site plan. I think it showed the buildings basically to the south and playground to the north and I think that's what you just mentioned was probable what the layout is going to be; is that correct? Bigham: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Borup that is correct. The playground area is -- I'm hesitant to get my -- the other map out, but the building is actually sitting kind of in here diagonally in relation to the world, because if Volterra's main street comes through like that -- Borup: Okay. And, then, was there going to be any -- but there is going to be no public access, no vehicle access at this point, then? Bigham: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Borup, no, all of our vehicular access comes off of the main arterial, if you're a collector, that comes into the main road into Volterra. So, the connection to Keego Springs is simply pedestrian access. That's why I'm so concerned about a little stub road running from the main road into Volterra up into here. I think you're going to get a lot of people using that road for an on -street parking lot. Borup: Well, I'm just trying to understand completely the concern about these lots. I mean it's not any different than these lots over here or these lots over here. Bigham: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Borup, that's why I'm saying that the school district is pretty neutral. It would be much better for organized play activities if that was simply a square corner for maximum utilization, because little corners like this are hard to utilized and space is like this. It would just be better utilization for the school district. I think at the end, the high and better determining factor would be the staff comments in terms of police department, fire, you know things that you're generally concerned with. We can live with this condition. In a perfect world we would prefer not. Borup: I'll discuss that with the -- I mean if the road did not go through, maybe it wouldn't be too bad to eliminate that lot and get a little more -- it would be a little more open site through there. We will see. Bigham: That would be preferable, but that is discussion between you and the applicant. Rohm: Thank you, Wendell. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 9 of 90 Bigham: Thank you. Rohm: Could you respond to the discussion on the stub street to the south a little bit? Wilson: I can. And I guess I would ask for a little clarification from the applicant's engineer about what this offset conflict is. In the ACHD report that's in your packets, the stub street is approved by ACHD in this location, lining up with the center of the alley. So, it has been approved by ACRD, so I -- as staff I'm a little confused by the offsets that he can't meet when ACHD approved it. Rohm: Okay. Would the applicant like to come back forward and -- Newton-Huckabay: Is there more public testimony? Rohm: Well, there is nobody else signed up, but before we do that, is there anybody else in the audience that would like to testify to this application before we get back to the applicant? Seeing none -- please, come forward. Howard: My name is Jim Howard with JJ Howard Engineering, 1530 East Commercial in the great City of Meridian, and I know that there is a conflict with the spacing that's on Black Cat Road. We have to setback so far. They won't allow that street. And all that would ask is that -- is that that be looked at again. I was surprised to see that comment. We don't think that it's in conformance if we was to put a stub street in there, so we have an issue with that and I think we can resolve that on the staff level. I just don't agree with their comments, because we have their standards and we think that it's not in conformance with those standards. So, that's the only way I can address it right now. hope that answers your question. I don't agree with staff. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I'd just -- clarification for me. Your point is not where it aligns on your property, but the obvious other end of it -- Howard: That's correct. Zaremba: -- and the collector road that it would connect with is -- Howard: We have got to set that street back so far from Black Cat and we are just not in agreement with -- I just don't agree with staff. But I'm sure that we could resolve it at the staff level. Zaremba: Okay. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Wilson: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, just I guess quickly just a little more discussion on this. In that location there was a stub approved with Volterra Subdivision. So, that stub connects to the collector, has been approved by ACHD, they, Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 10 of 90 actually, require -- the initial plan, if the school site wasn't there, there was a stub here and ACHD, actually, required that they move that 140 feet to the west to line up with the stub that was provided at Volterra Subdivision, which lies approximately 330 feet east of Black Cat Road and that's directly from the ACHD staff report. Rohm: So, as long as the staff -- the stub to the south aligns with the one from Volterra that stubs to the north, then, it should be okay. Wilson: Yeah. Rohm: Okay. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, are we into discussion? Rohm: We are into discussion. Zaremba: I'm not sure I have any real opinion about the two items under contention, but I would like to add the pathway at the north end of the school. The overall basic project seems like one that we could easily recommend. My sense of what Mr. Bigham said was that he's cautiously optimistic that the school site will happen, so I would be comfortable forwarding this to the City Council in pretty much this configuration that we are seeing now, with the knowledge if the school site falls through, they may come back and talk to us again about it. That doesn't answer the two hanging questions, but it's an opinion about the overall project. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Moe. Moe: One thing I'm still kind of unclear on -- I know last month when this came before us, in regards to the stub street, was it not also discussed that, in fact, we weren't going to do a stub street there, that we would do a walking path in that location as well, not necessarily the one you're speaking of, Commissioner Zaremba? Rohm: One or the other? Moe: Right. Rohm: Okay. Borup: Yeah. Moe: Anyone else remember that? Meridian Planning & Zoning • March 2, 2006 Page 11 of 90 Butler: I do. I think I do. I think that's part and parcel of some of your other decisions in this area, too. If you were looking for the connectivity and if it wasn't to be vehicular, then, you would have a pedestrian pathway. Moe: Okay. Rohm: Did you have additional comments? Butler: Just a few comments. Rohm: Yes. Butler: It does appear that Mr. Bigham has made some progress and we certainly wish him good speed. So, that means that there would be no reason to hold this plat from going forward. Speaking just, again, to these lot -- these lots, the loss, again, of just one more lot, when we have put so much into this -- and this is not even the main entrance to the school, would not seem to be reasonable in this case. With regard to the stub -- and with regard to the stub street, if ACHD is requiring this and the pathway is what is preferred, then, we'd just ask Meridian to be the go between with us and ACHD to insure that we don't have an issue with ACRD. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Zaremba: Mrs. Butler, while you're still here, let me ask staff a question. If the two or three lots that are being discussed remained in the plat and, actually, it also applies to all the ones along the north boundary of the school property as well, isn't there some provision to require an open vision fence, so that at least those lots have vision into the school property? I think we have done that on other school properties. Wilson: There is a disagreement of whether that would be required by ordinance. If that was a common open space for the subdivision, it would definitely be required by ordinance. But where that is just a lot in the subdivision, I don't think it's required by code, but you could certainly require it as a Commission. Zaremba: And let me ask the applicant whether that would be acceptable. Butler: It would be acceptable as a condition. Zaremba: Okay. Rohm: Any additional discussion on this project? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 12 of 90 Newton-Huckabay: I just want to know if we could pull back and see the picture of the broader area. Where is the nearest stub to the south now? Borup: It's not on there, is it? I was interested in the same thing. So, we don't have the Volterra plat? Wilson: Unfortunately, we do not have Volterra in our system. I think it's a safe assumption that one connects to that stub to Bainbridge -- Newton-Huckabay: So, there is the stub in Bainbridge and there is the stub that's in Volterra that heads north? Wilson: Right. And the plat shown on the screen is not the current proposed plat. That doesn't have the school site and -- Newton-Huckabay: Right. Wilson: I really do wish Volterra was in the system, because we could see where that stub is and it would be pretty obvious that -- Borup: From the other testimony -- or from what you interpreted the ACHD report, the stub is approximately right where -- lined up with the alley? Wilson: Right lining up with the alley. Yeah. Borup: And that was a condition of Volterra also -- Wilson: Yes. Borup: -- that that stub will be there. It doesn't make sense to have two stub streets -- or I mean a stub street that doesn't go anywhere, so -- Newton-Huckabay: Well, I think given the fact that the other -- the nearest stub appears to me to be quite a bit to the east, that's the only other opportunity to connect to the south. I would think that it would be important to have one. Wilson: See if we can get a -- Mr. Bigham just provided me this piece of paper that appears to show Volterra's preliminary plat, showing the stub that would be approximately at the middle of that alley. Borup: The edge of the alley. They'll have to redesign. I think they could redesign their drainage pond -- just slide things down. Newton-Huckabay: I don't think they are going to do that now. Borup: Sure they can. No, not the stub street. They can redesign these lots. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 13 of 90 Newton-Huckabay: Oh. Oh, I see what you're saying. Okay. Well, again, that said, would recommend that we require the stub street on that. Rohm: Require the stub street to interconnect to Volterra. Newton-Huckabay: Yes. Rohm: And, then, have the pathway over to the east, so you would have the stub street that connects north and south between the two subdivisions and, then, a pathway coming into what appears to be the playground to the east. Borup: And no elimination of lots. Rohm: And no elimination of lots. Is that kind of what your thoughts are on that, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay? Newton-Huckabay: Did you say two pathways or one? Rohm: One pathway -- Newton-Huckabay: The one pathway to the north -- Borup: The other pathway would just be the street sidewalk. Newton-Huckabay: Yes, it is. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: And I could support the -- leaving the two building lots there in that odd corner, if we added the requirement that the applicant agreed to an open vision fence along the entire school property line. Rohm: Okay. Commissioner Moe, do you have any additional comments? Moe: I would say I would be in agreement with those -- those items. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on AZ 05-058 and PP 05- 060. Borup: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 05-058 and PP 05-060. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 14 of 90 Zaremba: The person that moves to close the Public Hearing usually ends up making the motion, don't they? Rohm: Lucky you. Zaremba: I'm not sure I made good enough notes, but let me give it a stab. Newton-Huckabay: You're the most eloquent of the group. Zaremba: See if I ever close a Public Hearing again. Borup: Oh, we need to find the staff report. Newton-Huckabay: I don't have notes from the last hearing. Zaremba: I made some notes on my copy of the staff report and now I'm not finding that. Let me ask staff to refresh -- on Exhibit B, you gave us a couple changes. What was the first one? Wilson: The first one would have been condition 1.2.6. Zaremba: Okay. Hang on. Let me get there. Yeah, I did mark the other two. And what was the comment there? Wilson: We did agree with the applicant's language that they proposed and I'll go ahead and read that. The preliminary plat shall be revised to relocate the amenities, i.e., tot lot, gazebo, barbecue, and clubhouse and pool area on revised Lot 11, Block 7. Lots 28, 29, 30, and 31 of Block 10, and Lots 4, 5, 6, 7 of Block 4 will be placed in the amenities original locations. This will consolidate all neighborhood amenities, tot lot, barbecue area, and pool in one location to prevent pedestrians crossing public streets as neighborhood residents use the facilities and result in no loss of buildable lots. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of AZ 05-058 and PP 05-060, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of February 2, 2006, which meeting was continued to today, with the following changes: On Exhibit B, paragraph 1.2.6, substitute the applicant's wording that was just read by Mr. Wilson. On paragraph 1.2.12, that can be deleted as satisfied. It has been satisfied. 1.2.13 has also been satisfied and can be deleted. Let's see. I would reinforce the requirement for the stub street, which I believe is stated in here. I would add two items. One is that there will be a pedestrian path access along the north school Meridian Planning & Zoning • March 2, 2006 Page 15 of 90 property line. And another addition is that all perimeter fencing along the school property line will be open vision. Did I capture everything? Newton-Huckabay: Did you want to make the June 6 -- Borup: Yeah. Mr. Chairman. That was what I -- was on that point 13. Was your motion to delete the whole -- that whole -- whole section? Zaremba: That's the way I noted it, but if that's not correct, what should it be? 1.2.13 you're talking about? Borup: Mr. Wilson, you say you're acceptable with the applicant's wording of that? Wilson: We were, with the one change that they had noted January 1 st, 2007, and -- Borup: Change it to June 1 st. Wilson: June 1st, 2006. Zaremba: Okay. And, then, I'd change my motion that 1.2.13 accepts the applicant's wording. Okay. That means the date is January 6th -- or I mean the date is July 2006. Borup: June 1st. Zaremba: June 1st. What did I say? June 1st, 2006. Okay. End of motion. Borup: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 05-058 and PP 05-060. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 6: Continued Public Hearing from February 16, 2006: 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 7: Continued Public Hearing from February 16, 2006: 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 & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 16 of 90 Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the continued Public Hearing from February 16, 2006, for AZ 05-067 and CUP 05-060. Both of these items relating to Casa Meridiana or something like that. In any case -- and start with the staff report. Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This is Casa Meridiana Subdivision -- it is not a subdivision. Casa Meridiana multi -family request. It's, actually, being requested as a 6.9 acre annexation. It is in the southeast corner of Victory and Locust Grove. We lost a piece of our presentation tonight. North road Victory. South -- north -south road is Locust Grove. This has a 32 unit single family residential attached product that would be with this. This is relative of a condominium plat, which we would see in the future. The second -- or the third request would be that these are private streets; they are designed as a 26 -foot wide road section. As your staff report details, staff is in support of the multi -family type of units and the elevations detailed with this as shown. However, ACHD and staff do agree there is a lack of interconnectivity with this type of development, mainly because when the Locust Grove Overpass goes in, Locust Grove will most likely be operating at an arterial level of traffic, especially with the number of units that have yet to be developed in that north in that north -south corridor. It's currently listed as a collector road and staff does anticipate that that level of traffic to increase significantly and, therefore, the access point to Locust Grove is recommended to be eliminated and a stub street to the south be provided in a location to be determined by ACHD. ACHD staff report does recommend that the applicant provide an east -west connection, but if you look at the overall -- let me go back to the presentation. There are only four parcels in this location and what staff would anticipate would be that the parcel to the south would provide an east -west connection and, then, there would only be one other future connection to Victory Road in a north -south location. There is, as you can see, several water features proposed on this -- actually, you probably can't see. It's pretty small. There is a pond located in the northwest corner. A type of a stream. There are some existing wetland features. They are not designated wetlands and are not going to be required for mitigation on this site, but with those types of features you can anticipate high ground water. We do have -- this is another area that we have high ground water issues and staff is recommending that the Commission take those into consideration. Let me try and get back to where I'm going. I guess it does not go as far south as I had hoped. Just immediately south of Tuscany Lakes Subdivision is the Bellingham Park Subdivision that had significant issues with ground water as well and the Commission did institute some restrictions on building type due to the -- the lack of desirability of any type of ground water to be occurring in crawl spaces for future development. So, that would be a consideration that we would like the Public Works to make sure that the drainage of these types of roadways would be adequate. Provided the applicant is currently showing attached sidewalks on this site. This is proposed to change to a type of detached sidewalk with a drainage swale, obviously, to further help address the high ground water issues in this area. The applicant does have a very amenity laden product where there is a pool and clubhouse in the southwest corner. There would be parking provided for the pool and clubhouse. There is a pathway and many water features as amenities to this site. A walking path would connect to the east and are shown to be connecting to the south, but the north -south connection would be proposed as a public Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 17 of 90 I►� street. Now, with the staff report the recommendation is for a redesign, but the staff is asking this Commission in order to give better guidance as how you would like to proceed. ACHD has made some special notices to the City of Meridian. Now, I will tell you that the ACHD staff members have pretty much -- two of them, their major staff members, have been -- have left ACHD and any type of recommendation and -- if you do table this, we will want ACHD to look at it and it may slow this project down significantly due to their lack of staff at ACHD to review these types of projects. The applicant does -- is showing gates on these sites. Gates are not allowed on private streets, which is a major concern, but is not -- it's not an option at this time. The applicant has indicated that they would be proposing or possibly be coming forward in front of this Commission with another request for a UDC text amendment. Staff is not going to comment on that, because we do not have anything at this time to comment on. That is up to the applicant to determine at a latter date. At this time staff has presented Findings for a -- consistent with denial, but we are recommending that this project be redesigned and reevaluated as to its -- being in the best interest of the City of Meridian for the overall site design. And with that I will stand for questions, but most likely your questions are for the applicant. Rohm: Thank you very much. Any questions of staff? Would the applicant like to come forward, please? Phillips: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I'm Russ Phillips with Insight Architects, 2238 Broadway Avenue, Boise, Idaho. We have got an exciting project here and we also have a short PowerPoint presentation that we'd like to refer to at this point. It should be under Casa Meridiana. And, please, don't get hung up on that name. It's -- we found it a little difficult to run out smoothly, so right now we'd like to keep it filed under that name, but we are reevaluating the name of the project. To start out with, while this comes up, the -- you know, I moved to the Treasure Valley when I was 22 and Meridian was a little blip on the radar screen and, obviously, it's grown a lot. We have all seen what's happened and part of what the community has been very good at picking up is that there is a chance of identity loss and through the Comprehensive Plan and many other -- many other positive things; I think Meridian is taking care of a lot of these issues and establishing its identity. One of the main things that we want to present tonight is a community -- a very small community, but a community that will respond to the diversity that is mentioned many times throughout the Comprehensive Plan. Diversity in lifestyles, residential living environment. This is a project that really has been thoughtfully looked out by Oaas Laney. Oaas Laney is a development -- a developer that is local based and has promoted projects that have been beneficial to communities in different ways and we have seen this community as a good example of how to create and bring to Meridian some diversity and in its residential environment. The next slide, please. This site was brought to us a year ago and it's taken a year of thoughtfulness to look at what type of development makes the most sense here. It's a site that can stand alone, we believe, with -- mainly because it's 6.9 acres. It has access on two collectors and it can stand alone in this type of configuration. The market originally was looked at to -- when we talk about diversity, is a -- was a market of say empty nesters, couples that have reached the point where they would like to -- the kids are out of the house, Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 18 of 90 9 their homes have appreciated beyond their imagination, so that they could, then, move into a very high quality environment to live in and, then, in -- it would be secure in that it's a small environment and also the gates we viewed as really key in providing security, so that when the residents are gone on a trip that they maintain a sense of security over their homes, not only with neighbors, but also with traffic flow. As we went through many focus groups, we found that also dual income young professionals also are looking for this type of housing alternative, where, essentially, the homeowners association takes care of -- of the outdoor areas and, yet, you still have a home that's roughly 22, 23 hundred square feet. The amenities that Joe mentioned include -- we are working with -- due to the high ground water, trying to play with the water in some different areas. We have got a plan we have been working with, our civil engineers, and Meridian's public works as far as retaining the water. The ground water is somewhat artificial in that the irrigation is affecting that, so we have been monitoring that and we are trying to get some better analysis here during the next couple months. Other amenities is this is built on a -- kind of a Mediterranean style of homes, which the next slides will show. Hence, the name Casa, it will be a collection of casa homes. Some are detached homes, single family, as in this -- a couple of these. Three of these. Others are attached in pairs and some in threes. We are looking in keeping with a Tuscany or a -- not to be confused with the subdivision, like with a Mediterranean feel. The architecture, as you will see, reflects -- truly reflects this type of housing style with clay tile roofs, stucco, simplistic, but undulations in the building to create shadows in its massing. We are looking at the activity center besides the pool and courts and we are even looking at landscaping as far as types of olive trees that will grow in this climate. So, we are trying to look at this site all the way into the building. Each residential unit will be a condominium. It will be owned outright. We have a standard downstairs plan, which is 1,500 square feet, two bedroom, as planned upstairs, trying to look at custom -- from the customer point custom designs. We have got four different alternatives for upstairs, including a rec room option with baths, master bedroom suite, and a library and den type situation. A third bedroom. So, first time owners will have a variety of really a pallet to look at as far as kind of customizing their own home. We also have interior designs, one which will be traditional, kind of Old World in feel and the other will be a metro feel, to appeal to different age groups or lifestyles. In addition, outdoors, although we have got roughly 40 percent in open kind of common areas, each unit will have a patio which is trellised, you will have an outdoor kitchen with an outdoor fireplace and -- so that's another amenity there. The main concern -- there seems to be two concerns. One is the private streets. We did meet with ACHD in the very beginning and, then, again, during a tech review period and the initial -- the initial concept hasn't changed much and ACHD really was kind of -- they didn't have an issue at that time with private streets. They did bring up connectivity that that's something that Meridian has been looking at. In meeting with Meridian city planners, connectivity was discussed. We discussed vehicular connectivity and pedestrian connectivity. We opted to go with pedestrian connectivity to the south and to the east and not consider the vehicular connectivity. After reviewing the staff report and meeting with staff yesterday, if there truly is a desire on the city's part for vehicular connectivity to the south, then, we certainly would look at a redesign of this area in here. We certainly -- we've spent a year thoughtfully going through the project and we would like to do what we can to work Meridian Planning & Zoning 0 O March 2, 2006 Page 19 of 90 with staff to continue through the process and not backtrack and I feel that we could work with ACHD and staff to reach a solution, depending on what the Commission and City Council looked at. Eric Oaas with Oaas Laney is also here tonight and I believe he'd like to say a couple things after we show a quick slide. This is a rendering of what the casa collection would look like from the street side. Next. And, then, we have a series of slides, you can just go through, Joe, that shows the -- kind of the inspiration, the catalyst for the design of this type. Clay tile roofs, stucco, simplistic design, but, again, in this type of climate with lots of sun, the shadows and massing really provide the buildings with their character. We do have a fence on -- which, if you can imagine around the perimeter we have a six foot fence, which will be the same type of materials as the buildings, they will be a concrete block wall with stucco and the detailing and, then, the gates will be cast iron. It's a little hard to see, but this is perhaps the best slide we could find in a hurry that conveys the type of wall we are looking at. The trellised area over the patios and the gazebo would look something like the last slide right here. So, do you have any questions before I have our client say a few words? Rohm: I think not. Let's -- Phillips: Okay. Oaas: Thank you, Russ. Commissioner Rohm and Planning and Zoning Commission. I'm Eric Oaas with Oaas Laney, 519 West Front in Boise. And just a couple quick items. I know you're very busy tonight, but just to give you an idea of the type of projects that we have done here in the valley, we have built a number of class A office buildings over in Nampa near the Idaho Center. We also are -- refurbished an old warehouse building on front street in Boise and it's, actually, the first -- we are very proud to be the first Leed certified commercial building in the state of Idaho. We were just granted our certification by the U.S. Green Building Council here just last week, so we are -- we like to think of ourselves as being sort of on the forefront of not only good development, but progressive thinking. Another development we are working on in downtown Boise is the Ada County Family Justice Center that will be a processing center for victims of sexual abuse and child abuse. So, we are -- we try to focus on projects that we think are not only valuable from a development standpoint, but also valuable to the community. Here in the Meridian area our predecessor company developed the Generations Plaza project. We are also in the process of finishing up the Double D site out on the corner of Victory and Locust Grove and we are in the process of demolishing that ugly silo building down on Main Street where Double D used to be located and we plan to put a very nice -- probably a mixed use retail office development on that site. So, beginning of next week we should see that coming down as well. We see the casa project here at Ten Mile Creek as being a continuation of what we really like to do as -- in terms of high quality projects that really are adding more to the community than taking away and we respectfully request you to consider seriously, but also consider what we have done to consider, really, what we are about. And if the Commission decides that there is additional work by way of staffs recommendations with regard to access, we would respectfully request approval with an understanding that we would go back and work these out. We think that the staff has presented some very workable solutions and we Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 20 of 90 are quite willing to move forward, but we would prefer, because this has been in process for well over a year, we would prefer to move forward with the project without delay. Thank you very much. Any questions? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Based on what you just said, then, I would anticipate that the stub street to the south would be okay for you, if, in fact, we were to require having the stub street to the south, as well as removal of the gates? Basically, just noting what the UDC code and whatnot is. Quite frankly, the UDC is not that old, so, therefore, we are not really -- I'm not amenable, I should say, to changing rules out of the UDC when we just have really adopted it and started working with it now. So, I'm just curious as far as those two items. You say that you will work with staff and those would be items that you could work with. Oaas: Commissioner Moe, I guess I would like to sort of bifurcate those two issues and, one, the stub street to the south we think staff has come up with some reasonable suggestions for how we might be able to address that. We do, however, feel that -- that the gates in this community, although it is a UDC requirement that's recently been adopted, we feel that that's very very important to the look and feel and workings of this development. I guess it's our -- it's our feeling that the UDC ordinance with regard to gates was primarily focused on commercial developments and because -- and because of that, it sort of got spilled over into the residential area as well and in doing so there is a portion of the diversity that Russ Phillips spoke to, a diversity of the -- of the environment and residential community here in Meridian that's being -- that's not being addressed and people who are desirous of living in those communities are either going to Boise or going elsewhere and Meridian, in some respects, is eliminating itself from consideration of people who are interested in that -- in that type of living. We would strongly encourage the Commission to reconsider that and we would be more than willing to -- and, in fact, we plan to submit an application for modification to the ordinance and spell out specifically why we think it's important from a residential standpoint to adopt changes to the code to allow gates in certain circumstances, because -- because of the fact that Meridian is driving that segment of the population away. Rohm: Thank you. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: Thank you. I picked up on your comment about the Leeds certified building. Those are not part of our new UDC, so we can't require it, but we certainly encourage it. Are you planning to apply any of those principals to these buildings? Meridian Planning & Zoning • March 2, 2006 Page 21 of 90 Oaas: Commissioner Zaremba, we have found that the Leeds concepts, being what we consider to be on the forefront of this activity or this movement, has been very enlightening for us. The project that we just -- that we completed and that's where our offices are, the Front Five building down on Front Street, is the Leed certified building and the first -- by the way, the first one in the state of Idaho, but -- but because we were on the front end of that development, the Leeds -- adopting the Leeds concepts made it more expensive and we think that, you know, that's understandable when you're on the front end, because a lot of the materials that are required for Leeds buildings and sustainable buildings are not readily accessible and available in the area. However, a lot of the concepts of bringing daylighting into buildings and water conservation measures and looking at -- at bringing fresh air into buildings when the CO2 levels rise to the fact that -- or rise to the level where people are becoming more lethargic and the fact of light pollution. You know, if you drove by our building downtown on Front Street at night you would notice that there is very very little light that shines up into the air that's causing, you know, light pollution. The lights that we have shine downward. So, from our perspective it's easy to look at adopting a lot of these same ideas, even though it may not be, quote, a Leeds certified project, we'd like to -- we'd like to bring these ideas into our projects, because we think they make sense. Zaremba: Good. Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commission Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I think that we should probably move on with public testimony and get this hearing going. Rohm: Thank you. Oaas: All right. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. There is no nobody else signed up to this, but at this point in time we certainly are open to public testimony. Please come forward. Walsh: Thank you. My name is Paul Walsh. My address is 2655 South Simsbury in Boise. I live over in the Muirwood Subdivision, almost Meridian. Wish I was. I'm working with the development group that has the parcel just to the south of this project. Okay. We have a small parcel, 6.53 acres. We ended up getting two stub roads. We got the one to the east requested and, then, also the one -- would be our north boundary, their south boundary, okay? A couple comments that I have as far as, one, the gates in there, I think lends real well to the subdivision and it would also avoid a cut - through that we see in the subdivision I live in in Meridian -- or in Muirwoods. We have that on the corner of Victory and Cloverdale. I have a friend that lives there, he had the police come out, they issued 17 citations in a four hour period for cut-throughs in this same configuration. So, I think the gates would alleviate some of that problem. Okay? Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 22 of 90 Then, as far as the stub road coming in, in the event there was a gate there, it doesn't lend to the exclusiveness of the project. Okay. Also, secondly, the linear footage that have along that north -south boundary there is limited and to add the dimension of an additional road in there just isn't conducive to our project on the other end either. My thought was is -- I understand for emergency access. There is plenty of access. I'm only doing 26 lots. So, it's a small project. And with their 32 lots, the need for an additional or an emergency access is limited and my thought was the pedestrian path that was shown that's connecting the two projects, if emergency access was a concern, if we turn that into an emergency entrance with breakaways, that would limit through traffic, would maintain the exclusiveness of their project, and would reduce our footage and, then, we could kill, basically, two birds with one stone, get the pedestrian cross - through that we are looking for to get over to the regional pathway that we are installing along Ten Mile Creek and I think it would just lend well to both projects where we are working together, basically, so -- Rohm: Thank you. Interesting. I appreciate your comments. At least from an adjacent property perspective, that kind of ties in with what they are saying. So, thank you very much. Any questions? Borup: Just clarification. Mr. Walsh, you support their project just as they have designed it it sounds like. Walsh: Yes. Borup: Other than adding the pathway. Walsh: Correct. I think that would be a good alternative for emergency access if that was a concern. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Borup: Just maybe one other question, Mr. Chairman. Did you say you had talked to ACHD on a preliminary basis -- Walsh: I have not. We are just starting our drawings. Borup: Okay. So, you are not planning a stub street to your north, then, at this point? Walsh: I think my engineer is drafting one, because staff requested it. As I talk with her -- I didn't make that meeting. As I talk with her I'd like to find an alternative solution to that stub street. Borup: Okay. But you're definitely planning to the east. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 23 of 90 Walsh: Yes. That's been requested Borup: Yeah. Walsh: I didn't care for that one either, but -- Borup: Well -- Walsh: -- I understand -- I understand the purpose of that one, okay, and then -- so, we are not going to battle with it and we can see -- you know, I want to try and design it to where I don't create a cut -through, because that seems to be the big concern. Borup: And you can do that with road designs easily. Walsh: Right. And so we are working towards that. Borup: Thank you. Moe: One question. Are you anticipating, then, to take -- for a road to go out onto Locust Grove as well -- into your property as well? Walsh: Yes, sir. Moe: Okay. Walsh: For about -- we are that parcel just to the north of the canal, so we have -- I'm not sure the frontage on there. We were going to bring one in off of Locust Grove, meander it though, and, then, take the stub to the east. I got a real limited size there -- got about a hundred feet of frontage on that east boundary, so we are working through that. I kind of felt that the small parcel owners got left with all the stubs. You know, we had Tuscany was a large parcel, they could absorb some of their footage a little better and the way it went in that the small parcels got left with all the stub roads. So, it really - - with the way things are moving now, it leaves us with limited lots to make the project feasible, but we are working through those. So, I just -- looking for my project along with two stub streets on five acres and 26 lots, it eats you up pretty fast. Moe: Well, I guess I'm not going to speak for staff and whatnot, but I would anticipate that the reason, more or less, for the stub street to the south for this project that we are hearing tonight is the fact that I'm not so sure they'd like to see any access onto Locust Grove off that property to the south, because you're going have, you know, two streets coming out of Locust Grove right in that same area right there. You don't have much frontage along Locust Grove from our site that we are hearing tonight, so I think the intent was that that stub street take care of your development with no access onto Locust Grove. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 24 of 90 Walsh: In their defense, I think that, you know, we are looking six to eight thousand square foot single families. Nice project, similar to Tuscany Village across the street with Craftsman style homes, where their property is so exclusive as to the design, they have put a lot of care into the design of the structures, the values that are going to be there, to have a subdivision that I feel is on a lower -- you know, it's not built to those type of price per square footages, it wouldn't -- if I had that project over there, I wouldn't want another subdivision dumping in on mine and creating all that traffic through there, because it's going to affect the marketing of their project. Moe: I understand that. But the same point now we are dumping off a whole bunch more traffic into Locust Grove in two access points. That's another concern I had. Walsh: Right. Understood. Moe: Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to testify to this application? Okay. Seeing none, discussion? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: A couple of points that come to mind and almost all of them in support of the staff report. I would confirm Commissioner Moe's instinct that both ACHD's idea and the city's idea would be to have fewer accesses to Locust Grove. I think one of the things we are going to discover, when the Locust Grove overpass is built and, therefore, Locust Grove is connected, the two halves of Locust Grove connected north and south, this is going to become the relief valve of choice for people who need to move north and south in or through Meridian and don't want to be on Eagle Road or Meridian Road. This -- I'm willing to bet that within hours of that bridge being open, that whole corridor, the whole Locust Grove corridor, will exceed its 20 year design capacity. Probably within minutes, maybe hours. Therefore, this is very likely -- Locust Grove is very likely to be a very major thoroughfare. I'm sure it will need to be upgraded from a collector to an arterial at some point. Probably not too far off. And, therefore, I very much support the idea of not having the property we are talking about have an access to Locust Grove, and also the two properties in combination with the gentleman that provided the very good comments, that there should not be two accesses there. I think the access should be done through the stub street, as staff has recommended, and precisely for that reason. And I also would like to comment on the gate situation. I was on the committee that helped write the UDC and gates were discussed at length. I'll have to admit that my personal opinion is that they give a false sense of security. They slow fire and police down more than they slow thieves down, who can get around them anyhow, and I joined in the majority who wrote into the UDC the no gates and we did mean residential subdivisions for that purpose. That being said, I can also understand the applicant's discussion that it's the desire of Meridian to have a variety of housing types Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 25 of 90 and we usually interpret that to mean that we need to have more affordable housing. But there are also people on the other end of the scale who, as the applicant points out and other people have pointed out in other hearings, are well to do empty nesters, they want to down size the house and maintenance that they are living, but they don't necessarily want to cheapen how they live, and those people have the opinion that a gate provides them with some security and I don't think it's in the best interest of Meridian to force those people to go live in Eagle. We should make provision for them also. The current ordinance does not allow us to approve a gate. So, there really isn't any question about whether we can approve the gate, we can't. I would suggest to the applicant if they wish to pursue a change to the ordinance, there are a couple of elements that need to be included. The gate needs to be far enough from the major road, either a collector or an arterial, that three or four cars could stack before getting to the gate. There also needs to be a turnaround or an escape, so that somebody that turns in and discovers there is a closed gate, doesn't have to back out onto the arterial to escape. There needs to be a turnaround before the gate. And I would encourage them, if they are going to apply for a change to the ordinance, include those elements. The other issue is a very small one. I have lived in places that had decorative olive trees and they are very pretty for part of the year, but I have not -- I'm not aware of a fruitless olive tree and they make a terrible mess. They are not good for humans to eat without being processed. Birds will eat them, but the fruit drops and stains and I would urge them to reconsider that, unless they have found a fruitless olive tree. Those are my points. Rohm: Thank you, Commissioner Zaremba. Anybody else have some comments on this application? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I just have a couple of comments regarding access to Locust Grove. There we go. We have access here. We are looking for access here. We are going to have to have an access for this piece of property here. Probably access over here off of these ones, but I think it's going to be critical that we limit -- limit the access on Locust Grove for the reasons mentioned, but -- and if we don't, we are going to get we have all these pieces of property that would like to have access onto Locust Grove in my mind, the only one that can reasonably have it would be this parcel here. So, I would be in support of -- one, I'm in support of the stub street to the south property and the only access into the development from the Victory Road property. Victory Road. North. Right there. Other than that, I think it's a nice development. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I, actually, have discovered I had a question that I would like to ask of the applicant. Rohm: By all means. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 26 of 90 Zaremba: And have staff listen in as well. Mr. Phillips, if you'd come back up. And that is one of the new provisions of the UDC, which we are all trying to learn this new thing, but I just want to make sure you're aware of it. In multi -family developments there is a requirement to actually have a storage building for maintenance and landscaping materials and equipment and stuff like that and I didn't see that on the drawing, but is that something that knowing that there is a provision that that's required, can you add that someplace? And I would ask that it be made of similar materials to the rest of the -- Phillips: Chairman Rohm and Commissioners, in lieu of having a separate storage building, which, as you saw, was a very small site, what we have done is we have oversized the garages and, hopefully, this will satisfy the requirements -- in our view it did. These garages are approximately 28 feet long. Standard garages are normally 22, maybe 24 feet. So, we have got, essentially, six feet all across the back and we have also increased the width, so that we have an extra two feet on each side, so when car doors open that there will still be two feet on each side, plus six feet all across the back. So, we felt that this should more than accommodate storage. Exterior storage. Inside the -- each of the residences we also have, essentially, a storage room and that's roughly, I believe, maybe seven or eight by ten, but -- does that address your -- Zaremba: I appreciate the first part of your statement as increasing personal storage for the people that would live there. My question was more directed to the second part of your statement that came in at the end about the storage for what would be the association or the maintenance of the common property and the point that was discussed in the group that was writing the UDC was that in subdivisions of multi -family dwellings that don't have a separate storage building, then, maintenance materials end up being left out in a parking stall and, you know, if you have your own lawn mower, that ends up sitting out in the parking stall. So, the requirement is more aimed at equipment and supplies owned by the association or whoever is doing the maintenance. Phillips: All right. I understand. No, we don't have a separate building at this time, but we will definitely take a look at that. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Phillips: Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I would request that we take a poll of the Commissioners in where we are heading towards tabling this for redesign; I would prefer not to get into one of our infamous redesign two hour public hearings if we could avoid it this evening. Not to be blunt. Rohm: Well, that -- the point is -- yeah, I don't have any problem with that. Meridian Planning & Zoning • March 2, 2006 Page 27 of 90 Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to lead off. I think it's an excellent project. think it would be a nice addition to Meridian. I do think it needs to have the changes that are mentioned in the staff report and a few other things we have met. But I would consider those tweaking to some extent, but I think being respectful to the applicant's request to move it on, unfortunately, we have been burned by redesigns a few times that didn't get to the City Council looking like what we thought we recommended. So, this Commission is uncomfortable approving something that's going to be changed. At least I personally am and I think I felt that from the others. So, my intention would be to continue this with some specific changes that need to be made and hear it again, but with the attitude that it will be approved at some point. Rohm: Thank you. Borup: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Borup. Borup: Point of clarification. Don't we still need to see a preliminary plat? Guenther: Mr. Borup, with this -- again, I want to point out one major fact, is that ACHD did recommend that this would be public streets. If this was public streets, then, we would have a plat. Borup: Okay. Guenther: We are still -- staff is still recommending that these remain private streets and meet ACHD's conditions. Now, ACHD is going to need to review this with the redesign. However, by the redesign of the staff -- city staffs conditioning, that would still be sent back to ACRD, but we are not going to get a new staff report or new staff comments from ACHD for quite awhile as what we would anticipate. Now, if we brought it in for a plat, it's only going to be for a condo plat. If we require those to be public streets, that's going to require a plat in itself and this design is not going to be conducive to public streets as it's currently shown. Even if you required the connections to be public, we would still need to have some mechanism in order to transfer that property as right of way to ACRD, which this site would not be conducive of. Borup: So, Mr. Phillips, this is strictly a condo, so the ownership is of the building itself, not of any of the property around it? There are not any deeded lots? Is that what you're saying? Phillips: That's correct. Borup: Okay. Well, continuing on with the other comments, I agree with Commissioner Zaremba, I like the diversity; I like to see something different like this. I mean we have had gated communities in the past -- maybe that's another question. Have there been Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 28 of 90 serious problems with any of our other gated -- well, actually, I can only think of one, but has there been problems with any other gated communities in Meridian? Zaremba: The two that I know of are at the south end of Bear Creek and about one block from where I live. Borup: Off of Linder? Zaremba: It's off of Talamore, which is the street -- it's not actually on the arterial, which is Black Cat, it's maybe a quarter of a mile in on a collector street, if you're visualizing the area -- Borup: The question was has there been problems? Zaremba: That has not been a problem. It's not on an arterial, but that has been no problem at all. When we discussed Bear Creek -- and I believe their gate was approved -- it was with a requirement that there be enough stacking depth and that there be an escape and I haven't heard anything from the fire or police. Borup: ACHD did address the gates. They said that a minimum of 50 feet. Zaremba: Yeah. Borup: But they didn't mention anything about the escape or turnaround or anything. Zaremba: Then we had one other that was right next to the high school and we recommended a disapproval of the gates and don't know what City Council did with that. Borup: Well, the comment was made that, you know, it's a nice project and -- but it's not going to be the same project if we change it. And I guess I'm not sure which direction I'm going, but, again, you know, if we start adding the stub streets and eliminate the gates, it's not the same project. Newton-Huckabay: I'd like to see a redesign. Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Pretty much just as I spoke earlier and I'm in agreement with Commissioner Zaremba. Quite frankly, I would like to see a redesign in regards to the stub street, as well as the gating. Phillips: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, if I may go ahead and speak. You know, again, we would -- we have met with staff yesterday and we believe that we discussed the private street issue and it seemed to us that we have -- we are pretty close on -- we are on the same wave length as far as how to resolve that issue. The gates we are preparing a text amendment, which we will be presenting to City Council and the Mayor Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 29 of 90 and we feel like at this point that the feedback we have gotten from the neighborhood meeting, from working with staff and ACHD and other folks, that we are really close and what we really prefer, if you would go along with us, is to sit down and just work out, really, a few details and that way we don't need to alter the entire development. Rohm: And I think that echoed throughout the Commission here that we want to see those before we move forward and even though you're close to coming to some sort of an agreement with staff, before we make any recommendation onto City Council, we want to see what you come up with and I don't think that we can -- we don't want to be in a position to redesign your project and, like Commissioner Borup said, if, in fact, we sat here and started talking about your private roads and your gates and things such as that, that that's -- in essence, we would be redesigning your project. So, from our perspective we think that it's best for you to take it back to staff and work with them with the comments that you have heard from the Commission tonight and taking those into consider, come back, and we will continue this to a later hearing and we will act on it at that time and probably, if I had just one question of you, is how long do you think that it will take you to come up with an alternative to the current configuration that will meet staffs expectations and we will just continue this hearing to a date certain that you feel that you can comply with staffs recommendations. Phillips: Well, I believe we are close enough that we could turn that around within -- we could be at your next hearing date, which is, what, two weeks? Rohm: On the 16th that will -- let me ask staff if they concur with -- Borup: Review time. Guenther: If we have the materials ten days prior to the hearing, we can, typically, turn it around. With this type of a development, I -- we have got most of the staff report already written, it would just be a modification, which doesn't take as much time. I feel that if the conditions listed in the staff report were redesigned and we could have the redesign within that ten days time limit, we should be able to do it at the next hearing. If it goes over the ten days, we have got enough hearing items for the 16th that I wouldn't recommend it at all. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, interpreting what staff just said, they would have to have final drawings by next Monday in order to have ten days before the next hearing. So, my question to both staff and applicant is can you finalize the changes that are being requested and have it in a final form to staff by Monday? Phillips: Yes, we can. But what we would like to do is just meet with staff one more time and -- you know, we look to you as far as if you have any specific, you know, conditions that you would like to be seen, then, we need to be sure to incorporate those. With those, we can meet that time frame. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 30 of 90 Rohm: I think the one thing that Commissioner Zaremba brought up is we, as a Commission, cannot move forward with a gated community, because it's not in agreement with ordinance and so that, in and of itself, would have to be dropped from any proposal that comes back to this board until such time that that ordinance changes. Anyway, that's the way as I see it. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, my comment on that would be, though, that anticipating that they are determined enough to have gates that they are going to take the step of making an application to change the ordinance, they would need to design the roadway to incorporate the elements, so that if and when they put in a gate, there was a wide enough space to have a u -turn escape and that the gate would be located far enough from the arterials and they could design those elements into what we see without the gates -- Rohm: Fair enough. That's acceptable from my perspective. The gates, as far as this application, just wouldn't be included. Okay. Borup: One final comment, I guess, I'd have is -- and I think I feel as strong as anybody about interconnectivity, except for I can see this as one development where I don't know that it necessarily applies. You know, the emergency access through a pathway would take care of any public safety concerns and beyond that I think it's taking away from the project that they are proposing. Rohm: Okay. The draft agenda for the 16th already has 17 items on it and I guess that I'd ask that -- could you give us the next two weeks and move it to April 6th, so I -- don't know that we are going to be able to get through the agenda that we already have set for March 16th. And the value to moving it to April 6th gives you and staff more time to work out these details and we would have a project that we could move forward more aggressively at the April 6th meeting. If you can live with that, we'd certainly appreciate that. Phillips: Just one moment. Borup: Well, if not, they have got one day to meet with staff and one day to prepare the drawings, if they have to have it Monday. Rohm: Well -- and that's the point. Borup: That's only two days. Rohm: That doesn't give them much time for creativity. Borup: Busy weekend. Meridian Planning & Zoning • March 2, 2006 Page 31 of 90 Zaremba: Well, I think the applicant has made the point we are only talking, really, about redesign of a small southwest portion of this project. The rest of it wouldn't change just because a stub road needs to go -- Rohm: It's your call. Phillips: All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. We would really prefer a continuance to the next -- the next Public Hearing, at which time, you know, we would meet the -- I'm certain we can meet the time frame. Rohm: Fair enough. Thank you. Phillips: All right. Zaremba: Well -- and the issues are known, so it should be a short discussion when it comes back. If they comply and work it out with staff it should be easy for us. Rohm: Thank you very much. Zaremba: Thank you. Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move we continue AZ 05-067 and CUP 05-060 to our regularly scheduled meeting of March 16th, 2006, to give applicant and staff time to work out issues that have been raised, as well as those already presented in the staff report. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we continue Items AZ 05-067 and CUP 05- 060 to the regularly scheduled meeting of March 16th, 2006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 8: Public Hearing: AZ 06-005 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 58.56 acres from RR to R-4 (32.86 acres), TN -C (14.54 acres) and C -C (11.16 acres) for Knight Sky Estates Subdivision by Sea 2 Sea, LLC — northwest corner of Chinden Boulevard and Linder Road: Item 9: Public Hearing: PP 06-004 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 126 residential lots (22 townhouse lots and 102 detached single-family lots), 7 commercial lots and 26 common lots on 55.83 acres in a proposed R-4, TN -C and C -C zones for Knight Sky Estates Subdivision by Sea 2 Sea, LLC — northwest corner of Chinden Boulevard and Linder Road: Meridian Planning & Zoning • March 2, 2006 Page 32 of g0 Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing for AZ 06-005 and PP 06-004, solely for the purpose of continuing them to the April 6th, 2006, agenda and -- Moe: Would so move. Zaremba: Second. Rohm: Moved and seconded that we continue AZ 06-005 and PP 06-004 relating to Knight Sky Estates Subdivision. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 10: Public Hearing: AZ 06-003 Annexation and Zoning of 24.03 acres from RUT to R-8 (12.31 acres), R-15 (7.53 acres) and C -C (4.19 acres) for Hightower Subdivision by Hightower, LLC — southwest corner of Chinden Boulevard and Jericho Road: Item 11: Public Hearing: PP 06-003 Preliminary Plat approval of 106 residential lots, 4 commercial lots, 2 private street lots and 25 common lots on 22.94 acres in proposed R-8, R-15 and C -C zones for Hightower Subdivision by Hightower, LLC — southwest corner of Chinden Boulevard and Jericho Road: Item 12: Public Hearing: CUP 06-004 Conditional Use Permit for a Mixed Use Planned Development that includes single-family detached, townhouse units, commercial uses, private streets, a neighborhood park and a vehicular access to Chinden Boulevard for Hightower Subdivision by Hightower, LLC — southwest corner of Chinden Boulevard and Jericho Road: Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on AZ 06-003, PP 06-003, and CUP 06-004, all related to Hightower Subdivision, for the sole purpose of continuing to that same meeting of April 6, 2006. Moe: So moved. Zaremba: Second. Rohm: Been moved and seconded that we continue AZ 06-003, PP 06-003 and CUP 06-004 to the regularly scheduled meeting of April 6, 2006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 33 of 90 Item 13: Public Hearing: AZ 06-006 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 10.01 acres from RUT to C -G zone for Knighthill Center Subdivision by Sea 2 Sea, LLC — southwest corner of Linder Road and Chinden Boulevard: Item 14: Public Hearing: PP 06-005 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 4 commercial lots and 1 common lot on 10.01 acres in a proposed C -G zone for Knighthill Center Subdivision by Sea 2 Sea, LLC — southwest corner of Linder Road and Chinden Boulevard: Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on AZ 06-006 and PP 06-005, both relating to Knighthill Center Subdivision and begin with the staff report. Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Knighthill Center Subdivision is located at the southwest corner of Chinden Road and North Linder Road, adjacent to Lochsa Falls Subdivision. Surrounding the site to the south -- to the general southwest is over 800 homes in Lochsa Falls Subdivision. And, then, some commercial lots that were approved along Chinden that are vacant today, but I think there are applications on a couple of them in the works. With Lochsa Falls there was a private street -- backage road, if you will, that was approved parallel to Chinden Road that the applicant would propose to connect to with this application. The plat is for four commercial building lots and one common lot on ten acres. They propose to annex from RUT, Ada County, to a C -G, general service and retail commercial zone. I'll kind of hit on a few highlights in the staff report. Staff has recommended a stub street -- a stub commercial drive and services to the parcel. I apologize that the presentation tonight isn't ideal, but to the south of the project, along Linder Road, there is a small parcel with a home currently on it. We did recommend that a commercial drive aisle and services be stubbed to that property, so that it could redevelop in the future. By the time that property gives up its extra right of way and street buffer, it's very small and there is not much they can do with it, except place one commercial building on it and that would, then, take access from this drive aisle, eliminating another close access to Linder Road. So, we did recommend that. We are in support of their proposal to connect to the private street in Lochsa Falls with the commercial drive aisle that would, then, extend to the connection with Linder and that would be the access to the site. The building pads are located -- there is two along Linder with associated parking and, then, there is also two building -- larger building pads adjacent to the Lochsa Falls commercial lots. Kind of some general comments that staff had in the staff report deal with parking lot landscaping and the need for design review. Those are not really part of this application, I just want to make the applicant aware of those. Those would be addressed at time of certificate of zoning compliance, which is a staff level approval. The landscape plan that was submitted did have conifers, which didn't completely comply with code. Code does require -- and this is something new to the UDC -- is that conifers can be in a street buffer, as long as they are placed in the middle of a street buffer that is at least 20 feet wide. So, this street buffer is 35 feet wide and, actually, wider in places. So, if those conifers were placed in the middle of that buffer they would comply with the UDC. That was one comment. And, then, we are in support of their proposed right of way along Chinden. It is consistent with what ITD has requested Meridian Planning & Zoning • March 2, 2006 Page 34 of 90 along this portion of Chinden, which would be one hundred feet from center line. And I think with that I will end staffs comments and stand for questions. Rohm: Any questions of staff? Moe: Josh, in your report you speak of ACHD's comments, you talk about a continuance of this? Wilson: Yes. Moe: This hearing. Wilson: Sorry for skipping over that. That's a rather important topic. ACHD has not approved this project, so staffs recommendation is that we go ahead and hear it tonight, get the issues out there and discussed with the Commission, but, then, continue it until we do have that ACHD approval and I think we are recommending continuing it to April 6th. Rohm: Okay. With that being said, would the applicant like to come forward, please? Nickel: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. Shawn Nickel, 839 East Winding Creek Drive, Suite 201 in Eagle. And, we are fine with that. I just wanted to get up and if there was any neighbors or anyone that wanted to talk tonight, let them do that. I will be very brief. Staff did a good job at summarizing the application request. We anticipate approximately 90,000 square feet of commercial retail bank institutions and restaurants and retail and, then, a large -- probably a large grocery store. We did meet the parking requirements of the code, landscape buffering along both Chinden and Linder. The main access, again, will be off of Linder Road. A detached sidewalk system, connection to the Lochsa stub and, then, again, connection to the south to Lochsa Falls development for interconnectivity. One thing the developer did want to point out is on the corner of Chinden and Linder the plan is to design that corner and work with the city -- and I believe the city has a committee that is actually looking at the gateway corridors and the specific themes that the city has for the area. We are also working on the project across the street, so that one's also going to have that corner. So, that corner is going to have a water feature and we will work with the committee on exactly what the design is going to look at and so at some future date I will bring that back to show you what that ultimately looks like. This is going to be a nice entrance way into the City of Meridian. So, the developer wanted to point that out to you. With that I will stand for any questions you may have. Rohm: Thank you, Shawn. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Yeah. I'm just kind of curious as far as on the north side right in the middle, are we anticipating quite dense landscaping and trees in that area, so that we are somewhat buffering the fact that we got a whole bunch of asphalt parking all the way through the center of this property? Meridian Planning & Zoning • March 2, 2006 Page 35 of 90 Nickel: Yes. And we did submit a landscape plan to show that buffering along there also. You can see the dense plantings here and in that area right here. Moe: Okay. Rohm: Thank you. Any other questions? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, yes. Mr. Nickel, am I correct in my understanding that this will be four separate lots; is that correct? Nickel: That is correct. Zaremba: Okay. Nickel: With one common lot for the parking with a cross -access parking agreement. Zaremba: Where that's leading is a question. I'm a little bit concerned where West Everest comes actually to the back of the building. That's not going to be very attractive driving up Everest and to the people here it's not intuitive that there is another escape besides going out the front driveway and I have one of two suggestions. The first one was the more extreme and staff can chime in on this, too. Would it be possible to move this building farther south and change the drive aisle from being on the south end of the building to going between the buildings and pretty much align with Everest. Is that a possibility? Nickel: I would have to check with the architect. One concern I would have is there is the residential lots, Lochsa here -- Zaremba: Oh, that's right. Nickel: -- and trying to get that large building -- to encroach on that I would have concerns. I kind of envision this -- and I don't know if this is good or bad, that kind of decision, but like behind on Eagle, Crossroads, kind of behind the Old Navy and all how that connects back to the south. So, I -- I don't think that's very practical to move that building -- Zaremba: Also, you make a good point about it being closer to the residences. So, my second suggestion was much less extreme -- Nickel: Okay. Zaremba: -- and that is could there be signage in this area directing people that there is another exit? Meridian Planning & Zoning ® • March 2, 2006 Page 36 of 90 Nickel: I believe we could do something like that. I'll look into that and, then, at the -- I guess April 6th meeting I'll address that. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Nickel, I wasn't clear if -- is that access to the south there, the access, that isn't the access requested by staff to the -- that property? Nickel: No. There is an out parcel -- Mr. Chairman and Commissioner Huckabay, there is an out parcel right here and I think staffs wanting an access internally in that area and we are fine with that. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Nickel: Yeah. We will provide that. Let's see. Right there. Rohm: Thank you, Shawn. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman and staff, this may be off the wall, but that does look like a small parcel for development. Would that be a good size or shape for the fire department to put a facility there? Mr. Cole appears to have an answer for that. Cole: If you follow down further south to that cul-de-sac, that parcel is about twice the size as the one you're looking at, is, actually, a new fire department location right there. Zaremba: I thought there was going to be one out there somewhere. Okay. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you, Shawn. Nickel: Thank you. Rohm: There is nobody signed up to testify to this, but at this point in time I open it up to public testimony. Yeah. And is there anybody that would like to testify on this application? Seeing none, discussion? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 37 of 90 Newton-Huckabay: I am curious on the lots to the west -- to the north of the private street, are we still envisioning that those are going to be businesses as well? And those are going to front on the private street or -- Wilson: They will take access from that private road, that Everest. Newton-Huckabay: And the front of the building will be on -- Wilson: Yeah. I mean they will be designed -- they will have to be, because of the design review standards, they will have an attractive appearance to Chinden, but I think they really would orientate toward that private street. Newton-Huckabay: Well, I guess -- Zaremba: The doors would have to be. Newton-Huckabay: Right. Where I'm going with that, I'm wondering if -- I don't think you're going to get the same effect as you're getting with the -- the back side of the Crossroads development, because that, in essence, at some point will be acting as an approach -- front approach on there and I might suggest that we consider that in design of the buildings on the west side of that property, that I think it's going to look odd to have the back of the store front at the end of a row of commercial buildings fronting onto that private road. Rohm: Your concern is with the -- these buildings -- Newton-Huckabay: This is the back of this set of businesses here. This road here -- all these businesses that are going to be put in right here are going to front and face to the south and I'm guessing that's about the half mile down there where that private road starts, so at some point you're likely going to see a light, I would guess, and so this is going to become a fairly I would say more of a major intersection -- or road than it is now and you're going to be driving down this and you're going to be looking at the back of the grocery store, the way this project was designed now. Which I mean understand it should front onto Linder and that's fine, but I don't think that you get the same effect when you go to Crossroads, you are truly at the back of a development that backs up completely against residents, where this is actually going to be, in essence, facing to public street -- public or not, I mean it's going to be a public street -- the public is going to use it. Borup: The street is actually right here. Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh. Borup: So, I don't know if this parking is going to have access to the back or not, but -- Meridian Planning & Zoning • March 2, 2006 Page 38 of 90 Newton-Huckabay: Well, my point still stands, you're going to be driving down here looking at the back of a concrete building and I would think that at the very least we should look for some kind of architectural relief, such as we asked for with the Kohl's development on there. Rohm: Okay. And, thank you, that's a good point. Shawn, would you like to -- Nickel: If you're referring to this area right here, yes, I believe that will have an architectural relief. Keep in mind that because this is intended as a grocery store, this is most likely going to be loading -- loading bays and things like that. Newton-Huckabay: That's exactly what I have in mind. Nickel: Well, I think it's more appropriate to have it next to the office, than to have it down encroaching into the end of the residential for reasons that we all know that -- Newton-Huckabay: Well, yes, and I would agree -- I would agree with that. Nickel: Definitely here you will have some architectural relief. I don't know if you'd like to give some suggestions. I don't know how to address -- I know what you're saying. And I don't know if that should be left up to design review for recommended to the design review or at that point of the review. Newton-Huckabay: Well, I mean I think I have been perfectly clear in the past that I'm not an architect, so I don't feel comfortable saying I would like to see this particular architectural design, but I do think that -- that you could probably come up with something that would keep in mind that it's visually appealing when you're driving up from it at that point. Nickel: Yeah. Because we don't have an end user in mind right now. Newton-Huckabay: Right. Right. I would think that that -- Nickel: I will agree with you and I think we can -- we can -- Newton-Huckabay: I mean I would go so far as to -- I would think that you could enter on the west side of -- particularly the south, that you could have -- you could have businesses on the west and east I mean at some point on the south -- the part that's labeled retail. I mean, in essence, you are going to front on two public roadways. Nickel: Well, technically, the one's a private, but -- Newton-Huckabay: Well -- Nickel: -- I know what you're saying. There will be -- there is a light currently down here. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 39 of 90 Moe: Mr. Chairman, just a comment to staff. Josh, would this not come back in a CUP as far as the buildings themselves? Wilson: No. This is a C -G zone. They would be allowed uses. It would be all staff level after this. Moe: Good point. Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: That's the end of my comments. That's my only concern. Thanks. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I did have one other question and maybe I should have caught Mr. Nickel while he was still here. But, actually, it's for staff. No, I need you to listen, though. Stay here. In the new UDC did we put in the requirement that all property similar to this automatically have to have cross -access agreements? I notice that we are not asking for that in the staff report as often and I think the answer was it's already required. I see some heads shaking. Wilson: It's not in the UDC that we are aware of. They have proposed cross -access agreements for the development, so -- Zaremba: Okay. I didn't see that as a requirement. So, my question for Mr. Nickel would be -- although the answer I think has already been given -- you're comfortable with cross -access agreements among all of your lots in here? Nickel: Yes. Zaremba: Okay. That was it. Rohm: Okay. Moe: Could you state that in the microphone, please. Nickel: Yes, we would agree with that. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: Shawn, would you sit down. Okay. With that being said, I would entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing. Moe: No. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, due to the absence of the ACHD report -- Rohm: Oh, continue. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 40 of 90 Zaremba: -- we wish to continue Rohm: Okay. Zaremba: And was the date April 6th? Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue AZ 06- 006 and PP 06-005 to our regularly scheduled meeting of April 6, 2006. Moe: Second. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue Public Hearing AZ 06-006 and PP 06-005 to the regularly scheduled meeting of April 6, 2006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Well, we have reached that 9:00 o'clock hour and we traditionally take about a 15 break here and we will reconvene at 9:15. (Recess.) Item 15: Public Hearing: AZ 06-002 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 0.43 acres from RUT to L -O (Limited Office District) for Strada Bellissima Subdivision Outparcel by Strada Bellissima, LLC — 3015 South Meridian Road: Rohm: At this time I'd like to reopen the Planning and Zoning meeting for March 2nd, 2006, and begin by opening the Public Hearing on AZ 06-002 and begin with the staff report. Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Strada Bellissima Outparcel, as it has been termed, is an annexation of .43 acres from RUT to the L -O zone. It is located on -- pretty much on the northwest corner of South Meridian Road, State Highway 69 and Victory Road in south Meridian. When -- if I'm correct, when Strada Bellissima came through, the owners did not have control of this parcel and, therefore, it was left out of the development. They have since gained control and would like to incorporate this parcel into their office development. It's a fairly straight forward application that staff supports. We do have a conceptual site plan. This parcel ends up being pretty much a parking lot. You can see the outline of the parcel here and it is incorporated into the overall project that was proposed previously. No accesses to Victory Road are proposed. We did include a requirement for a DA, specifically to prohibit direct access to Victory Road, wanted to keep it to those internal roadways that have been established. On that DA there was a condition included that should not have been. It was a copy error from another report and that is the second to the last bullet, which says prior to issuance of any building permit, the subject property shall be Meridian Planning & Zoning • March 2, 2006 Page 41 of 90 subdivided in accordance with the City of Meridian Unified Development Code. Staff would recommend that that be stricken and the only non-standard condition in that development agreement be the last bullet, which says no direct lot access to Victory Road shall be allowed. I think with that I will stand for any questions from the Commission. Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of staff? Borup: Done. Rohm: No questions of staff. Would the applicant like to come forward, please? Hobbs: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, Chris Hobbs with Pinnacle Engineers, 12552 West Executive. I have no details to add, unless you have any questions. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Do you agree with the staff comments? Hobbs: Yes, we do agree. Moe: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: Seems pretty straight forward. Any other -- any discussion? Borup: Any public testimony? Rohm: There is nobody signed up, but would anybody like to come forward and testify to this application? Seeing none. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I move we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-002. Borup: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-002. All in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 42 of 90 Moe: I move we recommend approval to City Council of file number AZ 06-002 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 2nd, 2006, with the following change. Borup: Bullet point five on page five. Moe: On what page? Borup: Page five. Newton-Huckabay: Page five. Wilson: It would, actually, be in Exhibit B is where the -- Moe: Okay. Prior to -- yes. Under the -- on page five, under the second to the last bullet point, where it starts out prior to issuance of any building permits, I would like that item stricken. End of motion. Zaremba: Second. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 06-002 to include the staff report with the one modification. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 16: Public Hearing: CUP 06-005 Request for Modification of a Conditional Use to allow zero lot line setbacks on Lots 1-6 Block 27, Lots 1-7 Block 28, Lots 1-7 Block 29, Lots 1-7 Block 30 of Quenzer Commons Subdivision No. 9 by Brighton Development — west of North Locust Grove Road and south of East McMillan Road: Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Thanks for coming in. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on CUP 06-005 related to the Quenzer Commons Subdivision No. 9. And begin with the staff report. Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This will be very quick. As you can see, Quenzer Commons Number 9 is located in Quenzer Commons Subdivision, it's all internal to the subdivision. With that this is a use request to change the planned development. These lots are existing and the applicant is requesting to eliminate the zero lot line setbacks for the garages as shown in the site plan. Staff supports this. They have redesigned some of the turning radiuses in these alleys in order to accommodate fire department requests. As you can see, there is an alley, the alley connection is here and I believe there is one there. With this the applicant has Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 43 of 90 submitted a vacation that will go to the City Council consecutive with this application and -- or immediately following this application. Staff is recommending approval and you should have Findings for the same. Rohm: Any questions of staff? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, just one clarification. We are talking about side setbacks. Wilson: Just the side setbacks and the applicant is showing just the garages being attached. Zaremba: Okay. And, then, Mr. Chairman, I do have one question for Mr. Cole. In the Public Works section, issues or concerns, vacation must be completed. What vacation is that? Is that the standard utility easement that happens whenever there is a property line? Cole: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, when this was originally platted they platted the -- I don't believe they had a utility easement on this plat, but they had the drainage and irrigation easement along the interior lot lines, so in order to attach the garages they would have to vacate -- vacate the easements, so they wouldn't be building over them. And as Joe mentioned earlier, they have submitted an application for that. It's being routed through the system now. Zaremba: Okay. Thanks. I heard the application, but that clarifies what it was for. Rohm: Any other questions of staff? Would the applicant like to come forward, please? Turnbull: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, David Turnbull, 12601 West Explorer Drive, Boise. We concur with staffs analysis and would appreciate your favorable consideration of this application. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you, Dave. Any questions? Okay. There is nobody else signed up for this, but if somebody would like to come forward and testify on this application, now is the time. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move the Public Hearing for CUP 06-005 be closed. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded we close the Public Hearing on CUP 06-005. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 44 of g0 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move to approve file number CUP 06-005 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 2, 2006, with the attached site plan, with no modifications to the condition of approval and ask staff to prepare Facts and Findings. Moe: Second. Guenther: Mr. Chairman, staff has prepared the Findings. They were attached with this application. Zaremba: I added that, because I thought it was a legal requirement that it show up on our Consent Agenda next meeting. Guenther: No. What -- if you look at your staff report, all your Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law will reference the Commission findings, which means that tonight you're finding -- Zaremba: I did notice that. Okay. Guenther: So, therefore, tonight if you guys motion and approve, it's approved and done tonight. Staff made that change in order to help speed the applicant process up two weeks. Zaremba: Perfect. Let me restate the motion, then. I'll start over. I move to approve file number CUP 06-005 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 2, 2006, with the attached site plan. Period. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we approve CUP 06-005. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 17: Public Hearing: AZ 05-038 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 38.5 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Irvine Subdivision by Dyver Development, LLC — southeast corner of Ten Mile Road and Chinden Boulevard: Item 18: Public Hearing: PP 05-037 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 175 single-family residential building lots and 12 common lots on 38.5 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Irvine Subdivision by Dyver Development, LLC — southeast corner of Ten Mile Road and Chinden Boulevard: Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 45 of 90 Item 19: Public Hearing: CUP 05-039 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for single family detached residential units and single family attached residential units in a proposed R-8 zone for Irvine Subdivision by Dyver Development, LLC — southeast corner of Ten Mile Road and Chinden Boulevard: Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on AZ 05-038, PP 05-037, and CUP 05-039, all related to Irvine Subdivision and begin with the staff report. Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. I did include a history section for this one, which does reference that this application was originally heard under the old Meridian city code and it had a planned development application for a Conditional Use Permit, 05-039, that has been withdrawn at the applicant's request as per the City Council had this reviewed as for the Unified Development Code standards. With that the applicant has made revisions to the site plan. It's 38.5 acres of land and the request is for 175 single family residential lots, with all detached products. The original application was for a type MEW development with certain attached products, as well as alley -loaded products. The residential density has been reduced from I believe 5.61 to -- or 5.19 to 4.61 dwelling units to the acre. And the applicant has redesigned this in order to meet the minimum standards of the Unified Development Code for amenities, open space, and the only outstanding issue would be the right of way width along Chinden Road. I'm going to bring up a really poor -- I wish we had our presentation for this. The right of way width along here, this is a 90 foot wide section closer to Ten Mile Road where Chinden necks down. The applicant is providing a 70 foot wide road section in that easterly direction from approximately 500 feet out. The section in here, if you will reference the ITD letter, does comply with the -- the request for a hundred feet -- a hundred foot of roadway section, because the public pathway that the applicant will provide is in a pedestrian easement to ITD. So, essentially, the road section that is in there is an 88 foot wide road section. However, this section here does not comply with the second portion of that. This complies with the intersection road width and this does not comply with the adjacent residential road width as detailed by ITD. There is a condition of approval in this staff report that says that the applicant shall work with ITD to determine right of way width. When it comes to ITD, our staff would like to see everything in writing. So, until such time as that is -- that condition has been satisfied by ITD's requirements, this could potentially be redrawn if ITD does not withdraw that letter that -- it's the last one dated from October 2005. Other significant changes to the site plan, obviously, you see that it's in a much more block format, instead of the open MEW type of development and there is a stub street provided here to the Stevenson property as requested by, I believe, Mr. Stevenson and consented by the City Council. With that there is still the lateral coming across here where the open space lots are including that lateral. The applicant has indicated to staff that they can redesign these in order to be qualified open space and meet the minimum of five percent. The staff report does have some details in it that would need to be addressed. The Unified Development Code has limitations on qualified open spaces and if this is designed as a parkway in that location, then, it would be a hundred percent qualified, instead of reduced to 50 percent, as well as the open space in the -- the main open Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 46 of 90 space lot. We do withdraw parking lot square footage with this request -- or with these - - under the Unified Development Code and this application does show a parking lot in that open space and, therefore, it reduced the required open space to less than five percent. Staff is recommending approval of this, but there are certain things that do need to be address as conditioned. I will stand for questions. Rohm: Any questions of staff? Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Joe, in regards to the property itself at the present time, I do note that it is zoned an R-2, is that correct, at the present time? Guenther: No. This is zoned in RUT. Moe: Okay. I'm sorry. In the Comprehensive Plan it's noted a portion of that to be an R-2, is it not? And we were -- I was wondering the other day whether or not that's part of the change that's coming with the Comp Plan? Guenther: Oh, you're talking about the low density residential? Moe: That's correct. Guenther: Okay. Currently, this is a low density residential comprehensive designation. The applicant's original request was for the bump up in density, as allowed for by the Comprehensive Plan. The north Meridian area map amendment -- or comprehensive map amendment does have this property shown as medium density residential. So, it does -- it does come across as a -- and here Craig put it up. It's this parcel right here, which is shown as medium density residential with gateway corridors. Moe: Thank you. Rohm: Any other questions of staff? Seeing none, would the applicant like to come forward, please? Amar: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Kevin Amar. My address is 2364 South Titanium in Meridian. This is a -- I guess this is a unique process that we are going through on this one. Staff had indicated -- and it was correct, we did withdraw our previous application and we have requested redesign, but not because we wanted to. We got to -- with this project, in particular, and if you remember our previous project on this one, it had a variety of lot sizes and types and we were pretty excited about it, but we weren't -- the City Council and they weren't excited about it at all. So, they asked us to come back, redesign it with more of the R-8 standards, with fewer lots, more typical lots and so we are here before you today and Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 47 of 90 that's why -- that's why we are here. And as I stated, we did withdraw that application, but not at our own desire. So, we are before you this evening requesting a recommendation for approval on this subdivision. It is 175 residential lots. They do all conform with the R-8 standards. We are -- as we did in the previous application, we still have a pool, we still have open space, we still are trying to maintain a lot of those amenities that we had within the last one. We have pathways that go through the project. We have pathways that connect to the city park to the south that is currently under development. So, although it's a different project, it's certainly a very pleasing project and it's very consistent with what is approved in the immediate area, being Silver Leaf and Kelly Creek and the projects in that area. So, that being said, we have reviewed with staff some of the changes we need to make with the open space under the Uniform Development Code. We didn't -- there was just some tweaks that we need to make to that. We can certainly accommodate any of the open space requirement and not have an issue with those. The other question that staff had was with respect to the ITD and we are working with them to determine the appropriate right of way width. The intersection is certainly not a question. We have -- we have met their requirements in that intersection. The question that we are in discussions with them now is on the balance and that has to do with the property to the east of this, that being Silver Leaf and Lochsa, already maintains a 70 foot wide right of way along there. So, this to be consistent in that area -- and it's the same as was heard previous. So, we haven't changed our right of way from what you recommended approval on on the last time. So, we are -- we will still be aware and still work with ITD and are sure we can come to a reasonable solution for that. With this project we have changed a couple of the items and one was with respect to the out parcel. Previously this road came down and there was a knuckle and, then, turned. This stub road did not exist. Jerry Stevenson, who is the property owner at this location and who is here this evening, at -- I believe it was City Council, requested that he have easier access to sewer and to water. We agreed to put in that stub at this location and still maintain that. And the other thing in meeting with him, that his -- he was talking today would be to provide a fence and a berm on that location to maintain drainage on our own property, so there is no way that drainage can get onto his property. The entire property will be fenced with a vinyl fence, with the exception of along ITD's right of way and that will have to be stone or stucco per your -- per your current code and we fully intend on meeting all those requirements. We do know we have got this parking lot area and I was unaware that a parking lot for a pool didn't count for open space. I thought it would, but we will revise that and make that happen. And, then, as you look at the project, there is a variety of lot sizes, the smallest being up to the north buffering ITD's right of way, buffering Highway 20-26 or Chinden, still maintaining a minimum of 5,000 square feet. And, then, as you get to the south all of these lots become larger and certainly much more compatible with the Silver Leaf project and the projects around. So, with that we appreciate your time and I would stand for any questions. Rohm: Thank you, Kevin. Moe: Mr. Amar, you hit right on the subject I wanted to talk to you about and that's the size of your lots over there on the east side over there. Basically, that's noted to be iy t x u- .� a Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 48 of 90 some R-4 in there, so transitionwise, with a 6,000 square foot lot in there, we are really not having too much to transition through there. Amar: All of these lots, which is part of Silver Leaf, are also the similar size, the R-8. It was an R-4 zoning, but with a PUD, so the density in both of them are the same. Moe: They are all right. Amar: Correct. So, the zoning designation may throw you off a little bit, but the size of the lots is consistent and we are not under any -- I think penalty of death if we get to City Council. We are not doing PUDs anymore. So, we are trying to be consistent with your Unified Development Code and we have met that -- we have met those requirements. We also met with Mike Meyers again -- in fact, I met with him on Monday. We have stubbed our road at this location to his property. He had some questions as far as where he actually wanted that road stub to be and so that may move in that block and in talking to staff they didn't seem to have a problem with that and that will be mostly at his request. He have some different things that he envisions in his property in the future and we would be more than happy to accommodate them. And, again, that -- and this property line will be fenced also. Commissioner Moe, hopefully, -- I think that was a long answer. Moe: Yes, you did. Rohm: Thank you. Any other questions? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to amaze everybody and say I have no questions. Amar: Yet. Rohm: And let me go on record that that's a first. Newton- H ucka bay: Mr. Chair, I just have one comment. I liked the other development better. I thought that was a great development and I hope that you get the opportunity to put something like that together, because that one did stand in my mind as something that I was looking forward to seeing you guys put together. Amar: I haven't gone away from that idea, I'm just going to wait for a few years, I think, and, then, try it again, because I liked it better, too. Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. I think it was a good concept and I would -- I think it has a place, so I would -- I do look forward to you getting opportunity to put one of those together. Amar: Hopefully some day. Thank you. Rohm: Mr. Amar, thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 49 of 90 Amar: Thank you. Rohm: At this time would Jerry Stevenson like to come forward, please. Stevenson: Jerry Stevenson, 6040 North Ten Mile Road. Fellow Commissioners, as you can see, my property is in there. It's been kind of a moving target trying to keep up with this project with all the changes, but, you know, for the most part my biggest concern, too, was -- as far as having access to sewer and water, because, as I stated during the City Council, was that, basically, I was getting land locked if something wasn't done, because there was no plans of extending the sewer anywhere's past at Silver Leaf. However, I do think it needs to be notated on the plans, because it's not actually on the site plan to stub, whether it was overlooked or whatever, I mean the street has no value to me coming up to that side, but particularly the city services. And, then, also the other -- my other biggest concern, too, is -- you know, I just feel trapped in that area right there, because everything -- my view and everything is going to be going away and all I have got to do now is look up at two story homes and it's the size of these lots are the ones -- is kind of my issue, because what happens is typically when you get these builders coming in and these are going to be basically Corey Barton type homes and there is -- they put these big homes on these small lots and so, basically, there is not a lot of front yard, back yard, you know, the footprint of the homes are -- you know, they meet the guidelines, but with R-4 and R-8, I mean right now you're already looking at, you know, ten feet if it's, you know, R-4 and R-8 is two feet less and that doesn't count the eaves and everything, so you're basically, you know, as far as I'm concerned, these just as well just be a solid wall of homes. So, there is no cracks in any of those sites there for me to see the mountains and everything that's kind of my -- I guess maybe that's a personal thing, but what I had requested from Kevin, too, is I would like to at least see some type of a buffer with landscaping between his development, some trees put up on the outside, so instead of me looking up into somebody's bedroom, I can at least look up at trees and feel a little more, you know, at ease. So, that's, you know, one of my concerns, my request, and, you know, there is a few others, but they are probably not of any concern to you guys, so -- I would rather see an R-4 density versus R-8 and, you know, back in, I guess, the good old days, I always thought low density was R-4 and R-8 was medium density and it was kind of a shock when this whole thing started that R-8 now is all of a sudden considered low density. So, that to me is just stacking houses on top of each other and it's more of a medium density in my mind, but that's my perception. Thank you. Questions? Rohm: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to testify on this application? Seeing none, discussion? Zaremba: Mr. Amar may care to respond to some of those issues, Mr. Chairman. Rohm: Mr. Amar. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 50 of 90 Amar: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As a response, we did meet with Mr. Stevenson and we have agreed to put up a berm, any landscaping or things of that nature that will be required through CC&Rs, but will not be done at the time of the subdivision as far as adjacent to his lot. But we will be putting up a berm to maintain any water flow from entering his property. We understand he has some Iambs and sheep and needs to protect those and rightfully so. And also any fencing and I believe we can work together on that. Rohm: Is there anything that you can do to validate that the city services will be available to -- Amar: Make it a condition. It's just -- I think it got missed on the preliminary plat, a line being drawn, but there will be sewer and water stubs to his property. Guenther: Chairman Rohm, it is a Public Works condition of approval for to and through. Rohm: Okay. Amar: No problem with that. Rohm: Okay. Amar: That's all. Rohm: Thank you. Any discussion before we close these public hearings? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would comment that it's very similar at least to a project that we previously recommended approval of. The applicant was given some changes to make by City Council and I believe those have been made. I see no reason not to recommend approval. Rohm: I think you're right on with that. Zaremba: I don't see anybody else objecting, so, Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on AZ 05-038, PP 05-037, and CUP 05-039. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 05-038, PP 05-037, and CUP 05-039. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 51 of 90 Rohm: And before -- before somebody makes a motion to move this forward, the CUP 05-039 has been withdrawn, so we don't have to make a motion on that, just -- it will be just the -- the zoning and preliminary plat. So, whoever wants to make a motion would - Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would make the first motion. Rohm: Okay. Zaremba: I recommend we accept the withdrawal of CUP 05-039. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we accept the withdrawal of CUP 05-039. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 05-038 and PP 05- 037 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 2nd, 2006, preliminary plat labeled PP -1, dated January 19th, 2006. End of motion. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 05-038 and PP 05-037. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 20: Public Hearing: AZ 06-007 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 59.88 acres from RUT to R-8 for Solitude Subdivision by Providence Development Group, LLC — south of East McMillan Road and east of North Meridian Road: Item 21: Public Hearing: PP 06-006 Request for a Preliminary Plat with 255 single family residential lots and 16 common lots for Solitude Subdivision by Providence Development Group, LLC — south of East McMillan Road and east of North Meridian Road: Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to open the public hearings on AZ 06-007 and PP 06- 006, both relating to Solitude Subdivision and begin with the staff report. Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Solitude Subdivision is located along McMillan and Meridian Roads. Point of clarification Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 52 of 90 0 guess the design shows the Lemp Canal on the south side of McMillan. The Lemp Canal is on the north side of McMillan. And the Starkey Lateral, I believe, is -- has already been tiled on the southern portion here. So, there is some reference to those items that I just want to make sure that you realize that they have already been addressed or they are off site. With this, this is an annexation request of 59.88 acres from RUT to R-8 and it is also a request for 225 single family residential lots and nine common lots. With that, the applicant has designed it with a central open space, which is kind of the helmet -looking feature in the middle of this design, and there are -- is a collector road system to McMillan Road. As well as a smaller one to Meridian Road. So, the applicant has been very consistent with ACHD's standard conditions of approval to hook up to all the stub streets in adjacent subdivisions. As you will have seen, ACHD's staff report is not present with this application. However, staff does not see any need to have the conditions of approval be included with the recommendation to the City Council, staff would like to see the official conditions of approval prior to City Council meeting, but the applicant has provided two stub streets to the only parcel and is hooking up at locations for stub streets and limited their access points to arterial roads, so they have met all the standards that we would anticipate them meeting. So, staff is comfortable that this applicant will meet ACHD's conditions of approval when they are available. With that, staffs request has been to bring forward a minor design change to break up these middle lots in this location and provide a pedestrian connection from the north -south direction. This is Amber Creek Subdivision in the southwest corner of Meridian and McMillan and they have also done the same type of a design where the pedestrian connection comes from their open space lot, which is square, to the southern portion of their property in order to facilitate pedestrian connection to their main open space features. I guess this one is a little oriented -- I'll ask the applicant to get better detail. She has a color drawing. But you can see they have provided the pedestrian connection as city staff has requested. The staff is in support of this application and has provided Findings for approval. I will stand for questions. Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of staff? Borup: Mr. Chairman. Just a question on the out parcel. Was that originally all one parcel under same ownership? Guenther: I believe it was or at least they were common ownership at one point. Mr. Starkey is -- was the original owner for the entire parcel. They did have two deeds for these parcels when we -- when they approached the City of Meridian. While you brought up that point, the applicant is working with this out parcel in order to provide an off-site concession to the city in order to provide the sidewalk connection from here to here, as immediately north of this site is the -- I believe it's a middle school. So, they are working on providing a pedestrian easement for the connection of the sidewalk. Borup: And that was one of the concerns I had. And we have had others that we have recommended denial because of out parcels, the concern being, you know, the future. Meridian Planning & Zoning • March 2, 2006 Page 53 of 90 Guenther: The applicant indicated to me earlier that they are meeting on Tuesday in order to better clarify that situation. So, staff feels that it should be addressed fully prior to City Council hearing. And the last thing is with that sidewalk connection, similar to Amber Creek, the City Council did require the applicant in the first phase, in order to provide all of the landscaping around the perimeter of these arterial roads, that is not in the staff report, but in meetings through the day staff would recommend that the same condition of approval be transferred -- the same condition from Amber Creek to this application, where the landscaping and sidewalks would be provided with the first phase of the development. Rohm: Very good. Thank you. Any other questions? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, on that last subject, does that include sidewalk across the out parcel? Guenther: Yes, that would. Zaremba: I didn't quite catch that. Thanks. Rohm: You're on. McKay: Becky McKay with Engineering Solutions, 150 East Aikens, Suite B, in Eagle. I'm representing Providence Development on this particular application. First of all, to answer Commissioner Borup's question concerning the out parcel, this property was bought in excess of I believe five years ago by Steiner Development. It was owned by Mr. Starkey, who does reside in the existing home. They did a one-time split. I think that was done with W.H. Pacific, so Mr. Starkey could retain his home and barn and it's just very immaculate. In working on this design, I did meet with the staff concerning Mr. Starkey's property and how best to provide future access or possibility of redevelopment. He is an elderly gentleman. The locations of both of those stub streets were -- were what laid out the best for redevelopment of that portion and not necessarily what worked out best for this parcel. So, I did take that into consideration. This parcel had some -- some hurdles that we had to get over as far as the stub streets. As you well know, the stub street locations kind of dictate what we do as far as our designs are concerned. When I did Copper Basin I stubbed three stub streets to the west to this parcel, probably could have got away with just two, but I did three. I'm not sure why. And so, then, that kind of dictated how we brought these -- those stubs in and, then, interconnected here. We have a stub street to the south of us, Burney Glen, that we are connecting to and pulling into this site, so we have got multiple points of ingress and egress. We brought in Amber Creek's access to make sure that we have got adequate offset from our primary intersection here at Meridian Road. Based on our traffic study, the intersection of McMillan and Meridian Road operates at a level of service B. After build out it will still operate at a level of service B. We will have to have a left turn at our entrance here on Meridian Road and one on McMillan. As far as services are concerned, there is -- the sewer is located here at our southwest corner. We will be extending the sewer trunk through the parcel and, then, taking it over to Havasu Falls Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 54 of 90 Street, which is this northerly stub street there you see at Copper Basin and taking offline their temporary lift station. There is also existing 16 inch water in Meridian Road, 12 inch water along all of our frontage in McMillan. So, all services are available to this property. It's kind of very similar to an in -fill. We have got 40 feet of landscaping along our Meridian Road and McMillan corridor. We are dedicating additional right of way, I think 23 feet on Meridian Road, 13 feet on McMillan. We don't have any conflict with the middle school that will be north of us, because all their access will come off of Meridian Road and I did check with their architects to confirm that. In working with this design I came in with a non -continuous collector, brought it in with islands along, landscaping along the perimeter of it, coming in here to this central common area there. That common area, I think, is about a little over two acres in size. It is 2.74 acres to be exact. So, it's a pretty large, nice common area. That's what you'll see, that open space corridor as you come into the project. If you enter off Meridian Road, I went with more of a linear open space that's open all the way through those lots, so you will see that clear vision as you come in through -- off the Meridian Road entrance. And that particular area is about one and a half acres. The lot sizes in this varied. We tried to provide, you know, some variation in sizes and product. We have got lot sizes that are around 5,500 square feet and, then, they go all the way up to I think 14,000 some odd square feet. Lot size is 7,244 square feet. We have approximately 12.41 percent open space, which I think that's a good open space. Nice perimeter buffers. I think this is a real clean project. We have provided good pedestrian connections. The staff asked for some additional pathways. We did add those. They wanted the ability for -- for the peds to come through these blocks, get to this linear open space here, and come up into the primary common area located there. We have got a block here that's a longer block; we have got a cut -through ped path through the middle of that one. There will be an elementary school that will be constructed in Cooper Basin. I have lined this pedestrian pathway up with the common lot. I had it at Copper Basin, therefore, facilitating the kids walking through that ped path and going directly east to the school. We are asking for R-8 zoning designation, just for the straight preliminary plat. It's R-8 in Burney Glen, R-4 in Copper Basin. You just approved R-8 here in Amber Creek to the west of us. As far as lot transitioning, I did take a look at the lots in Copper Basin. Those ones along that perimeter range from 80 to 85 feet in width and 115 to 120 feet in width. And so our lots along that corridor range from eight to ten thousand square feet, roughly. I also looked at the lots at Burney Glen. They are not as deep. They are like about 80 by 108, some are 70 by 100, and I made it consistent on the south boundary where those were eight, nine, and ten thousand square feet. So, the smaller lots that we have got are primarily up along that McMillan corridor and, then, they get larger as you enter into the subdivision and, then, obviously, maintaining around that perimeter. We think this is a good project with the 3.8 dwelling units per acre as our gross density. It's medium density three to eight, so we are on that low range. Amber Creek across the street was at 4.95, so they are denser than what we propose here. I talked with ACRD. Lori is working on our staff report. They have lost a couple of employees and so they are short-staffed at this time and trying to handle a heavy load. In the conversation I had with Lori, she said she believes that this will be a staff level application, because, basically, with a level of service B, the fact that we are hooking Meridian Planning & Zoning • March 2, 2006 Page 55 of 90 into existing stub streets and our traffic study did not find anything out of the ordinary, everything is in compliance with the ACHD policy manual. Do you have any questions? Moe: Mr. Chairman. Becky, I noted that in your response letter that you are asking not to have to do anything for some road calming. McKay: Oh, the traffic calming? Moe: Yes. McKay: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Moe, we are seeing that comment in a lot of the staff reports from the police department. If we have -- it seems like two points of ingress and egress between two arterials, regardless of the route, we are seeing that. I mean even on our continuous collectors we are seeing that they want traffic calming. I mean we have got a circuitous route in this design. We are not creating an easy loop through. We are using collectors. Therefore, from a transportation perspective no one else has voiced the same concern. But the police department -- it seems to be on all the applications. So, you know, just -- we didn't feel it was applicable. Borup: Mr. Chairman. Becky, any concerns about the sidewalk through the out parcel along Meridian Road? McKay: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Borup, after the Amber Creek application I made it quite clear to my clients that that would be an issue with the Council, because it was discussed in length here just a few weeks ago with Amber Creek. They have met with Mr. Starkey, talked to him one time. He is elderly; he is in very poor health. They have a meeting next Tuesday and I guess one of his concerns was he has some very large mature trees and he did not want those cut down. So, with sidewalk we can, obviously, meander around trees to save them. As far as like dedicating additional right of way for ACHD, he may not do that. But they believe that they can get him to grant a sidewalk easement. Borup: And so you're comfortable with the sidewalk as a condition? McKay: If -- I think Amber Creek -- the Council gave them the option if they could not obtain a sidewalk easement, then, they would need to go within the existing right of way and provide some type of pedestrian barrier, temporary pedestrian access through that noncontinuous part there. So, the gap between the two. Their situation is more difficult than ours, because they have the Settler's Canal, because it's coming across -- it's on the north side of McMillan and, then, drops into the south side, so not only are they fighting the canal and edge of pavement and borrow ditch and trying to find enough room -- we don't have that situation here. Borup: And I don't think we are asking for the right of way. And the other thing that is different in my mind is at one time this was all under one ownership, too. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 56 of 90 McKay: Yes, sir. Borup: Even though it was five years ago. McKay: Yeah. But the county does allow the one time splits, if they -- Borup: Right. McKay: -- if they kept the five acres. Yes. One other point I'd like to make is my clients have been working with Meridian School District, ACRD, and Mr. Turnbull at trying to partner up to improve this intersection to get it built out and signalized prior to that school opening. So, they have -- they have stepped forward to try to help facilitate that. Rohm: Any other questions? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, Mrs. McKay, I'm trying to find where it was. The Public Works Department had a concern that the conceptual sewer plans do not allow for taking the Cooper Basin lift station off line. You mentioned something about that. Have you solved that problem? McKay: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba. Yes, sir. With an eight inch -- running an eight inch line over there, we could not intercept that manhole where it comes out of the lift station at the elevation to take it off line, but running a 12 inch line, I think at .22 percent, we could come in and we had a couple feet to spare. We did rerun our sewer inverts. We e-mailed it to Mike and I believe he concurred with the finding. So, that has been solved, sir. Yes. Zaremba: Great. Thank you. Mr. Cole. Cole: Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Zaremba. They did e-mail over an AutoCAD drawing showing the revised elevations, inverts, and profiles and it, indeed, does allow for the -- that lift station to be taken off line. We received it just a hair late to incorporate that in the staff report. However, Mrs. McKay has -- is correct, the profile she has shown will take that offline. Zaremba: Great. Thank you. Rohm: Any other questions of the applicant? Thank you. We don't have anybody signed up to testify, but at this time you're welcome to come forward. Seeing none -- Newton-Huckabay: Oh, is it my turn? Zaremba: Uh-huh. We are all looking at you. Moe: Go right ahead. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 57 of 90 Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I recommend we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-007 and PP 06-006. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-007 and PP 06-006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 06- 007, PP 06-006, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 2nd, 2006, and the preliminary plat labeled PP -1, dated January 19th, 2006, with the following modifications to the conditions of approval. Would it be appropriate just to incorporate the applicant's response letter? Rohm: I think that's very appropriate. Yes, you can add that. Newton-Huckabay: I mean as -- or do I need to actually make a modification to the -- Guenther: Did you feel comfortable with not requiring the traffic calming in the police report? Newton-Huckabay: I can only speak -- yes, I did. Guenther: And is that your motion? Borup: Put it in your motion. How about the sidewalks in front of the out parcel? Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Zaremba: My comment on that, if we are discussing before the motion is finished, is that some of the traffic calming devices are circuitous -- can't even say it. Circuitous routes, which this has. Traffic islands, which this has. And my feeling is that requirement is satisfied, not ignored. Guenther: If the Commission feels that their -- that the comment is satisfied and not ignored, then, staff would not have a problem incorporating the applicant's letter into your motion, the changes in that letter. And, then, the one change for incorporating the condition of approval from Amber Creek into this one, too, for the perimeter landscaping would be -- Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Let's -- I'm going to withdraw my second motion and just tally up my -- our additions. So, we are all in favor -- all agree with the applicant's response letter to the staff report? Meridian Planning & Zoning • March 2, 2006 Page 58 of 90 Moe: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: And I have on page -- Exhibit B, item 1.2.1, will read: Sidewalk shall be installed within the subdivision and on the perimeter of the subdivision, pursuant UDC, et cetera, including sidewalk along the Meridian Road in front of the out parcel. Is that good enough terminology? Guenther: You should also just indicate that it was offered as an off-site improvement by the applicant. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. I mean I don't -- do we -- and I'll just state that we -- 4.1? Okay. Exhibit B, number four, just state the Commission feels that condition has been met. Moe: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Okay. Rohm: Would you start over. Newton-Huckabay: I will start over. Excuse me. Okay. Mr. Chair, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 06-007, PP 06-006, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 2nd, 2006, and the preliminary plat labeled PP -1, dated January 19th, 2006, with the following modifications to the conditions of approval. First, the Commission would incorporate the comments from the applicant in their letter dated February 27th in response to the staff report. We have no disagreement with that. And, then, Exhibit B, Item 1.2.1 will be changed to read: Sidewalk shall be installed within the subdivision and on the perimeter of the subdivision pursuant to UDC 11-3A-17, and will include the sidewalk offered as an off-site improvement by the applicant along the Meridian Road in front of the out parcel. End of that statement. And, then, under the police department's conditions, still in Exhibit B, number four, bullet one, the Commission does feel like that the applicant has met the traffic calming needs put forth by the police department condition. So, we don't think anything else needs to be done there. End of motion. Borup: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 06-007 and PP 06-006, to include staff comments and the response letter provided by Engineering Solutions and a couple of modifications made by the Commissioner. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 59 of 90 Rohm: I think we are done with that one. We have one left. Thank you, everybody. I wonder if we should have commented on if, in fact, an easement could be obtained for the sidewalk in the motion, as opposed to -- because it -- if they couldn't get an easement for the sidewalk, then, Becky has proposed something that would -- Borup: That can be handled when that's developed and the right of ways given and stuff, isn't it? Rohm: I don't know. It's more of a question than anything else. Borup: I think it's just important to have something to walk on. Rohm: If that out parcel -- if they won't grant a sidewalk easement, then, it will have to be -- Nary: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, since the anticipation, guess, of the applicant in her testimony was that they thought they could get that worked out between now and the Council hearing, since the Council is going to have to hear it anyway, I think they could probably address it there. If it hasn't happened or isn't going to happen, they can do it then. Item 22: Public Hearing: AZ 06-004 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 358.57 acres from RR to R-2 (66.02 acres), R-8 (167.02 acres), R-15 (79.82 acres), C -N (17.26 acres) and C -C (28.45 acres) for The Tree Farm by Treehaven, LLC — north side of Chinden Boulevard on both sides of Black Cat Road; west of Spurwing Subdivision: Rohm: Fair enough. Thank you. Okay. At this time I'd like to open the last Public Hearing on AZ 06-004 and begin with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. The last item on your agenda this evening is just a small little 358 acre annexation, requesting several zones, an R-2, which is the two low density residential, 66 acres; an R-8 medium density residential zone, 167 acres; an R-15, medium high density residential, 79.8 acres. And a neighborhood business C -N zone, 17.26 acres. And, finally, a C -C, community business district, at 28.45 acres. The site is located on the north of Chinden Boulevard. It's approximately a quarter mile west of Black Cat Road, extending east and, then, continuing east. So, this is the western boundary. Continuing east they have about 5,300 feet of frontage on Chinden Boulevard. It's composed of ten separate tax parcels and five different property owners. There are some existing uses on the site. There is an existing tree farm in this approximate location and there are some other homes on the site. I think there is another one back over here somewhere. I did want to just mention this property is not currently within the city's area of impact. It is up on the City Council's agenda for this next Tuesday, the 7th, as part of the north Meridian comp plan amendment the city is proposing to annex in the subject site on this map and I apologize for the scale. The subject property is going in this approximate location and Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 60 of 90 extending back and goes like this. It butts up to Spurwing on the eastern side. There is a potential school site shown here, I guess I'll run through the proposed comp plan designations for the property real quick. This is a mixed use community designation. As I mentioned, a potential school site. The yellow is a medium density residential and the green is low density residential. The applicant has submitted a concept plan with the subject annexation and zoning application. There is not a preliminary plat or no land uses are being proposed at this time or subdivision at this time. This is a copy of a concept plan. In the staff report I did touch on several of the concepts and the street systems and adjacent parcels and things. Overall, staff is supportive of the proposed concept plan. I think I will just touch on a couple of those real quick. The first thing, I guess, was the legal descriptions with the property. There is some discrepancy over ownership in this north area and I will get to that here in a second. I have asked the applicant to kind of clarify their understanding of who owns what kind of up in that area, because I talked to their surveyor and it's not real clear. The chain of title is a mess and just -- you will probably hear, I imagine, from a couple people about what's going on up there today and, like I said, I have another exhibit that I will jump back to soon. The comp plan I just want to while we are talking about descriptions, along the western boundary of this this is West Wing Estates. They have a 75 percent open space lot that is up for redevelopment here soon. It was done in the county, I think 1991 or something like that, in their 15 year moratorium to be platted, is up here shortly -- soon, anyways. And they are showing low density residential on the proposed future land use map. The applicant was proposing to have an R-1 5 adjacent to that property to create a transition. Staff is recommending that it be R-8 and, then, they have at least one block of more R-8 and R-15, R-8, excuse me, and, then, the remainder parcel could come back in, redevelop their open space with a low density residential for that transition from your R-1 5 higher density stuff to an R-8 medium and, then, the anticipated low on the property. So that is a request of staff. Stub streets. There were several stub streets outlined in the development agreement and the staff report. Basco Lane -- and I'm not going to spend too much time on Basco Lane. It is an existing private lane that takes access to Chinden Boulevard and, then, comes up and crosses the Phyllis Canal and heads -- continues north. That is one of the primary access points for several parcels in here. I'm not exactly even sure who all has an interest in that at this time. There is an agreement that was formed with Anderson and MIDC, which is a subject applicant owner and one other party that I'm forgetting the name of. There is some language in that -- in that agreement that does restrict that lane being used for, basically, anything other than what it's being used for now and some other language that basically says that you cannot build a public street here in this location. Again, it's basically for as is and not future development. I did submit a memo to the Commission earlier and the applicant before the hearing, based on a letter that we received from the applicant yesterday and sifting down with the applicant and discussing the staff report with them. There were a couple of the conditions or provisions of the development agreement that in working with Mike Cole as well, we decided that it would probably work best to reword some of those conditions, so just to have that handy, I guess. I'll not spend too much time on them. Numbers five and six on page 11 had to do with sewer and water service. Just some points of clarification there in that, that it's just -- they are standard requirements, really, and just spelling out that this site is not sewer -able at this time and it will probably g, T, R 0 MR, 1Y W W" 4 0� rvk-�., �4- , R1 f I V, 5-4 4 1, % ffivo 1-�-% Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 61 of 90 0 be at least a couple years before sewer is even available out there. Number nine talks about the current access points and it was the intent of staff that when a development application is submitted, then, we will condition it, but your access points to Chinden go away, not that once you submit an application, then, all of a sudden your accesses go away, but as through the development process we will condition it that existing access points to Chinden Boulevard need to be abandoned and only provided at the half mile or at the arterial intersections, as UDC requires. Number ten. Basically staff did not feel -- Black Cat is shown as a future arterial. Staff did not want to propose, restrict, analyze, even, access points to Black Cat at this time and make that a provision of the development agreement. We will have another shot when they come in for preliminary plat approvals in the future to look at access points and see what makes sense. Chinden I did want to say, hey, you get these ones and that's it. Black Cat will have another shot at it. We can say this is what ACHD -- this is what their policy is and these are where your access points are, rather than approving them at this time. So, number ten just says that they are still subject to review and approval in the future by us and ACRD. Number 12. This has to do with the current Basco Lane. The last exhibit on the staff report had what I have access to and that's the Ada County assessor's records as ownership. So, when I click on a parcel it will give you the information that they have for who owns the parcel. They aren't always right. I will not say that they are. But that's what we generally go off of when we try to show ownership of parcels. Condition number 12 has to do with this question of how do you get to -- there is a large -- and I'm not even sure how many acres they have -- down over the Phyllis Canal down below and it goes to the river. But, really, the best location to have a public street come down and serve this property, as well as Black Cat -- sorry I'm going off the map -- Black Cat extended in the future, is to have this crossing be here. There is an existing access and it just -- based on topography, makes the most sense. However, there is this ownership question. So, number 12 just says if the current Basco Lane can't be used or the easement that I was mentioning earlier, this easement agreement, muddies things up and not all the parties can agree to use this crossing for a public street. Then, another access -- another stub street somewhere -- somewhere in this area, more than likely right along the western property boundary here, will be evaluated and even required if this can't -- can't happen in that location. So, that's kind of what number 12 does, is it makes it -- you know, the preference is for a road to come down here. If that can't happen, we need to get a road over there, so it needs to come in this location. And number 13 is just a -- the current tree farm owner or someone representing the tree farm anyways, had some concerns about an existing structure or structures on the tree farm not being able to comply with the setback requirements, because they are already too close to Chinden. This is something that's pretty standard that we deal with on a fairly regular basis anyways with residential homes that will encroach five or ten feet even, to required landscape buffer and we do have a mechanism through alternative compliance just for those instances where there is existing structures or there is other conditions that don't make full compliance feasible. So, the intent is not to have them have to knock down structures. As a business they are lawfully created in the county and will landscape around them or add some additional trees to kind of meet the intent of the landscape buffer anyways. With that I will note that we did receive a letter -- received a letter this afternoon from White Peterson. I don't know if Mr. Nary got a copy N 7,4-4 .,{ f F PC Yg � A +. r 1 �? ^�, . ", � .. ^;," i• 7 `,'uf d�#d7,�..}d4#t�'�-d `�� n!��. ._, i P;: � d� '� Y � L f m x p T- `x w P t9i F 4 r rF r r' 4 � § iY J,s i ,y'i i f i § Y E £. F ,,. S Ali b ?v h 4 z F. ' V nfl� i .ft Mbit ,i. Ey d 4. `d. § - 3Rs.3§y r 4'. iiX E k. ,n, Y ❑ 33i . } �y. '� k'f Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 62 of 90 to all of you or not. It was quite lengthy. There is 20 pages or so in it, anyways. I just got it this afternoon. But did want to make a note that we did get that today and I think with that I will stand for any questions you may have. Staff is recommending approval of the subject application. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Any questions of staff? Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I would have a couple of questions. One of them is on page three and this would be a clarification. Paragraph six, land use, E, existing constraints and opportunities, item two, vegetation, there are some existing trees on this site that should be protected or mitigated for when this property develops. That's an understatement. It's a tree farm. My question is is there a distinction between planted trees for decoration and retail stock or wholesale stock that is not intended for -- to remain there? Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, I don't think we have written that into the UDC, but certainly it's not the intent that every time they sell a tree they have to plant one to mitigate for it. So, I think when the preliminary plat comes in and if there are any trees that need to be removed that have -- that have been planted there not for sale, that they will need to mitigate for those trees or protect those trees, hopefully. So, we will work with the parks department in the future to have them go out there and say what trees need to be protected and what trees need to be mitigated for. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Let's see. And you mentioned Basco Lane and, actually, on page 12 and maybe it appears somewhere else. Page 12, item 9, when the property develops, Basco Lane access to Chinden Boulevard will be abandoned. Somewhere else in the report it mentioned that the reasoning for that was that Basco Lane was on the quarter mile. By your drawings it appears to be on the half mile and would be the correct place to have a collector and a public road that would go all the way to the Aldape property. Am I saying that correctly? And the only reason I'm familiar with that is it came up at the Comprehensive Plan amendment hearings. Hood: Yeah. Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, you're right, the -- and I'm sorry I didn't have that exhibit, but there is a frontage or back -age road shown along Chinden on that map you're talking about, the north Meridian transportation system map or whatever we call it, that is part of this comp plan amendment. So, that the entrance comes in at the half mile and the collector -- it doesn't have to be a straight collector, the applicant is proposing a collector street system and it may loop as the whole collector or have one leg of it or the other be the collector. I mean it's to be determined. But they have agreed that a collector from Chinden to the north will be constructed when they come in for preliminary plat. So, that is something -- Zaremba: And one way or another that will go all the way to the north property line? Hood: Yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 63 of 90 Zaremba: Okay. Hood: And, then, so that, then, the existing tree farm can take an access to that future roadway and not utilize the access now. So, those can go away. Zaremba: One other question on page 12, item 15, all contiguous property currently owned by MDC at level C is part of a subject annexation application. I agree with that. That that should happen. I think the City Council will agree with that. We don't like out parcels owned by the same people, but my question is 11 -- Exhibit A is legal descriptions. Would that change the legal descriptions that need to be provided? Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, it's still a question to me. Mr. O'Neil came into the office yesterday, had an exhibit. There may be a piece of property that MDC owns that's not contiguous, so that should probably be written into that number 15, that any contiguous property that MDC owns be part of the -- Zaremba: It does currently -- Hood: Okay. So, if -- and that's why I say, this is really -- I have not seen any two documents that show it the same. There is really a question mark out there of who owns what. Zaremba: I guess the issue is that the way you showed it as the County Assessor apparently has it and since that's the taxing authority, I would hope they are correct some of the time. Not that I want to speak to the motivation of the current applicant, but that would be a perfect spite strip -- spite strip if they wanted the road not to go all the way through and I don't think we should allow that. Hood: And I will let the applicant address that a little bit more, but that's exactly what staffs concern was, too, is that if, in fact, you own this, then, there is no way for the TICO One parcels on the east side to go anywhere. I mean they can't, then, provide that access to the Aldape property and that's why the condition that I read in earlier. Then, another stub needs to happen somewhere else, because the road does need to get down to those folks and if it can't happen there, it needs to happen somewhere else. And these -- that's the ideal situation for it to happen right there. And I think the applicant is willing to allow them to use that, but there are some other folks that are subject to this agreement that may or may not be willing to cooperate and that's where the -- I have not seen correspondence from them saying we are willing to allow anything other than what's in the agreement that they created five years ago, whenever that easement was created to happen on Basco Lane. So, right now just looking at it, it doesn't look like it can be a public street there, based on the existing easement. So, that's why we have kind of written in the plan B. Not the ideal situation, not the preferred route to go, but if that happens and we -- they can't all get together, then, we still need to get a road down there. So, does that -- Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 64 of 90 Zaremba: Thank you. Yes. I'm done. Rohm: All right. Any other questions of staff? Would the applicant like to come forward, please? O'Neil: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Derrick O'Neil, 222 East River Walk, Suite 100, Boise, Idaho. I'm here tonight as a representative of the Treehaven, LLC, the applicant for the project. We will definitely deal with some of the issues that were talked about, but before that I'm going to step back and, as you said earlier, this is our opportunity to sell to you why we believe this is a good project. So, I'm going to do that in a ten minute -- or a ten second version -- ten minute version, as opposed to the time and effort that we have put into this so far. So, the first thing that want to do is remind you tonight that the purpose we are here for is for the annexation and zoning of 358 acres, plus or minus. It is a large piece of property and I will get to that in a little bit. We will come back in; you will have another chance to see preliminary plats and more details, et cetera. You guys are certainly aware that this property -- I'm going to try to wait to see if we can get caught up. Take you through some exhibits. What I'm going to do is just jump passed the first slide and talk to you about -- a little bit about the team involved in the project. That's my slide four, but I will just fast forward until we get there. Treehaven, LLC, is a partnership between the Carnahan family -- the Carnahan family that's here tonight and they are long time Treasure Valley residents. They are the owners of the current Jaker Nursery, which people have referred to as the Tree Farm. They also have a house there. And so they have been around a long time. And, then, O'Neil Enterprises is our company, Pete O'Neil and myself. We have been developing in the Treasure Valley for the last -- over 25 years. What we have focused on is master planned residential communities. That's all we have done. And we have done it primarily here in the Treasure Valley, projects that I'm sure you're aware of. The rest of the team is our land planner, Downing, Thorpe, and James, who is out of Boulder, Colorado. They have been with us since the early '80s. What they focus on is land planning for master planned residential communities. Our engineer is River Ridge Engineering. Legal is Givens Pursley. And marketing we have a company is Stohl's Marketing Group. We put the team together first before we start anything on a piece of property. So, that's our team. Now that I'm caught up with the slides, I'm going to get you kind of oriented in a little bit different way. I think Caleb did a great job and just an anecdotal note I need to mention, tonight you guys had over 700 lots that were in front of you, not even including this. I got my draft staff report mid last week, which is earlier than I have gotten a staff report in any other jurisdiction. So, how you're keeping up with it I don't know, but these guys are doing a good job to keep up with it. In a regional context, I think it's important for you guys, you obviously are really aware of this area. This is the property right here. Eagle here. Star here. This is the rim. Phyllis Canal. So, the area below the rim. This is the much discussed McDermott. I'm not saying that that's in alignment, but that comes pretty much down McDermott and shows that somehow it's going to have to get across and over to there. All the stuff in white was -- up to two months ago what's been approved and being built. This is all now white based on what you have done in the last couple of weeks. This is the Bainbridge project. You were talking about access. Bainbridge access winds up exactly where we Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 65 of 90 are at, one of our main accesses will line up. This is Spurwing. That gives you a fairly good idea of where we are in the world, of the regional area. As it relates to the property -- go to the next slide there, Jason. This doesn't show up real great, but it is 358 acres, plus or minus. There are two specific out parcels and the folks that are going to testify tonight would be the owners of this parcel and, then, the owners of this parcel. They are the two out parcels that are not owned or a part of the application. And those are, really, the two issues you're going to hear tonight. This is Basco Lane, the discussed item. This area, if you drive down Chinden, you're familiar with the red barn, that's the red barn. That is the Jaker nursery. And, then, you can see the rows of trees that are in there. Commissioner Zaremba, you're correct. We had, actually, comments on that same deal. If we have to preserve all the trees, we are going to be in deep trouble. There are some existing trees out there, though, that we will work hard to preserve that are big. In fact, there is a great willow tree here and that's part of what we do, we like to preserve and enhance landscape. And, certainly, the Carnahan family does. The Phyllis Canal, which runs here, right now there is two -- this is Black Cat and Black Cat stops here and, then, there is access to this property and it continues down here. There is about a 50 -foot bluff from the top of the bluff down to the base of the canal. There are two areas, one currently crosses the canal and gets to the Aldape property down here and, then, the other has a little bit of a cut and is a logical area that ultimately could come down and cross over here. The rest of it is pretty steep bank. Then Spurwing Country Club here. This is the West Wing Estates, the non-ag or farm set aside that will convert back into the project at some point in time. So, that's a general property location. Yeah. And the Carnahan's house. Excuse me. That's Doug's house right there. That covers, essentially, the existing conditions. That's something we like to look at at the very beginning. We look at all the existing conditions, also irrigation laterals -- there is some irrigation here, there is irrigation here, all the elements that would require us to underlay a master plan. Next slide, Jason. We already talked about the project team. Next slide. Planning process. For us, we do an awful lot of work before we start drawing anything on a plan. We start out with existing features, conditions, drainage topography, existing buildings, et cetera. The next thing we do is have neighborhood meetings, in addition to the required meetings. We met with Spurwing, we met with surrounding owners, and it was a bit shock for many of them to say, geez, this 360 acres is going to be turning into a community. After we went through the kind of community most of them got very comfortable with what we were trying to do, but certainly you guys hear testimony all the time of people that are having trouble with that. So, we like to get their input to begin with. Then, we go to every agency we can think of that has something to do with the property, all the way from the highway district, Department of Transportation, drainage, and we sit down with them and say what are your concerns and we talk with them. Then we look at the Comprehensive Plan or the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for zoning requirements and we look at those and try to overlay those. And, then, lastly, but very important, we look at market conditions and competition. What's happening around us? What kind of projects are being done. Do we want to be just like everyone else or are we going to provide some alternative product, et cetera? We go through that for the planning process. Next slide. We end up with after probably 40 or 50 sheets of paper; we end up with what we call a concept plan. And that concept plan is based on the 0-6 ikry zt�3' a Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 66 of 90 belief in master planning. We really believe that and you guys have seen that all night long. You have seen out parcels, you have seen small parcels, you have seen the benefit of having larger acreage assemblage and be able to master plan so it all has a plan and in the future you're not worrying about stubs, you're not worrying about a lot of things that you guys have seen tonight. So, master planning is a very important concept to us. And in doing so, we do it in a way that can allow separate different types of uses to co -exist well together. Commercial uses, higher density uses, residential, lower density uses. And we have done that in every project we have done and it's really -- they have worked well together. So, master planning is a key thing. Our goal -- we have about ten goals in terms of what we set out to create as the key elements for a community. Our first goal is to create an authentic sense of place and we can do that here, very fortunate, in that there is an existing tree farm. That's where we have debated that -- as someone talked earlier tonight about what to name the project and Tree Farm seems a very logical name. It may not be conventional, but it's very logical. That's what the property has been and there is a lot of identification to that. The next thing is there is an existing barn on the property that's used as offices for the retail nursery and we anticipate keeping that and having that a critical element as you enter the project, to create an authentic sense of place, to say that, you know, something was done here and they are keeping some of that. So, that's a key element. That second goal that we always work to is having greater diversity in housing. We really believe that. And we believe that for not only the product type, but also pricing. We believe that a greater diversity of housing creates a just more diverse social community. It creates a lot of different types of people. We think that's very positive. So, from a housing perspective, we took and looked at the existing constraints and condition in the comp plan and you will see that we have put the majority of our density along Chinden Boulevard, along with some commercial, and, then, we start scaling our density back until we get to the rim and we put some higher density housing. Black Cat -- Black Cat here. There is some discussion that it will come down the rim and maybe some day connect up to McDermott and across the river. So, we have put some different housing types along there with the thought that the highway district and the city is -- said that this would be an arterial at some point in time. So, our plan anticipates somewhere between 1,000 to 1,200 units and on the property that equates to just over three units per acre. Again, most of that density is along Chinden and, then, it moves back. About 15 percent would be estate housing or larger home sites. And, then, about 35 percent would be single family -- traditional single family housing. Thirty percent would be lifestyle housing and lifestyle housing, in our definition, is a smaller home site, a patio home, a cluster home, that is for -- what people were talking about tonight, empty nesters, retirees, single people, people in transition. And, then, the last component of our housing would be village housing and village housing would be condominiums, townhomes, or apartments. And that would be closer to the Chinden Road. So, diversity of housing is very very important. In diversity of housing, not just one area, one type, and, then, go like that, but we also have been able to mix different types of housing next to each other and around each other. We think that's important. The next element was everyday convenience in social interaction. We have a part of the property here, which is C -C, community commercial, and we are working on a plan now that would turn that into a combination of retail, office, restaurant, and things that would not Meridian Planning & Zoning is 40 March 2, 2006 Page 67 of 90 only benefit this area, but all the residents around here. Designing a way to become very compatible with the project here. And, then, the next element that's key and a goal to us is connection to nature and open space. Over 15 percent of the project, approximately, will be open space and our open spaces, what we like to do, instead of having just an all -in -one area, we like to link open spaces from one part of the project all the way to the other and put pathways within those open spaces, so you can from one point to the other. So, you see our open space ribbons separating neighborhoods, but also connecting neighborhoods. So, we have not only the connectivity of the roads, but we have pedestrian connectivity as well, so you don't always have to be on a road to get to areas. Next goal is -- for us is health and well-being. We have a significant community facility and neighborhood commercial area here. That community facility is on about a ten acre site and that would be for the use of the tree farm residence, it would tie together with our neighborhood commercial where we see child care, we see coffee shops, we see a retail nursery and not necessarily the wholesale nursery, but a retail nursery as our anchor in this neighborhood commercial area. It would have a workout area, a swimming pool, and be a very extensive place for people in the community to gather and recreate. Also, open space before that. And, then, we have a few other goals. Sustainable development. We are working on some things that incorporate responsible use of water recycling, storm water runoff, and energy efficiency. Then, lastly, to other key items. School. You notice on the comp plan that there was a school designated somewhere in this area and we have met with Wendell, we have talked to him -- until he saw this plan he didn't even -- he didn't even think of a school on the north side of Chinden. He saw this plan and he said, boy, there probably is a need for that. But it's not -- because the other school that you're working on is right over here in Keego Springs, I believe. We have met with them. We are willing to work with them. He hasn't decided that this is the only location and best located, but we certainly see a school as a positive to the community. We will continue to work with them and are excited about that potential. And, lastly, which I should have started with, because it's really how we overlay our plan, is transportation. And, obviously, the key elements with transportation are access to Chinden. We have met with the Department of Transportation, met with the highway district, and our key accesses -- only accesses are at the required -- what they are now requiring half section lines. So, this lines up directly across from Bainbridge and, then, this lines up directly across from Black Cat Road. And, then, you can see -- people have been calling this a backage road. I don't know that I would define it as that, but it accomplishes that. This is a collector -- commercial collector status road that allows a buffer or separation between more conventional residential uses and that and, then, we have a collector road here and, then, it connects over to here. And, then, stub streets, obviously, is a big topic. Every project you had has referred to that. So, we are going to -- stub streets were discussed and we are okay with a stub to here and we are okay with a stub somewhere in this neighborhood and Doug Carnahan is going to talk to that in a minute. So, from a timing standpoint, we are expecting a preliminary plat for the first phases in spring -summer of 2006. We are expecting to start construction so it's concurrent with the sewer that will be brought to Black Cat right now. Public Works has told us that's late 2007, early 2008, and we want to time up with that. We realize that that's in process and we are going to pay close attention to that. We are not going to get a project built without � p 3 f 011 4 5 r � ' aoo C J i x' 339 � v t� .fit ¢ it'-�ze�#'{ ` fk� a t fi f�f;W .: 1 42 `�II'$u`' Meridian Planning & Zoning 0 March 2, 2006 Page 68 of 90 having sewer. We are going to need to do that. And, then, the other think that I think is important -- and you guys have seen, is that on a project of this scale, we would have a very difficult time coming in and giving you a preliminary for the entire project. We will give you a preliminary plat for the first phase and, then, we will go forward and we can give you preliminary plats on larger parcels, but to preliminary plat 1,000 lots for us is taking the flexibility out of it, A, and it's also not letting us respond to the market and we think that's very very important. What's good today may not be good five years from now, seven years from how, ten years from now, and we see this as a ten year project plus some. So, that goes through kind of the sales pitch in a very very fast format. I want to talk quickly about the -- Rohm: Derrick? O'Neil: Yes. Rohm: We have got 15 minutes here, so you're going to have to conclude fairly quickly O'Neil: Okay. I'll conclude quickly. I want to talk about the staff report comments. We are in general agreement with the conditions for the development as modified with the March 2nd, 2006, memo that Caleb sent you. There is two conditions on that, Condition 12 and 13, that Doug wants to talk to and I'll let him do that and we will kind of go from there. I'm going to turn it over to Doug, who is going to speak as a property owner and a business owner, if I can real quickly. Rohm: Quickly. O'Neil: Yes, I will, and he's going to get to -- he's going to get to the issues that I know that the public is going to talk about. Carnahan: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Doug Carnahan, live at 4410 West Chinden Boulevard. Derrick gave you a pretty good history and context of the property, but what I wanted to do is just visit that again very briefly. Let me start with about 17 years ago my wife and I bought the property that's bounded in the green. It's 110 acres. We bought that, because we had a nursery that was started in Eagle and we moved our -- expanded operations and so started on that area in the green. And, then, about ten years ago, if you look at the area outlined in the blue up near the rim there, that's where we decided to build our home and that's where we reside today. And not today, we do plan to stay there. About five years ago, if you look at what's bounded in yellow, that's when we added incremental property to our holding to expand the nursery. But about three years ago it became clear, the die was cast, development was going to take place in a major way in this area, and so we opted to acquire another property that's further out in Middleton and started to move our growing grounds out there. So, we never really fully planted out that area that's bounded in the yellow. When we acquired the property in the yellow -- you heard reference to an agreement with the person Anderson and the other name was Thomas. Well, at the time we bought it the condition they put upon it, they said we will only sell it to you if you Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 69 of 90 agree you will not approve any public access or any expanded access over Basco Lane without our permission. And I said what's that about? And they said, well, we own all the property -- both sides of the Boise River north of the Aldape property and what we are interested in is we are turning that into a wetlands conservation area, we are going to preclude any development and make it a very natural state and we would just like the opportunity to put a -- to have some voice if anybody is to be doing things of increasing density or putting things down there, we'd just like some voice in there. I have subsequently talked to them and they have said we are not trying to stop any development, that's not our goal, but just keep in mind we are interested in knowing what's going on. So, that's a little bit of history I'll get to in some more detail. First I'm going to put on my -- Jason, can you flip back one slide? First I'm going to put on our nursery hat and, as I said, over time all of our growing grounds will be gone, but if you look in the purple, as Derrick said, we are going to retain the use of that space and we are going to use it for an office and a distribution yard. We have some infrastructure there, we have a number of buildings that some of them are relatively new and expensive and large and we have a limited amount of things that we can change and as the expansion of Chinden takes place, we are going to have some difficulties with setbacks, et cetera. There is a condition that we have to file a certificate of zoning compliance. We are concerned. We are concerned our business will be shut down, because a new set of conditions are going to be thrown upon us that we just can't respond to. And so we are very concerned. Our request is that -- there was some discussion about a use of alternative compliance. We would request that we are allowed some privilege for a broader use of alternative compliance, because we just can't take all our buildings, start moving them -- we have some real limitations. We have got canals, irrigation systems, we have got a number of things that we just can't be moving and picking up and changing or it will disrupt our operation significantly. So, we have operated there for 17 years and we want to use that space just the same. We will comply if it's reasonable, but we may not be able to comply in every case. So, we would ask for some help on that one. Rohm: Sir? Carnahan: Yeah. Rohm: I think, really, at this point in time you have done a pretty good job -- both of you of selling your project and I think maybe what would be best is if we gave the others an opportunity to voice their concerns and, then, you folks have the last word to come back up and respond to any questions from -- or comments from the audience. But, technically, we have already over -- we have exceeded your time here and I think that if we go ahead and allow them, then, you will have an opportunity to respond. Carnahan: Okay. But just can I ask one question? Rohm: Absolutely. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 70 of 90 Carnahan: So, I heard quite a number questions about the Basco Lane, about why -- what property did we not add, because it's not contiguous. I have answers to all those questions. I was going to walk through them. If you would like to hear answers to those questions, I'm happy to do it. Rohm: Yeah. Borup: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, yeah, the Basco Lane seems to be something that's been ongoing for a number of months, so if we can quickly get through -- Rohm: It has been all along. Borup: If we can quickly get through that, I think that would be pertinent. Rohm: Let's go through that and that's it. Carnahan: Okay. So, this is Basco Lane. But let me -- on the prior slide you saw where my house is located. We are concerned that there is only two access locations from the upper ground to the lower ground. The logical place is Black Cat on the one hand and the ravine that Basco goes through today. Okay, Jason, can we have that next one? So, let me reference some parcels. This line is -- south of it is owned by Treehaven, the applicant. North of it, except for some parcels I'll mention, are owned by TICO One, which is owned by family that's also connected with the Aldape family. This parcel here I do absolutely not own. So, that's why we did not make the parcel that I do own, which is this one right there, that's why we did not include it in the application, because it's not contiguous. The issue is right -- with this letter, the issue is access right there. The concern is is that that's controlled through this letter with this other group of people, but I talked to them and I'm convinced that we can solve that problem. The issue -- the way the statement is written and the language of the staff report, they say there is two alternatives; we either put it right where Basco Lane is or you put it way up the cliff, which makes no sense at all. What really needs to happen is it has to move to the west and it has to move to the west, because if you look at -- right there were the road is in the red, that is -- you can maybe see the trees. That is a wooded hillside. What we own in that area is a wooded hillside. If you try to build a road, it's currently 12 feet wide in that area, you are going to have a lot of problems with removal of trees, that -- those are the trees on the property that are mature, they are 80 years old, that's a huge stand of trees all in that area. Also, if you don't have the rights to go across that property, why not just go like this? I wrote up a document that I feel totally comfortable with and let me try it on. A condition of approval for our development. The City of Meridian shall withhold signing of the final plat until one of the two following conditions are met with regard to providing public access from Basco Lane to the Aldape property north of the Phyllis Canal. One, MDC, LLC, provides easement across the parcel it owns -- and I have an exhibit. A legal description. That will allow a public road connection to the north of the Phyllis Canal. Two. An alternative plan for the public road access across the Phyllis Canal near Basco Lane as agreed to by the Meridian city planning staff. What I would suggest -- Basco can't stay where it is. It can't, because Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 71 of 90 there is another owner intervening there that's going to take years to find. Just move it over. It's owned by people that are the same family. Just move it over and let me deal with the issue of clearing that one up, which I feel comfortable taking that on and we can get our access. Does that answer the question? Rohm: I think it does. This application tonight is for zoning, not for roads or anything, and so I'm not sure that that has to be resolved tonight, but I appreciate your testimony, but I think the application that's before us is just for the zoning itself, so -- Zaremba: I would suggest, though, that that could be included as a development agreement. Rohm: And possibly will be. Thank you. Carnahan: Sure. Rohm: Okay. Bill Nichols. Nichols: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Bill Nichols, 5700 East Franklin Road, Suite 200, Nampa, Idaho. I'm here to speak for the Rabehls. Mr. Rabehl would like to talk about his property a little bit with you, too, and I realize the hour is late, but I will try to make my points short and to the point. You have the position statement, which Bill Gigray in our office prepared and submitted and I apologize to staff, it was delivered to the clerk's office yesterday and we should have tried to get it to you the same day and I apologize for that. That was my doing, because I know Will likes to get those things and I said give them to Will first. I want to point out some things with regard to this and I will try to be brief. First of all, the Comprehensive Plan that applies to this application is the Comprehensive Plan that's in place at the time the application is made, not the Comprehensive Plan that's adopted later. And there is a case Blaser, I believe was the name of the case that dealt with that issue in Ada County and the holding is that the comp plan at the time the application was filed. So, to consider this application when it's not in your area of impact, it's not in the urban service planning area, violates those provisions from that case law in the urban -- the local Land Use Planning Act. Your current code requires that the annexation only occur within property that's in the urban service planning area and this is not. Sewer and water are not available and they won't be available until late. There was a reference in the staff report to negotiating with United Water and I sat where Mr. Nary sat for over four years and that's like Anathema and I can't understand why you would entertain an application where you would not have control over who supplies water, because if you give up control over the water, you also give up control over how you collect your sewer charges. The annexation without a development plan, specific develop plan, despite Mr. O'Neil's reasoned argument, doesn't make sense and the reason it doesn't make sense is as I can point out to you -- have you ever heard of Kodiak development and the problems that you had with that one when it was annexed and it was zoned without a specific development plan? That's one. The second one is the Kissler Cobb Rewe annexation. That one was also with a concept plan and that one also presented Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 72 of 90 problems to the city, because at one point it had you in a lawsuit over it and I submit to you that it's ill-advised to not have a specific development plan. A concept plan is just not specific enough. Annexation and zoning is your opportunity, through the development agreement, to get concessions from the developer and have those binding. Once it's annexed and zoned, the entitlement lies and, then, you're faced with just dealing with little preliminary plat issues. So, I submit to you it's not appropriate to do that. There is also, as revealed in our position statement, there is a bit of a boundary issue with the RabehI's property and the Eggers' property. And, lastly, I would point out that the Highway 16 extension and the necessity of perhaps using Black Cat for that mitigates against some kind of annexation and a concept plan when you don't know what's going to happen with that. With that I will stand for questions. Rohm: Thank you, Mr. Nichols. Any questions of Mr. Nichols? Zaremba: I would like a clear identification of where the Rabehl's property is. Nichols: It would be this property right here. Zaremba: It's the out parcel in the middle? Nichols: Yes. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. That was it. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Appreciate your testimony. Nichols: Thank you, Commissioners. Rohm: Tuck Ewing. Ewing: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, Tuck Ewing, 1500 EI Dorado, Boise. I represent TICO One, which are these two parcels of dirt right there. One three acre parcel and one six acre parcel. I'd like to start off by saying I apologize for my bad speaking. I'm not a very good public speaker, so I will do the best I can, but -- and I'll keep it short. I'd like to say that we are in support of the annexation and proposed zoning that we have seen on their maps and we think it will be a good addition to the City of Meridian. At this stage we've really only got one major concern and, obviously, I think we all know what that is, it's Basco Lane and it's the access issue between our parcels of dirt there. And can we get that blown up map? This map was -- as staff said, pulled off of Ada County assessor's map and that's the map that we currently have been using as well. I know there has been discussions with Mr. Carnahan and Mr. O'Neil to the fact that there -- that could potentially be wrong, but at this stage I have not seen anything that shows why that's wrong or the map that Mr. Carnahan put up with the strip that he showed. So, the best thing that I guess that we can go off of right now is what Ada County is showing and is showing as their tax parcel. I guess our position on this thing right now is that the agreement that was made between the other parties, as far as the no access Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 73 of 90 down to the Aldape property, is definitely an issue, but it's really not an issue of Aldapes or TICO's, it's really an issue of MDC's and MDC is the one that's ultimately putting this - - MDC, along with Treehaven, putting this application in and so we feel they need to take care of that issue and we need the collector completely through this project clear through. They say they are taking the collector clear to their north property line, but their north property line really doesn't end with us, it really goes clear down to here. We are not suggesting that they have to come in and -- we have even went as far as saying that we would consider it, given the dirt needed to put the road through there of our property. So, I guess that, finally, the last thing I'd like to say is we'd like to see the legal description on this, if this annexation is approved, the legals show what Ada County has on their records and if the applicant disagrees with Ada County's records, I would like to see it tabled until such time that we had the real -- what really happened here, so that we could have that clarification before the annexation happened. So, with that I will answer any questions. Rohm: Thank you. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I do have one. You touched on it a moment. You heard the suggestion that even the terrain would be more appropriate to have the roadway come through part of your property, as opposed to going through what's indicated as MDC. I have not been out there and looked at it, so I have no idea how valid that suggestion is, but can you comment on that? Ewing: Well, we can get with staff and show them -- we have got topography maps and everything. But this six acres -- actually, this right here falls right in the existing Basco Lane and from that point it actually starts going up the grade and, then, from over here it starts coming up as well. So, my opinion of it is that this strip right now really lies in the ultimate -- where the drainage ends, the water runs, and the road runs right now. Like said, we wouldn't be against working with the developer and even given them dirt if they need some more, because, obviously, they do narrow down in a couple spots right up there at the south end and, then, again, up at the north end, but I think ultimately it's going to fall -- that road's going to fall somewhere in that location and it's not, in my opinion, going to be to the west, because of the geographic features that exist today. know Mr. Carnahan talked about the trees, but I don't know that the trees will outweigh the amount of effort that's going to be needed to dig the side of the mountain off to move it over. Zaremba: Thank you. Rohm: Thank you, sir. Sherry Ewing. S. Ewing: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I'm Sherry Ewing and I live at 2934 Lake Hazel and I am representing the Aldape property and the Everest property, which is also down in the Aldape property. And my main concern is I just want to say that we need adequate access for emergency vehicles, for the future development of the property going to the Phyllis Canal, and I'm really feeling like we really need two Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 74 of 90 access points, Basco Lane being one and another one on the development. And the reason that I'm saying that is that's the only access that we have to our property. Black Cat does not connect to the Aldape property at all. So, that's one thing. I also want to make it clear right now that TICO One and the Aldape property have no ties. So, that was a misstatement from the other party. Do you have any questions? Borup: Mr. Chairman. Then who is the owner of TICO One? S. Ewing: TICO one is John Ewing, Tuck Ewing and Ben Ewing. And I have nothing to do with that, even though my last name is Ewing. And, then, the Aldapes is my parents and, then, the Everest is my sister. So, I don't have anyone in there. Borup: Okay. And your current access now is down Basco Lane? S. Ewing: That's the only access we have. The only access we have. Borup: But it did look like it narrowed down pretty tight, at least as far as what the assessor's note was showing, is that -- so that's just a real narrow road in those areas? S. Ewing: There is a dirt road that goes down to the canal and across the bridge. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: I do have a question. And this has come up several times in Meridian. The ones that come to mind are Wingate Lane and Venable Road, where the ownership of an easement has been either in question or in a difficult situation. I would guess that your parents have some document that proves that they have the right to pass over property that they don't own and there would be some value to that document. The city, of course, doesn't enforce those things; it's a legal matter between the neighbors. But at the present they would have the right to enforce that document I would think. At least for the current use. The drawing that I see and even the statement by staff that Basco Lane should be abandoned, doesn't deal with that. And I guess -- I guess my question to you is is there anything that you or your parents could think of, because there is value to that easement, that maybe you could trade with the developer to -- you know, for giving up part of that easement, which you don't have to do? S. Ewing: Well, that easement was, actually, obtained by my grandfather, who bought the property in 1912. And at that time it was a wagon wheel road. And so I think what they are trying to do is keep it to two houses down there and agricultural. And, of course, we would like to develop it, we would like to possibly put a park down there and none of that would be possible with what they are wanting to give us right now. We would be land locked; basically, because that's the only way we have to get to our land. Zaremba: Well, I may need a legal comment on this, although Meridian isn't going to take up the legal aspects of it, but if you have the right to pass over that land, even with Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 75 of 90 a wagon wheel or one car or whatever, they can't take that away. Their plans show Basco Lane not existing. You have the right to say that's not possible, I believe. S. Ewing: That's not possible. Zaremba: And that gives you something to trade to say to them I need a complete connection or I need to continue all the way to Chinden the access that I currently have. Is that typical of an easement? Nary: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, yeah, I think it is typical of an easement. I mean, certainly, that's -- I mean you have raised the issue that we have dealt with before, but certainly if they have an easement and have a continuous right to have access through that property, they certainly have the right to maintain that. But it is between them and the property owners. It appears -- I guess I'm in the same quandary as the rest of the staff as to where the ownership pieces lie, but if you have an easement that gives you access all the way to Chinden, you're going to maintain -- you're going to be able to maintain that and have to deal with the property owners to how that's going to be. I think what's being proposed by the applicant was to simply move the access to a different spot, but still maintain the access there. Zaremba: I guess that was another part of my question. Does the easement or the access have to be maintained exactly where it has historically been or will an alternative satisfy it? Nary: It depends on what it says. Zaremba: Okay. Nary: I don't know. That's probably between the Aldapes and the Carnahans and maybe the Ewings. Rohm: Thank you, Sherry. Appreciate that. The next names are Art and Sandra Rabehl. How do you say that? Rabehl: Rabehl. Rohm: Rabehl. Rabehl: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Arthur Rabehl. My wife and I reside at 6745 North Black Cat Road. And we are the little parcel that is in question right there. We have lived there for the past 38 years now and, of course, it's a dead end road that as far as the highway district is concerned ends at my driveway. From there on it's the -- the road that does go passed there is just for access to the farming of the property around me there. But the highway district when they take and grade or anything, they grade to my driveway, because that is as far as they go. I want to take and state that I'm not opposed to development and so on. I mean it's something that's inevitable. It's Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 76 of 90 going to happen and we know that. But we want to take and protect ourselves as well as we can from things that are going on and -- because we do have quite an interest out there that we want to take care of. At the present time, like I say, we are on Black -- on the end of Black Cat where there is no traffic, no pedestrians, whereas if this project is to take and go on as it is stated, there is going to be an enormous amount of traffic, it's going to completely change the way things are right now. As far as the view, like I say, from where we are there you can look to the Bogus Basin, all of Boise front, up north to Squaw -- that's changed, but Squaw Butte. And you go off to the southwest you got the Owyhee mountains and so on, a very clear, beautiful view. With all these houses that they want to take and put in, we are going to see walls, roof tops, a lot of people, a lot of cars and if you go to the south there is going to be stores down there and you're going to see the back of the store walls. We got a couple other concerns and that is that I take and raise some pigs out there and some cattle, hay, and so on and what's the complaints going to be when it smells a little bit? I mean I have heard of grandfather rights and things like this, but it seems like after a little bit complaints are raised and pretty quick you're squeezed out and as I say that's a real concern to me. The other thing that I have got is that we have a boundary issue that has arisen. When we bought the property out there I would say 38 years ago, we had 4.08 acres. Now, we are listed at 3.85 1 think it is and I haven't sold anything. Rohm: You're shrinking. Rabehl: It shrunk. What we did do with the former owners, which was Bill and Berrith Crookham is on this corner right there Bill was having troubling going around that corner and he's got a road all the way around that -- the west -- it went around this way like this to start with. And he was having trouble getting around there with his equipment in that corner down there. The other part was that the irrigation ditch went through here and zigged up into my area more, so he came to me and he said, Art, would you take and consent to changing the ditch? At first he said let's go this way and straight and I said, no, I said let's go south and straight and he said okay, we do that, can I take and have a little piece of your corner down there, which I had agreed upon and he agreed. And so that is the only change that we have had in the property, but, actually, I picked up more ground on this side than what he got on this side, but I lost on the tax assessment now and so there is an issue there that we have and that we are going to have to get squared away and get that settled before we can really move on I think. I mean because at the present time what they are -- Doug is getting could be my ground and I don't want to be annexed at this time. So, that's where I stand on that, so -- do you have any questions? Rohm: Thank you, sir. Any questions? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would ask was the land swap agreement recorded or was it just a gentleman's handshake? Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 77 of 90 Rabehl: That was a gentleman's handshake, which we -- we both know now that we should have done -- you know, had it surveyed at that time and done it, but we didn't. It was just a -- you know, a gentleman's agreement and that's what we did. Zaremba: So, if the county doesn't know about the swap, your acreage shouldn't have changed. Rabehl: But there is a map out there that -- and I don't have a copy of it here. That does show an overlay of the corner up there as it was and as it is now, it's a fence line, and, of course, as you can see, this line here is going to be straight where the ditch actually is, it doesn't show the zigzag, so I'm not for sure how they come up with these - - because we didn't file it, which, like I say, that was our mistake that we didn't do it, so - Borup: Sir, when you originally bought your property, did you have a survey at that time with the metes and bounds description? Rabehl: Yes. Yes, we do. Borup: So, that's still the same description that your deed shows today, then. Rabehl: Right. Right. Borup: So, it seems to me like that should be your property. Zaremba: That 4.8 acres. Borup: Well, I don't know how many acres it is, but that should be your property, whatever your deed shows. Rabehl: But the -- like I say, we got the -- dug out the tax papers and they showed us with less property and Doug mentioned that, so I'm not for sure what the heck -- Borup: I think whatever is recorded at the recorder's office would take precedence over tax information. Rabehl: I hope it does, but that's something we need to check out, because we are not for sure now just where we do stand. Borup: So, it would probably be worth checking out. Rabehl: Yes. Rohm: Thank you. Rabehl: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning • March 2, 2006 Page 78 of 90 Rohm: John. J. Ewing: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, I'm John Ewing, 2934 East Lake Hazel, Meridian, Idaho. Just a quick point. My feeling is is that -- and I know this is for annexation, but Basco Lane keeps coming up. Our property, TICO One, my two boys and I's property, I feel like that -- and I'm just going to kind of repeat some of the things that were said real quick, but there is an issue with who owns that land. I think that I would like to see this not be granted until we knew who does own the land. I will make it real clear, we will do -- we will be good neighbors and we can work and see if we move, but definitely if we move the road to the west, we have got as big an issue or they do of going down there as they do between the yellow and the white and the -- and the purple area here. So, you know, the only thing I can see different is the 300 and some acre development wants to take this six acres right there and take part of it. But, anyway, the bottom line is is I would like to see who owns the property through there, with legal descriptions, and before this is approved I think that the owners of that land, if it's not them, be notified -- legally notified that these hearings are going on where they can put their two cents worth in and so that's my feelings on it. I will stand for questions or sit down. I'm still in the green. Rohm: Thank you. Borup: I have got a couple of questions, Mr. Chairman. Your last comment that someone should be notified if they own -- what were you referring to there? Ewing: What I -- you know, this is something new. Ever since my two sons and I have owned that property, we have always been told that we did not own the land that actually the tree farm did. Borup: Which land are you referring to? Rohm: Basco Lane? Ewing: Basco Lane. The land through our -- you know, actually, the other map is a lot better. We were always told we didn't own any of this. We were told we didn't have access to any of this. We have had quite a bit -- and we also was told that this was also -- all of this land that's dashed was owned by the same owners that have the tree farm. Carnahans. Now, it's just been the last week that this has come up that they don't own it and stuff and I'm not saying they do own it, I don't know. You know, I'm not saying that they -- Borup: But you said someone needs to be notified, another owner. Ewing: Well, what I'm saying now is as if they are saying they don't own the section in here and they don't own this, somebody's got to own it. And all I'm saying is is I have always heard -- Meridian Planning & Zoning ® • March 2, 2006 Page 79 of 90 Borup: Okay. Ewing: -- that property owners within so many feet of a project -- Borup: No. I understand what you're saying. You're saying if they don't own it, somebody else does and they need to be notified. Do you feel comfortable that the survey that you have is accurate on the property that you do own? Ewing: Well, yeah, it was a certified survey and -- Borup: Okay. Ewing: -- and we have got it. We can still find all of our pins. I guess to answer your question, I feel very good that ours is right, but, you know, if our neighbors come and say our survey is wrong and they show us and -- you know, and our -- and everybody accepts that, that's all right. I -- Borup: Okay. Ewing: I think it's as good as you can ever think that any of your surveys are. Borup: I understand. Ewing: Yeah. Borup: Thank you. Ewing: Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Just a comment on that. It would seem to me that the tax assessor's office would send out a bill every year. If that bill's not being paid, then, this property is in default and the county would take it and auction it off. If it has been paid, would the county assessor tell us who sent the check? Does anybody know the answer to that? Borup: Well, they probably would, but just because the county bills you and the person pays it, if you own multiple properties, it's hard to figure out what goes to where and, believe it or not, they do make mistakes. Zaremba: Well, there would have to be two mistakes. The county would have to be a mistake in who they were sending it to and that person would have to mistakenly pay it. Borup: But it happens a lot. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 80 of 90 Zaremba: I guess I wonder is it possible to find out who has been paying it, if it's been paid? Borup: I think so. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: I just want to -- does this burden fall to us to sort out the Basco Lane problem or does it not fall to the property owners in question here? Rohm: Well, I think that, ultimately, is falls back on the property owners themselves, but what I'm kind of thinking after taking the testimony tonight, that we have got a lot of information here that needs to be absorbed and I personally don't think that I'm anywhere close to being ready to move forward with this and I think that as a Commission we would not be doing justice to the application or any of the other concerned parties by acting on this tonight and my personal opinion is that we should continue this and have an opportunity to read the 22 page letter issued by Mr. Gigray's office and also take into consideration all the testimony we have heard tonight and possibly even confer with staff some more and -- and I don't think that there is anything that we can move forward with tonight that would provide any concrete solution to response to the application and that's -- Borup: And that may be, but, Mr. Chairman, I do have two questions I'd kind like to see if staff may be able to answer. Rohm: I mean I'm not saying that we need to shut it down right at the moment, I'm just saying that I don't think that we are going to get a -- I wouldn't recommend we make a motion to conclude this thing, but go ahead. Borup: The two questions I have -- and I don't know if it was a right assumption, but assuming responsibility on access to the north would go as far as ownership of the applicant would be, would that be correct? Hood: That is correct. Borup: Okay. So, the only --so, the part that --whether Basco Lane is pertinent to this would determine where that north -- or that north access point would be or the north stub street. If the property does end right there, that's where that would end. If they do own it clear to here, then, I assume -- so, it sounds like -- is that where the question -- the contention is? I don't know if it's -- I shouldn't say contention, but that's where the question may be? So, someone has to determine where the north property would go to. So, I think this ownership is pertinent to that extent -- in that aspect. The other thing -- the only thing I had a question on is that of the legality of -- I mean this is not in our area of impact. Have we ever looked at anything before as far as an annexation when it Meridian Planning & Zoning • March 2, 2006 Page 81 of 90 hasn't even been in the area of impact? Is there any legal aspect we should be taking into consideration here or are you comfortable with proceeding as we have started? Rohm: I think that we have taken into consideration applications along our east line of our area of impact where it butts up against the city of Boise and there has been swaps all along that -- that east line and -- Borup: But this is a parcel that's not in any city's area of impact. Rohm: It's not in the City of Meridian's area of impact and that's where it is similar to property along the east line of the City of Meridian where we will go into areas that is outside of our area of impact. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Go ahead. Zaremba: I believe I recollect reading somewhere in the staff report that that issue is, actually, going to be heard by the City Council March 7th, which would be next Tuesday. That's one more reason for us to continue this and not try and make a decision tonight. The action of the City Council, we -- if they act on our recommendation, which was to approve the Comprehensive Plan amendment, then, upon that happening this will be in our area of impact. Rohm: Exactly. Zaremba: So, like I say, that's one more reason to continue it. I also feel that there are a number of issues -- and I won't call them legal issues, but border issues to identify exactly what property is being annexed and agree with staff, if there is common ownership of any parcel that's not included, it needs to be included. We don't want little pieces left over. There must be some way to prove that or not prove that. And that's something that would be cleared up during a continuance. I'm sensitive to the fact that applicant's and developers usually want to move stuff forward as fast as they can and I would be more sensitive if there were already a plat or CUP coming with it. This is only an annexation. We aren't slowing them down. The sewer won't be there for two years. So, they can't really start moving anything. I don't believe we are doing any damage to the applicant to continue it. Rohm: I would concur with that. I would also offer one additional comment that in all of our considerations on development, we are always talking about having a continuance of accessibility from one property to the next. I don't see this as any different than any other application in that regard. If, in fact, this property is to be developed, it is going to have to provide an opportunity for egress to the property to the north, whether it's Basco Lane or some other road that's adjacent or otherwise, because there is no way that they can land lock their neighbors to the north. And I just throw that out as a comment, not necessarily for anything to be resolved tonight. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 82 of 90 Zaremba: It might be appropriate to have the applicant come back and speak. Rohm: You may come up, yes. No. No. We are not trying to stop you from discussing anything. P. O'Neil: There is no problem with a continuance. I think we can clear up -- I sense some confusion -- Zaremba: Sir, you need to state your name. P. O'Neil: Yeah. I'm Pete O'Neil, 100 North 9th Street, Boise, Idaho. Yeah. I think there has been some confusion and what I'd like to do is try to shed a little light on that if I might. As -- you know, I can't help but make the observation that the bulk of the conversation tonight was dealing with parcels that weren't part of any master plan that kind of got left out and stub streets and access onto Locust Grove and so on and so forth. We've worked hard for 25 years just to try to include things so you avoid that. We haven't been successful yet, because the Ewings decided not to be part of the annexation process. The Rabehis initially were part of it, they were advised that they should pull out, so they did. We have met with them before, during, and after all of these processes. So, let me make a couple of observations. In terms of our understanding of can you annex property that is not in the impact area, we were asked by the City of Meridian to request consentual annexation of our property. If that came before the impact area change, so be it. So, we were doing what we were requested to do by the city. City services, we have discussed that, we understand that's all in process. The services for us are no different than the services for the acres and acres and acres of projects you approved to the south of Chinden before the services were there. So, there is really not a big issue there. As far as the Rabehis are concerned, you know, I really respect somebody who moved out to the country a number of years ago to live in the country, just like the Carnahans did, just like John Ewing bought the property and so on. So, the fact is the world's changing out there. You're not going to be able to protect four acre ranchettes forever and that's unfortunate, but, you know, the progress, if that's what it is, has moved west and things are changing. Now, we are trying to be good neighbors, want to work with everybody. If there is a property dispute on Ruvel's property that we can help resolve, we are happy to do it. We have the legal description of Eggers and the legal description that we are matching up, we have told them we will do what we can to resolve. So, I don't think that's -- those are serious issues. We'd like to work with them. We probably got ahead of ourselves by having an appraisal done on the property, so, you know, at least a starting point on what would happen if we gave you some money and you can go duplicate your rural lifestyle somewhere else. We have acquired the Avery's property, which is on the corner of Black Cat and Chinden for the same purposes. The Ewings' access concerns, the Aldape access concerns, are legitimate concerns. As it relates to Ewing, we have made it very clear and I think they understand that this is a collector road and we will give them a stub with all the services on the collector road to the neighboring property to the north. The fact that there is an easement that goes through their property to Aldape's, I { Meridian Planning & Zoning ® O March 2, 2006 Page 83 of 90 don't think it's our responsibility to build a collector road over an easement, regardless of who owns it, you know, across a neighboring piece of property to the next piece of property. But I guess the lawyers can figure that out. The Aldapes have a -- and we have met with them several times -- a very serious concern. They don't want to be land locked. They don't want to be limited to two houses, an easement to two houses. We have never said we are going to limit them to an easement to two houses. There is ample room and Mr. Carnahan showed how that would work, of getting a collector road down the canyon. He will do what he can to make sure any property that he controls will be available for that right of way. Some of it's going to have to come out of Ewings' property when they come in with an application to access the property to the north. Now, to Tuck's point, this legal confusion -- legal description confusion, he's dead right. I mean we met with John and Tuck ten days ago, we are looking at the same stuff and we got two or three different pictures of it. We have had the smartest title people and the smartest lawyer people in town and they don't even agree. We received two days ago, you know, the latest update on who owns what. Doug actually went out with a surveyor again on the ground, so on and so forth. We promised the Ewings that we would sit down, share with them everything we have learned, they can share with us everything they have learned, and I'm absolutely convinced, A, there is a resolution to who owns what, and, B, regardless of who owns it, there is a way to get from the Ewing's south boundary to the Ewing's north boundary without screwing up their property and allowing the Aldape access. I will say that to -- for us to provide two accesses to the Aldape property I think is unreasonable and unfair. You're opening up a can of worms of 1,400 acres below the Phyllis Canal north to the river, which, as you know, is grounds for World War III with your neighbors to the north and so on and so forth as to who controls that ground. We have suggested Basco Lane is one approach to that ground to the south -- from the south and Black Cat is the other. Now, whether it comes from Duck Alley or whether it lines up on Pollard or something to the east or west, there is a much bigger issue than one property owner's property there and I don't think that's a subject of this annexation or agreement -- or up to us to resolve. It's up to bigger powers and bigger problems and bigger politics to resolve. I will say as developers of the property on the rim and Doug as the owner, we care what happens down there and we are going to want something nice to happen down there, so it's pleasant for the owners and it's -- we are planning open spaces on the rims, so everybody can enjoy the views and so on and so forth. So, I think that's -- that's all can add and we are not opposed to a continuance, but I just thought rather than leaving all of these things dangling, they are not quite as confusing as they are made out to be and I -- Doug might reiterate his commitment to making this happen. Rohm: Yeah. Actually, I think it's clear enough that I'm pretty sure that just a continuance at this point will suffice and all of this will be worked out over the next couple of weeks and I would say also that the area of impact adjustments that the Commission has forwarded onto City Council recommending approval includes this property that you're talking about, just as Commissioner Zaremba pointed out, and so don't think that there is anyone on this side that is the least bit interested in stalling this. We are all on the same page. We are all trying to work to the same goal. So, that's -- if we -- I or any of us left you with the impression we are trying to stop this, I apologize. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 84 of 90 P. O'Neil: No. I understand that. I just wanted to clear up -- and there is one other issue that -- Nary: You need to get closer to the mike, sir. P. O'Neil: Bill Nichols mentioned that you can't annex and zone without having a detailed plan. Then, I have been operating illegally for 30 years, because that's the way I have done every project we have done. We have done PUD's. We have got annexed. We have got zoned. We have got concept plans. And we come back in with detailed plans. I think that provides a much better end product than coming in with these monster subdivisions of cookie cutter lots. But mean I would argue that all day with anybody who wants to. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Nary: Mr. Chairman? P. O'Neil: Could I say just one -- I'm concerned. I'm concerned because I saw four people stand up there and say we are trying to restrict access and do -- what I said was that we support public access through there and we are willing to have that condition upon our agreement and I heard all this -- I don't know where it came from. I just wanted people to understand real clearly. We support public access down that location in the ravine. I don't want to chop down a bunch of trees to do it, but we support it and we can deliver it and I just don't want there to be any confusion on that, because there sure was based on what I heard from the comments and I know who owns those parcels. I absolutely have certainty on who owns those parcels. So, just to clear that up. Rohm: Thank you. Nary: Mr. Chairman? I just wondered if I could at least address the legal issues that the Commission has raised and some of the comments, if you would like. I don't know when you're going to continue it, so I don't know who will be sitting here. What was raised -- a couple of different issues were raised and one was the Blaser case, which is an old case from the Cty of Boise, but that's not an area of impact case, that's a city limits case, and whose law applies at what point when property is annexed into the city and that case involves entitlements that pre-existed annexation. So, the court -- the Idaho Supreme Court in that case addressed it pre-existing entitlements to properties that were in the county that were annexed into the city of Boise. I don't necessarily think it's analogous to this situation. Idaho Code allows for cities to annex consentual properties that are contiguous, whether they are within or without the area of impact. As all of you have stated, the City of Meridian has requested an area of impact adjustment, that process is ongoing; it is in front of the City Council Tuesday for their final consideration. If they do make a final decision on Tuesday, it still has to go to the Ada County commissioners for their agreement as well, but once it is approved by the city, Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 85 of 90 the city can begin to apply its land use zones and land use regulations to those properties at that particular point. This obviously -- the Commission is a recommending body. So, this project would not reach the City Council until after that other one or your recommendation could be for the City Council not to consider it until they have completed that area of impact adjustment process. The staffs recommendation isn't to annex the property until that's all completed anyway, because applying the appropriate zones and the like is part of the process. So, there really isn't a particular legal issue there. The city code allows the city to annex an area outside its area of impact. There is a conflict with the Ada County code, but that's for the Ada County commissioners to decide on whether enforcement is appropriate. If they choose to enforce, I guess they'd have to enforce it against the city of Eagle as well, which they have chosen not to do, because they have the exact same conditions with the city of Eagle and they have allowed Eagle to annex outside its area of impact and have chosen not to enforce the Ada County code in relation to the city of Eagle. So, there isn't a legal issue on annexation. This city has the right to annex property that is contiguous, that is consentual. So, that isn't an issue. I don't believe Mr. Nichols' stated as Mr. O'Neil heard, that we cannot annex property that is only on a concept plan, I think he was -- maybe I misunderstood him. I think what he was saying is he wasn't recommending to you as a Commission to recommend it, nor would he recommend to the City Council, who has the ultimate decision, to do that and he cited two examples and I know Mr. Nichols knows I know the Kodiak project and the Kessler Rewe project just as well and there were some issues and some problems that those two projects had when they were annexed based on concept plans. But as this Commission knows and the City Council knows, the Uniform Development Code has cleared up many of those issues about what happens to properties when they get annexed, how to deal with these conceptual plans and attach them to the underlying development that's going to come in, how do development agreements that we have been doing may address those types of concerns. But, again, those are all discretionary choices that the City Council can make and choices that this body can make as a recommendation to the City Council. They aren't prohibitions to annexation; they are simply considerations that this body can make as a recommendation going forward. The final issue that was raised was on water and whether or not it's wise to annex property when the water issues may still be up in the air. We, actually, have made significant progress as a city with United Water on some of the areas that they are either currently serving or would like to serve. guess we are confident and comfortable that those issues can be worked out. And, again, most of these services, I think as Mr. O'Neil stated, you approved projects tonight that there aren't services available currently and there aren't services that may be available for a year, year and a half, two years. These projects know that. We include that in the conditions of approval, so there is certainly no hiding the ball there. They recognize what they take at this particular point if they choose to annex consentually. So, I just wanted to address those legal concerns, so that as -- if you're going to continue this matter as it appears you may, that is an issue I would hope maybe -- if you have a question we can answer it tonight, but that you don't have to re - factor in or concern yourself with for the next time period and if you want to focus on some of the other issues, like whether or not this issue on the north and the access road and those type of things need to be cleared up before you feel comfortable making a Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 86 of 90 recommendation, you can focus on those things and not these other legal issues. And, certainly, you want to have opportunity to read the objection that's filed by the White Peterson, but I, hopefully, have addressed at least the issues that were raised tonight. Rohm: Thank you. Appreciate your comments and I think at this point in time what would recommend is we get a motion to continue this until the -- at least the April 6th regularly scheduled meeting of Planning and Zoning and we will have opportunity to digest and we may end up having to continue it yet again. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Yes. Zaremba: Before we do that, I would add one comment to Mr. Nary's excellent remarks, and that is to Mr. and Mrs. Rabehl. There is provision for us to include what's called the Right -To -Farm Act, and which protects you from complaints of people that got there after you and that is something that's usually attached to the plat, not to the annexation, but that issue will come up if they file a plat and right on the plat they put Right -To -Farm Act, which means anybody that buys a house that backs up to your property line, knows you have animals and raise hay and their complaints are not accepted. Rohm: Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: May I make a comment? Rohm: You may. Newton-Huckabay: Or ask a question? What exactly will we be resolving on April 6th? I don't see any clear issues that would hold up annexation on this. I mean I understand there are these disputes -- Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, one of the things I'd like to see is the new configuration with the additional R-8 parcel along the eastern boundary; I'd like to see a final depiction of that. Rohm: And it might not be a bad idea to vocalize those things that you'd like to see, so that we will have additional information to make better decisions from whatever date we continue it to. Before we go on, if you will -- one more comment. O'Neil: Derrick O'Neil again. I was just going to follow up on that. It would help us a lot and I'm sure help everyone if we could come to some things that we need to focus on, so when we come back to you we will be addressing the specific issues that you have. Rohm: And I concur with that, but I don't know that we can list every single concern that there may be. I think that this is something that possibly could be continued with some Meridian Planning & Zoning ® • March 2, 2006 Page 87 of 90 answered next time and if we continue again and -- this is a big project and I think that it's important that we do it right. O'Neil: I realize that and all we are asking is if you can give us direction and we will come back and do every bit we can to solve the issues that you have. Rohm: Thank you. Appreciate that. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, one of the additional suggestions I would make -- and this is not a new suggestion, everybody has suggested this ahead of me -- that the people that are here tonight get together off site and everybody has agreed to work together and everybody has offered to be considerate and helpful. There isn't any way for us to practically enforce that, but I would say during the period of our continuance if you can all get together and air your grievances and agreements with each other, then, when we do have the continued portion of this, I feel that would be a lot more helpful for us and probably staff as well. Newton-Huckabay: Well, again, I need to be clear on what the issues are, because don't -- I mean that would hold up an annexation? Borup: Mr. Chairman, yeah, I feel the same as Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. You said that we'd need to consider a myriad of issues, but I haven't really heard one have only got one question in my mind, now that I think about it. Rohm: I haven't read the 22 page -- Borup: Well, he mentioned about four things and I think that -- Rohm: I'm just telling you, I haven't read the 22 page letter written by that office and I'm not going to limit -- one of my concerns are until -- Borup: I did read it. Rohm: -- and that's it. So, with that being said, if anybody would like to make a motion to continue this to a later date, date certain, I'd certainly entertain it. Hood: Mr. Chair, can I get -- just one more thing real quick. I think you're heading in -- wanting to get out of here. But the memo that I wrote -- did anyone have a chance to look at it? Can I include those provisions and we can discuss further? Shall I not include them? Borup: I think Mr. O'Neil said he agreed with your comments, if I remember right. Hood: The last two it sounds like they had some issues with. Number 13 goes back to that existing barn and there may be some other things maybe on Chinden that encroach and the intent is not to have any -- cause any hardship or do any harm to the existing Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 88 of 90 business. We will do everything we can to accommodate the existing business out there and that's all I was trying to get here is that we do want to see it improved, you know, paving the parking lots, you know, do those types of things, bringing it up to standards, but if there are existing conditions, you are -- and someone said grandfathered earlier. You are grandfathered in with some of those things, so -- and they can be discussed further, I was just wondering if it would be easier for me to put this into the staff report and we can discuss further at that point. Commissioner Zaremba, I will also call Ada County and see if I can find -- just because someone's paying the bill, doesn't necessarily mean they own it, but at least you could have information on who's been paying it, if, in fact, I can get it. So, I can do these things, guess. I don't have -- it doesn't sound like there is a lot I can do in the next two weeks, four weeks, however long you decide you're going to continue this out, if that's what you're going to do, so -- Zaremba: My comment on that -- and I forget who it was, whether it was Mr. O'Neil or Mr. Carnahan, but one of them said they know who ones it. Hood: Yeah. Zaremba: We didn't ask for the answer to that, but maybe you could. Appreciate that. Hood: And I think, really, the only outstanding issue from staffs perspective, and based on the applicant's testimony and everyone in the audience tonight that has testified, is I think everyone agrees that the best place to get a street is where Basco Lane is today. At least at the Phyllis Canal. Now, if the trees are there or not, maybe the road doesn't go right exactly where -- but the crossing needs to happen where Basco Lane is. So, if we can get -- and the applicant seems to have made some concession to say we are not trying to hold this up, but there is this easement out there that also has two property owners that we haven't seen anything from, so I think until we see something in writing from them saying, yes, in fact, we will allow a public street to go there or something, that's the issue that's still in my mind is -- he's relinquishing his third of that, but the other two-thirds can put the kibosh on it. So -- Borup: Now, who haven't we heard from? Hood: Well, there is -- and I don't know all the history, but back in 2001 -- Borup: I asked names was all. Hood: Anderson and Thomas, was it? Borup: Okay. They are not on the -- they are not on the -- Hood: They are not a part of this at all, but they put this easement together and kept a right for that easement on Basco Lane. So, that's, really, in my mind, if that issue can be worked out, that they can allow a street to go -- to get to the Aldape property, a Meridian Planning & Zoning • March 2, 2006 Page 89 of 90 collector road stubbed or partially constructed by this applicant or however that that works out. That's not even, really, what I'm concerned more, it's more getting that crossing there and who owns that even doesn't become as important as if can get the crossing, so -- Zaremba: Mr. Chairman and Caleb, I think that's -- that's what interests me as well. I'm not so concerned to specify what the answer has to be, but it does include -- have to include how there is going to be public access, public road access, to the Aldape property. And the people are already in this room who can discuss that. Borup: But this applicant -- if this applicant doesn't own that property, they can't construct a public road here if there not a legal -- I mean if there is not a proper right of way. Zaremba: I'm not even sure it needs to be constructed yet, but we need agreement from everybody that -- Borup: That they will have something to their north property line. Zaremba: Yeah. Borup: Yes. I think we agree with that. Rohm: At least across the property that -- Newton-Huckabay: We have that. It's right here. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Then, the other question I would have is that on the annexation, if there is contiguous property that is owned, should that be excluded. Zaremba: It should not be excluded. If it's under same or similar ownership of other parcels, it should be included. Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move we continue AZ 06-004 to our regularly scheduled meeting of April 6, 2006, to give applicant and neighbors opportunity to work out some issues and staff the opportunity to incorporate some of those ideas into a revised staff report. Moe: Is that the end of your motion? Zaremba: That's the end of the motion. Moe: I'll second that. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 90 of 90 Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue AZ 06-004 to the regularly scheduled meeting of April 6, 2006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Newton-Huckabay: Aye. Rohm: Motion passed. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. Rohm: We need one more motion. Zaremba: So moved. Borup: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close tonight's Public Hearing. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12:05 A.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED 3 U ®�o MICHTATL ROHM - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTESTE C1(,, WILLIAM G. BERG JR., CITY CLERK • • MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING March 2, 2006 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 3-B REQUEST Approve Minutes of February 2, 2006 Planning and Zoning Commission meeTing: AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER /Yv,r-e,A d-�` N16IIF � i � In the Matter of Intermountain Wood Products a Conditional Use request for a warehouse and office building in an I -L district. Case No(s). CUP -05-057 For the Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing Date of. February 2, 2006 A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 2, 2006 incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 2, 2006incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 2, 2006incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 2, 2006incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the "Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975," codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code (I.C. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has, by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted August 6, 2002, Resolution No. 02-382 and Maps. 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-5A. 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP -05-057 - PAGE 1 of 4 0 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this Decision, which shall be signed by the Commission Chair and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk upon the applicant, the Planning Department, the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. 7. That this approval is subject to the Legal Description, Site Plan, and the Conditions of Approval all in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 2, 2006 incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the Planning & Zoning Commission's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11-5A and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant's CUP Site Plan as evidenced by having submitted the Site Plan dated December 15, 2006 is hereby conditionally approved; and, 2. The following modifications to site specific conditions were made at the Planning & Zoning Commission hearing: a. That the applicant shall provide site obscuring fencing along the rear property boundary, and has volunteered to provide additional site obscuring slates on the adjacent property owned by the applicant. b. That the applicant shall provide signage as to no parking from 9pm to 7:30am along the eastern parking stalls 3. The site specific and standard conditions of approval are as shown in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 2, 2006 incorporated by reference. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits 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 conditional use permits that also require platting, the final plat must be recorded within this eighteen (18) month period. For projects with multiple phases, the eighteen (18) month deadline shall apply to the first phase. In the event that the development is made in successive contiguous segments or multiple CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP -05-057 - PAGE 2 of 4 phases, such phases shall be constructed within successive intervals of one (1) year from the original date of approval. If the successive phases are not submitted within the one (1) year interval, the conditional approval of the future phases shall be null and void. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11 -5B -6.G.1, the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the use not to exceed one (1) eighteen (18) month period. Additional time extensions up to eighteen (18) months as determined and approved by the Commission may be granted. With all extensions, the Director or Commission may require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11. E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code 67-8003, a denial of a plat or conditional use permit entitles the Owner to request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than twenty-eight (28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review may be filed. 2. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian, pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521 an affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the issuance or denial of the conditional use permit approval may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. F. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of February 2, 2006 By action of the Planning & Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the J r"J day of i1'i kU-, , 2006. COMMISSIONER MICHAEL ROHM COMMISSIONER DAVID MOE COMMISSIONER WENDY NEWTON-HUCKABAY COMMISSIONER KEITH BORUP COMMISSIONER DAVID ZAREMBA VOTED VOTED VOTED VOTED VOTED CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP -05-057 - PAGE 3 of 4 CHAIRMAN MICHAEL ROHM Attest: jah Tara Green, Deputy City- Cl y �% Copy served upon Applicant;` 0 1� n °partment, �osoiir1 ss; W Attorney. Public Works Department and City �'� �V�� ��,L�, Dated: ,1 —� (� By. �� City Clerk's Office CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP -05-057 - PAGE 4 of 4 CITY OF N ERIDIAN PLANNINIEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR TIE HEA*G DATE OF FEBRUARY 2, 2006 STAFF REPORT P & Z Commission Hearing Hearing Date: 2/2/2006 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Joseph Guenther, Associate City Planner SUBJECT: Intermountain Wood Products • CUP -05-057 T' kb 6 � " tDAM f Conditional Use Permit for the Intermountain Wood Products warehouse and office building in an I -L district. 1. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST The applicant, Intermountain Wood Products, is requesting a conditional approval for Lot 7 Block 2 of Medimont Subdivision which lies in an Industrial District. The subject application includes a request to construct a warehouse building with associated office uses. 2. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the subject use request with the conditions contained in Exhibit B. NOTE: Warehouse with associated office uses is permitted in an industrial district. Medimont Subdivision contains a condition which requires all uses to obtain conditional approval. 3. PROPOSED MOTIONS Approval I move to approve File Number CUP -05-057 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 2, 2006, and the site/landscape plan dated December 15, 2005 with the following modifications to the conditions of approval: (add any proposed modifications). Denial I move to deny File Number CUP -05-057 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 2, 2006, and the site/landscape plan dated December 15, 2005 for the following reasons: (you must state specific reasons for denial. They should address how the applicant might re -do the application to gain your recommendation for approval). Continue I move to continue the public hearing for File Number CUP -05-057 to (date certain). (You should state the reason for the continuance.) 4. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS a. Site Address/Location: 220 S. Adkins Way NW'/4 NE'/4 Section 8, T3N RIE b. Owner: Intermountain Wood Products 300 Adkins Way Intermountain Wood Products CUP -05-057 PAGE I CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIAPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAL DATE OF FEBRUARY 2, 2006 Meridian Id 83642 c. Applicant: Insight Architects 2238 Broadway Ave Boise Id, 83706 d. Representative: Dane Kaufinann e. Present Zoning: I -L f. Present Comprehensive Plan Designation: Industrial g. Description of Applicant's Request: 1. Date of CUP site/landscape plan (attached as Exhibit Al): December 15, 2005 2. Date of Building Elevations (attached as Exhibit A2): December 15, 2005 h. Applicant's Statement/Justification (reference submittal material): The applicant has submitted the CUP request as a condition of the Medimont Subdivision plat approval which required all uses to receive Conditional approval. Also, Industrial uses require Certificate of Zoning Compliance approval in an I -L District. The proposal is consistent with the underlying district and will provide an industrial campus for Intermountain Wood products containing warehousing and office uses. 5. PROCESS FACTS a. The subject application will in fact constitute a conditional use as determined by prior approval for Medimont Subdivision's Development agreement. By reason of the provisions of UDC 11-5B-6, a public hearing is required before the Planning Commission for all Conditional Use hearings. b. Newspaper notifications published on: January 16 and 30, 2006 c. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: January 6, 2005 d. Applicant posted notice on site by: January 24, 2006 6. LAND USE a. Existing Land Use(s): Vacant land b. Description of Character of Surrounding Area: Existing single family residences east of the site and industrial properties to the north, south and west. c. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning 1. North: Industrial warehouse zoned I -L. 2. East: Ada County Single family residence zoned R-1 3. South: Existing Intermountain Wood products building, zoned I -L. 4. West: Industrial uses, zoned I -L. d. History of Previous Actions: none e. Existing Constraints and Opportunities Intermountain Wood Products CUP -05-057 PAGE 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINIEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAL DATE OF FEBRUARY 2, 2006 1. Public Works Location of sewer: S. Adkins Way Location of water: S. Adkins Way Issues or concerns: none 2. Vegetation: None 3. Flood plain: N/A 4. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: N/A 5. Hazards: N/A 6. Proposed Zoning: I -L 7. Size of Property: 1.05 acres 8. Description of Use: Industrial f. Conditional Use Information 1. Non-residential square footage: 2,800 s/f administration office, 20,160 s/f warehouse 2. Proposed building height: 31 feet 3. Number of Residential units: None. g. Off -Street Parking (non-residential uses) 1. Parking spaces required: 11 2. Parking spaces proposed: 12 total. 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 to the building will be through Adkins Way. The applicant is proposing to provide a commercial cross access from Lot 7 Block 2 and Lot 8 Block 2. The cross access will move seven parking stalls and eliminate a portion of a landscape buffer along the eastern boundary of the site to accommodate large truck traffic flow. . 7. COMMENTS MEETING On January 13, 2006 Planning Staff held an agency comments meeting. The agencies and departments present include: Meridian Fire Department, Meridian Police Department, Meridian Parks Department, Meridian Public Works Department, and the Sanitary Services Company. Staff has included all new comments and recommended actions as Conditions of Approval in the attached Exhibit B. 8. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS Industrial Areas are designated to allow a range of industrial uses to support industrial and commercial activities and to develop with sufficient urban services. In light industrial areas, uses may include warehouses, storage units, light manufacturing, and incidental retail and offices uses. Heavy industrial areas may include processing, manufacturing, warehouses, storage units, and industrial support activities. In all cases, standards for screening, landscaping, and adequate access would be developed and implemented. Intermountain Wood Products CUP -05-057 PAGE 3 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINOPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAL DATE OF FEBRUARY 2, 2006 The proposed development meets the following goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan: Chapter VII Goal IV: Encourage compatible uses to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land. Objective A: Address conflicts with compatible uses and Impact Areas. Chapter VII Goal IV Objective A Action 1. Minimize noise, odor, air pollution, and visual pollution in industrial development adjacent to residential areas. Chapter VII Goal IV Objective A Action 2. Encourage industrial development to locate adjacent to existing industrial uses. Chapter VII Goal IV Objective A Action 3. Require industrial uses to conform to disposal, spill and storage measures as outlined by the EPA. Chapter VII Goal IV Objective A Action 4. Locate industrial uses where adequate water supply and water pressure are available for fire protection. Chapter VII Goal IV Objective A Action 5. Require industrial development to conform to Federal and State air, water, and noise pollution standards, and local landscaping, traffic, noise, and environmental standards. 9. ZONING ORDINANCE Purpose Statement of Zone: LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (I -L): The purpose of the I -L District is to provide for convenient employment centers of light manufacturing, research and development, warehousing, and distributing. In accord with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, the I -L District is intended to encourage the development of industrial uses that are clean, quiet and free of hazardous or objectionable elements and that are operated, entirely, or almost entirely, within enclosed structures. Accessibility to transportation systems is a requirement of this District. Public or quasi -public uses are conditional in an I -L district. The following specific use standards apply: 11-4-3.43: WAREHOUSE: A. Accessory uses allowed: office not to exceed twenty-five percent (25%) and retail sales not to exceed ten percent (10%) of the total enclosed area of the use. B. Outside activity areas shall be located a minimum of three hundred feet (300') from any property line adjoining a residence or a residential district 10. ANALYSIS a. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ANALYSIS: Based on the policies and goals contained in the Comprehensive Plan and the general compliance of the proposed development with the Zoning Ordinance, staff believes that this is a good location for the proposed public use and allowing the proposed buildings will promote the best interests of the City of Meridian. Please see Exhibit D for detailed analysis of facts and findings. Commercial Streets: The proposal is consistent with all other development in Medimont Subdivision with one full access point to Adkins Way. Landscaimg_The proposal is consistent with the UDC for the required landscape buffers to adjacent uses and local streets. Off —site improvements: the applicant is proposing to eliminate existing landscaping on Lot 8, Block 2 of Medimont Subdivision in order to provide cross access between the two lots. Staff Intermountain Wood Products CUP -05-057 PAGE 4 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIAPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAL DATE OF FEBRUARY 2, 2006 supports the design as long as the required parking stalls are relocated as shown on the site plan. b. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of CUP -05-057 for the Intermountain Wood Products as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 2, 2006 based on the Findings of Fact as listed in Exhibit D and subject to the conditions of approval as listed in Exhibit B as attached to this report. Staff has prepared findings consistent with this recommendation. 11. EXHIBITS A. Drawings 1. CUP Site/Landscape Plan (dated: December 15, 2005) 2. Building Elevations (dated December 15, 2005) B. Conditions of Approval 1. Planning Department 2. Public Works Department 3. Fire Department 4. Sanitary Services C. Legal Description D. Required Findings from Zoning Ordinance Intermountain Wood Products CUP -05-057 PAGE 5 w= C t J i f S Msr µ � f X53: Y� Z CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIAPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAL DATE OF FEBRUARY 2, 2006 supports the design as long as the required parking stalls are relocated as shown on the site plan. b. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of CUP -05-057 for the Intermountain Wood Products as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 2, 2006 based on the Findings of Fact as listed in Exhibit D and subject to the conditions of approval as listed in Exhibit B as attached to this report. Staff has prepared findings consistent with this recommendation. 11. EXHIBITS A. Drawings 1. CUP Site/Landscape Plan (dated: December 15, 2005) 2. Building Elevations (dated December 15, 2005) B. Conditions of Approval 1. Planning Department 2. Public Works Department 3. Fire Department 4. Sanitary Services C. Legal Description D. Required Findings from Zoning Ordinance Intermountain Wood Products CUP -05-057 PAGE 5 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINOPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAIV DATE OF FEBRUARY 2, 2006 A. Drawings 1. CUP Site Plan (dated: December 15, 2005) \05 W,—I, W—r, —1,\1 12/14/113GS 10:0:19 AY, sp 0 INTERMOUNTAIN WOOD PRODUCTS LOT 713LK2MEDIMONTSUB. NO2 MSt(;F 17L t ml, WS, AWWWAY J MMOMMAM CUPSUBWTAL WM I UWDSCAPE J_ A -I CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIAPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA ROG DATE OF FEBRUARY 2, 2006 2. Building Elevations (dated: December 15, 2005) °rn I 19 R, 61 I A-2 INTERMOUNTAIN WOOD PRODUCTS LOT 7 BILK 2 MEDIMONT SUB. NO2 M & ADKDIM WAY ",gum CUP SUBMUTAL 0[7 .11 J. �,- EXTEWR EUVATM A-2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINGPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAL DATE OF FEBRUARY 2, 2006 B. Conditions of Approval 1. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1.1 All conditions of the previously approved Medimont Subdivision shall also be considered conditions of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP -05-009) application. 1.2 No signs are approved with this application. All wall and free-standing signs require a separate permit. All signage shall be in accordance with the standards set forth in Section 11-14 of the City Zoning and Development Ordinance. 1.3 Provide the building address numbers on the monument facing Adkins Way. Please contact Joe Silva (888-1234) for further information regarding this condition and the size of the numbering/lettering. 1.4 No building shall be erected, moved, added to or structurally altered, nor shall any building, structure or land be established or changed in use without a Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) issued by the Planning Department. 1.5 The landscape plan prepared by Insight Architects., is approved with the following changes/notes 1.6 The landscape plan may change based on site plan modifications. If the site plan is not approved by Meridian Fire Department or SSC as presented, then an amended landscape plan must be submitted for review. 1.7 All non -driving surfaces shall have a minimum of 70% vegetative undercover. 1.8 The final landscape plan shall be approved with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance 1.9 The site plan prepared by Insight Architects is approved as submitted with the changes listed in this staff report. The number and size of the off-street parking stalls is approved as shown on the submitted site plan. 1.10 Comply with the conditions and comments of all City Departments, and other agencies. 1.11 The applicant shall have a maximum of 18 months to commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval listed above. If the business has not begun within 18 months of approval, a new conditional use permit must be obtained prior to operation. 1.12 The applicant shall submit light fixture details and a photometric test report which demonstrates compliance with UDC 11-3A-11 with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application for the campus. 1.13 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. 2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2.1 Sanitary sewer service to this development is being proposed via existing sewer stubs to the property. The applicant shall install any mains necessary to provide service; applicant shall coordinate main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINREPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAL DATE OF FEBRUARY 2, 2006 of easements for any mains that are required to provide service. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub -grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2 Water service to this site is being proposed via extension of stubs from S. Adkins Way. The applicant shall be responsible to install all water mains necessary to serve this development, coordinate main size and routing with Public Works. 2.3 The applicant shall coordinate fire hydrant placement with the Public Works Department during plan review. 2.4 During plan review a looped system may be required to achieve adequate fire flows. 2.5 There shall be a 10 -foot separation between all water mains and the high water mark of any drainage swale. 2.6 The applicant shall provide a 20 -foot easement for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way (include all water services and hydrants). Submit an executed easement (supplied by Public Works), a legal description, which must include the area of the easement (marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2" x 11" map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. 2.7 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. 2.8 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. 2.9 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 2.10 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES Permitting that may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency. 2.11 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.12 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material. 3. FIRE DEPARTMENT 3.1 Acceptance of the water supply for fire protection will be by the Meridian Fire Department and water quality by the Meridian Water Department for bacteria testing. 3.2 Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department. a. Fire Hydrants shall have the 4'/2" outlet face the main street or parking lot aisle. b. The Fire hydrant shall not face a street which does not have addresses on it. C. Fire hydrant markers shall be provided per Public Works spec. B-2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINREPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAL DATE OF FEBRUARY 2, 2006 d. Locations with fire hydrants shall have the curb painted red 10' to each side of the hydrant location. e. Fire Hydrants shall be placed on corners when spacing permits. f. Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10'. g. Fire hydrants shall be place 18" above finish grade. h. Fire hydrants shall be provided to meet the requirements of the IFC Section 509.5. 3.3 All entrance and internal roads shall have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside radius. 3.4 Provide a 20 -foot wide Fire Lane for all internal roadways all roadways shall be marked in accordance with Appendix D Section D103.6 Signs. 3.5 Insure that all yet undeveloped parcels are maintained free of combustible vegetation. 3.6 Fire lanes and streets shall have a vertical clearance of 13'6". This includes mature landscaping. 3.7 Operational fire hydrants, temporary or permanent street signs and access roads with an all weather surface are required before combustible construction is brought on site. 3.8 Commercial and office occupancies will require a fire -flow consistent with the International Fire Code to service the proposed project. Fire hydrants shall be placed per Appendix D. 3.9 Maintain a separation of 5' from the building to the dumpster enclosure. 3.10 Provide a Knoxbox entry system for the complex prior to occupancy. 3.11 All aspects of the building systems (including exiting systems), processes & storage practices shall be required to comply with the International Fire Code. 3.12 Provide exterior egress lighting as required by the International Building & Fire Codes. 3.13 Where a portion of the facility or building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction is more than 400 feet (122 m) from a hydrant on a fire apparatus access road, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building, on-site fire hydrants and mains shall be provided where required by the code official. For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2 the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183). 3.13.1 For Group R-3 and Group U occupancies, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m). For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m). here shall be a fire hydrant within 100' of all fire department connections. 3.14 Please contact the Fire Marshal (Rich Green 884-1737) to work specific issues associated with this project as soon as possible. 3.15 There shall be a fire hydrant within 100' of all Fire Department connections. 3.16 This project will be required to provide a 20' wide swing or rolling emergency access gate. The gate shall be equipped with a Knox box Padlock which has to be ordered thru the Meridian Fire Department. B-3 Tjl. x CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINREPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAROG DATE OF FEBRUARY 2, 2006 SANITARY SERVICES 4.1 4.2 B-4 Prior to issuance of a certificate of zoning compliance, that applicant shall submit an approved site plan from SSC. Please contact Bill Gregory at SSC (888-3999) for detailed review of your proposal and submit stamped (approved) plans with your certificate of zoning compliance application. TPS a. q� T4. +2L* i M1 X' �' Wi' fA `£f?.`z".iP"Sb }9`, "•'h{fAf,'.4 .:b - # R`i '"�iy�[+F``:{'4y A � �r.$��i �g5✓S���ig x f Y F x,8 �''�E'-"%eg.N k ti�x 2 4�N`�C'"'�Kx f k y� CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNAREPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAPG DATE OF FEBRUARY 2, 2006 C. Legal Description 09/14/2014 04 10 FAX 01gNSt � am Bd1'AfOio Row +.w I r of qm l`1!q,Iftftt i 4 l�Rll11 g 309 s0 t"ol C k� lqD DYED FOt Vehw Reaaive4 Cm us R6b'+'>r AND '° N M VMS^ WMAND APED MIFF, tto rra mr, Imb, 4 am. barpl8atlta, mVgp and —OU m.,W m arcc PYRiiI rn ft6 wbum �� addrata PO H08 65574 SALT LAE ,11T 84165 ft &uowiaS d=Knbed pretnlM. to wit w th. OffiOW 81st theta filed m Lot 7. In Block 2 of ga S4$a3.84A rrz ds of Ad* Cl* 140ho Hook 79 al8lara at Pace parGdua ba. W532610300 SVB7ECT TO: Carrera ©enact Tattae i F,ee En dar praoass w 7d due payalde, Ha6vum, ewoiodp?u reser+ �. previsions Ofre td ami aaset9grmu. S'ar+'h or p vft unt dwold Tth SAVE and u O SOLD . A's the eaid GmdamIMW doee t0 at9d aeidr fltaaeea thdr halls and asslps 10reut#• tbO saM P-140 ere fres tho wid (;las, ft h is the a rw In fes doKpla oYidd prmoiae0. from e11 efreumbrett end tbat he vd01 watseae end ddend the same from m0 IawHd clmms vflmtsaewr. Detect lNa 15t dap c f 9 J ?W5. A V E ('•ATE OF MA14 D CotIM OF ADA ) On fids 2nd day of septmtber. 2005, bdoro me the untlme}81t� eNotuy PubOa and ter raid Stara It Melly appealed CMS RWG AND AHM RME lme %0 m4 61 4V er idOM" to me an ta bid 2,3f Mowrkta jrr rArm end woo wtedged to the 60 hCWmftha) Oidl—. to be thd sY exwuted Tha sum mtbaWiirod to PTIT-mm MY I-V �j ,� PAKWADPAF at d' 41ID on April 15,2009 O 01 i t:nn ra. of [�::�.:.,: cs wc,-.xs; `r317e•xDe9f 6'rh'�q L4W S® 39dd iy cC9h1 IJIaiNfJlJd31fid TGGSRz989Z 5Z:0T 5692/60/Z1 C-1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINWARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 2, 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 a centrally located office/warehouse building with parking on two sides. Staff is supportive of the layout for the proposed drive lanes and proposed traffic flow pattern for this lot with the required cross access agreement in association with the existing Intermountain Wood Products building on Lot 8 Block 2 of Medimont Subdivision for future access to the south, as vehicles should not interfere with internal traffic flows or traffic flows on the adjacent shared driveways or Adkins Way. Parking stalls are required at the ratio of one space per 2,000 square -feet of gross floor area for office/warehouse (UDC 11 -3C -6B). Per this requirement, 11 stalls are required. There are 12 parking stalls provided on this site with designated handicap accessible stalls. This provision exceeds the City's minimum parking stall ratio. Staff 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. Staff finds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the required yards (setbacks), open spaces, parking, landscaping and other features required by the ordinance. 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in accord with the requirements of this Title. Staff finds that the designated Comprehensive Designation is Industrial. The property is existing industrial zoning and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for office/warehouse/service uses in an industrial area. 3. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. Staff is generally supportive of the site plan design. This area is part of a larger office/commercial/industrial area which has been transitioning from large lot Ada County Residential properties. The current parcel has been Meridian City I -L for several years and staff supports the use as being compatible in this area with several diverse uses. Staff believes the applicant has designed to accommodate the mixes of uses as well as shown compatibility with existing residential uses. Staff believes that an office/warehouse will be compatible with other usesibuildings in the area. There is a significant amount of landscaping being proposed along street buffers, and the proposed use is consistent with the approvals for the Medimont Subdivision. ME CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIAPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIIS"G DATE OF FEBRUARY 2, 2006 Staff finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the general design, construction, operation, and maintenance should be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing and intended character of the area. 4. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Staff fords that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the proposed officelwarehouse use will not adversely affect other property in the area. The Commission and Council 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 being extended to the site through the extension of Adkins Way. The Ada County Highway District Board of Commissioners previously acted on the Medimont Subdivision applications and has allowed one access point to each lot within the project. The Commission and Council 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. Staff fords 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. Staff recognizes that traffic and noise will increase with the approval of an Office/Warehouse in this location; however, staff 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. Staff fords 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. Staff finds 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. No hazardous features were identified on this site. D-2 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER C VW sad _,-- In the Matter of Valley Shepherd Nazarene Church for Conditional Approval for a Church or Place of Worship in an R-8 district Case No(s). CUP -05-058 For the Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: February 16, 2006 A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 16, 2006 incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 16, 2006 incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 16, 2006 incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 16, 2006 incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the "Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975," codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code (I.C. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has, by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted August 6, 2002, Resolution No. 02-382 and Maps. 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-5A. 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP -05-058 - PAGE I of 4 • 0 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this Decision, which shall be signed by the Commission Chair and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk upon the applicant, the Planning Department, the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. 7. That this approval is subject to the Legal Description, Site Plan, and the Conditions of Approval all in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 16, 2006 incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the Planning & Zoning Commission's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11-5A and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant's CUP Site Plan as evidenced by having submitted the Site Plan dated November 15, 2006 is hereby conditionally approved; and, 2. The site specific and standard conditions of approval are as shown in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 16, 2006 incorporated by reference. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits 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 conditional use permits that also require platting, the final plat must be recorded within this eighteen (18) month period. For projects with multiple phases, the eighteen (18) month deadline shall apply to the first phase. In the event that the development is made in successive contiguous segments or multiple phases, such phases shall be constructed within successive intervals of one (1) year from the original date of approval. If the successive phases are not submitted within the one (1) year interval, the conditional approval of the future phases shall be null and void. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11 -5B -6.G.1, the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the use not to exceed one (1) eighteen (18) month period. Additional time extensions up to eighteen (18) months as determined and approved by the Commission may be granted. With all extensions, the Director or Commission may CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP -05-058 - PAGE 2 of 4 0 0 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 I . The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code 67-8003, a denial of a plat or conditional use permit entitles the Owner to request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than twenty-eight (28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review may be filed. 2. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian, pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521 an affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the issuance or denial of the conditional use permit approval may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. F. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of February 16, 2006 By action of the Planning & Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the 13 ro day of fail Ove , 2006. COMMISSIONER MICHAEL ROHM COMMISSIONER DAVID MOE COMMISSIONER WENDY NEWTON-HUCKABAY COMMISSIONER KEITH BORUP VOTED VOTED VOTED VOTED COMMISSIONER DAVID ZAREMBA VOTED CHARN.kN MICHAEL ROHM CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP -05-058 - PAGE 3 of 4 0 e Attest: ,,`OF Tara Green, Deputy City Clerk'' - So - i 9� 4• Copy served upon Applicant, ®}e Diient, Public Works Department and City `'''affffPi„ ��` Attorney. �'1 Gni roti 4,\— City Clerk's Office Dated: A ? ( -,0 � JF CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP -05-058 - PAGE 4 of 4 }5 k.` dz c� t S�tyu"+.fi3 1,.7 �§ sA `'G�3 i ` "• X5-4 z 'ik.`� L+fP i 3' # 3 P } i L . f F A& i'� try sp•-d:Fk y.: CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIAPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA*G DATE OF FEBRUARY 16, 2006 STAFF REPORT P & Z Commission Hearing Hearing Date: 2/16/2006 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Joseph Guenther, Associate City Planner SUBJECT: Valley Shepherd Nazarene Church • CUP -05-058 IDAHO V� Conditional Use Permit for a Church or place of worship in an R-8 district by Valley Shepherd Nazarene Church. 1. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST The applicant, Valley Shepherd Nazarene Church, is requesting a conditional approval for the Valley Shepherd Nazarene Church sanctuary which lies in an Medium Density Residential District. The subject application includes a request to construct a sanctuary and roadway system. 2. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the subject use request with the conditions contained in Exhibit B. NOTE: The Valley Shepherd Nazarene Church property contains approximately 32.5 acres has not been submitted as a plat at the time of this request. The applicants have submitted for a property boundary adjustment to sell approximately 20 acres west of the site, if this undeveloped property is subdivided the site of the church must be included in the platting process. The applicant has made the request for conditional approval where there two parcels of record at this time and shall not receive a building permit until the property boundary adjustment has recorded. 3. PROPOSED MOTIONS Approval 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 15, 2005 with the following modifications to the conditions of approval: (add any proposed modifications). Denial I move deny 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 15, 2005 for the following reasons: (you must state specific reasons for denial. They should address how the applicant might re -do the application to gain your recommendation for approval). Continue I move to continue the public hearing for File Number CUP -05-058 to (date certain). (You should state the reason for the continuance.) 4. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS a. Site Address/Location: 2475 S. Meridian Road NE % SE % Section 24, T3N Rl W b. Owner: Valley Shepherd Nazarene Church CUP -05-058 PAGE 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINGOPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAIAG DATE OF FEBRUARY 16, 2006 Valley Shepherd Nazarene Church 831 N. Main St Meridian Id 83642 c. Applicant: Glancey Rockwell & Associates 595 S. Americana Boise, Idaho, 83702 d. Representative: Peter Rockwell, GCA e. Present Zoning: R-4 f. Present Comprehensive Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential./Public/Quasi Public g. Description of Applicant's Request: 1. Date of CUP site plan (attached as Exhibit Al): November 15, 2005 2. Date of Landscape plan (attached as Exhibit A2): November 15, 2005 3. Building Elevations (attached as Exhibit A3) h. Applicant's Statement/Justification (reference submittal material): The applicant has submitted a letter which is a continuation of the annexation approval which required the church use to receive Conditional approval. Also, church or place of worship uses require conditional use approval in an R-8 District. The proposal is consistent with the underlying district and will provide a Medium Density Residential compatible use containing an 40,000 square foot sanctuary. 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 11-5B-6, a public hearing is required before the City Council on this matter. b. Newspaper notifications published on: February 13, 2006 and January 30, 2006 c. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: January 20, 2006 d. Applicant posted notice on site by: February 5, 2006 6. LAND USE a. Existing Land Use(s): Vacant land b. Description of Character of Surrounding Area: Existing single family residences (Bear Creek) and Light office properties to the south. c. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning 1. North: Existing single family residences in built out subdivisions, zoned R4. 2. East: Ada County Single family residence zoned RUT 3. South: Strata Bellisima, Light Office and Residential uses, zoned L -O and R4 4. West: Medium Density Residential uses, zoned R4 d. History of Previous Actions: AZ -00-018 Valley Shepherd Nazarene Church CUP -05-058 PAGE 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIAPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA G DATE OF FEBRUARY 16, 2006 e. Existing Constraints and Opportunities 1. Public Works Location of sewer: Location of water: Creek to the north. Issues or concerns: 2. Vegetation: None 3. Flood plain: None. 4. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: 5. Hazards: None Service extension from mains in Meridian Road. Stub streets in Strada Bellisima to the south and Bear Preserving a corridor for a future sewer trunk. Kennedy Lateral 6. Proposed Zoning: R-4 7. Size of Property: 34.8 acres (annexed) 8. Description of Use: Medium Density Residential f. Conditional Use Information 1. Non-residential square footage: 45,000 sq/ft sanctuary 2. Proposed building height: 32 feet 3. Number of Residential units: None. g. Off -Street Parking (non-residential uses) 1. Parking spaces required: 90 2. Parking spaces proposed: 316 total. 3. Compact spaces proposed: TBD 4. Off-site parking proposed: None. h. Summary of Proposed Streets and/or Access (private, public, common drive, etc.): The access to the building will be through the extension of S. Alfani Way from the South. The applicant is proposing to provide a commercial cross access from Strada Bellisima which must meet the ACHD conditions of approval. A commercial collector has been planned by ACHD and ITD for mid block (1/2 mile) connection to Meridian Road which is consistent with TTD policies. 7. COMMENTS MEETING On December 28, 2005 Planning Staff held an agency comments meeting. The agencies and departments present include: Meridian Fire Department, Meridian Police Department, Meridian Parks Department, Meridian Public Works Department, and the Sanitary Services Company. Staff has included all new comments and recommended actions as Conditions of Approval in the attached Exhibit B. 8. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS This property is designated "Medium Density Residential" on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. Medium density residential areas are anticipated to contain between three and eight dwellings per acre (see Page 95 of the Comprehensive Plan.) The proposed use is an allowable use in the Medium Density Residential areas as a secondary use to residential products. Staff finds that the overall plan is consistent with a medium density project requesting specific use approval. Valley Shepherd Nazarene Church CUP -05-058 PAGE 3 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIAPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA G DATE OF FEBRUARY 16, 2006 Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this property and apply to the proposed development (staff analysis in italics below policy): Chapter VII, Goal III, Objective A, Action 1 - Require that development projects have planned for the provision of all public services. When the City established its Area of City Impact, it planned to provide City services to the subject property. The City of Meridian plans to provide municipal services to the lands proposed to be annexed in the following manner.- Sanitary anner.Sanitary sewer and water service will be extended to the project at the developer's expense. • The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Meridian Rural Fire District. Once annexed the lands will be under the jurisdiction of the Meridian City Fire Department, who currently shares resource and personnel with the Meridian Rural Fire Department. • The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Ada County Sheriff's Office. Once annexed the lands will be serviced by the Meridian Police Department (MPD). • The roadways adjacent to the subject lands are currently owned and maintained by the Ada County Highway District (ACID). This service will not change. • The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian School District #2. This service will not change. • The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian Library District. This service will not change and the Meridian Library District should suffer no revenue loss as a result of the subject annexation. Municipal, fee -supported, services will be provided by the Meridian Building Department, the Meridian Public Works Department, the Meridian Water Department, the Meridian Wastewater Department, the Meridian Planning Department, Meridian Utility Billing Services, and Sanitary Services Company. Chapter VI, Goal II, Objective A, Action 13 - Review new development for appropriate opportunities to connect to local roads and collectors in adjacent developments. ACID and ITD have reviewed the application and have found the local road connections, future collector roadways, and points of access to be consistent with planned policies. Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective D, Action 2 - Restrict curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets. The applicant has shown no points for access to the future collector roadway as well as at approved locations to Meridian Road, SH 69. Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective C, Action 1 - Protect existing residential properties from incompatible land use development on adjacent parcels. The applicant is proposing a Specific Use requiring conditional approval in a residential zone. Staff finds that the existing single-family residential properties to the north and east are compatible with the proposed development as the applicant has planned for appropriate use buffers. Valley Shepherd Nazarene Church CUP -05-058 PAGE 4 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINOPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAG DATE OF FEBRUARY 16, 2006 9. ZONING ORDINANCE a. Schedule of Uses: Unified Development Code (UDC) 11-2-1 lists Church or Place of Religious Worship as conditional uses in the R-8 zoning district. b. Purpose Statement of Zone: R-8 Medium -Density Residential: The purpose of the residential districts is to provide for a range of housing opportunities consistent with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. Connection to the City of Meridian water and sewer systems is a requirement for all residential districts. Residential districts are distinguished by the allowable density of dwelling units per acre and corresponding housing types that can be accommodated within the density range. C. Site Specific Standards: 114-3.6: CHURCH OR PLACE OF RELIGIOUS WORSHIP: Schools, child day care services, meeting facilities for clubs and organizations, and other similar uses not operated primarily for the purpose of religious instruction, worship, government of the church, or the fellowship of its congregation may be permitted to the extent the activity is otherwise permitted in the district. 10. ANALYSIS a. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ANALYSIS• Based on the policies and goals contained in the Comprehensive Plan and the general compliance of the proposed development with the Zoning Ordinance, staff believes that this is a good location for the proposed public use and allowing the proposed buildings will promote the best interests of the City of Meridian. Please see Exhibit D for detailed analysis of facts and findings. Commercial Streets: The site will require preliminary plat approval for any future uses contained on site. The original 34 acres of the site shall be contained in this plat. The future collector street and commercial streets to the south shall be dedicated to the public at such time. The required landscape buffers are to be planned with the plat to be consistent with the UDC. Ditches. Laterals, and Canals There is one irrigation laterals that bisect this parcel. All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be tiled. Due to the size, location and status of the canals bordering the site, they shall be considered at the platting phase. The lateral on site does not affect any buildings being planned. b. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of CUP -05-058 for the Valley Shepherd Nazarene Church as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 16, 2006 based on the Findings of Fact as listed in Exhibit D and subject to the conditions of approval as listed in Exhibit B as attached to this report. Staff has prepared findings consistent with this recommendation. 11. EXHIBITS A. Drawings 1. CUP Site Plan (dated: November 15, 2005) 2. Landscape Plan (dated: November 15, 2005) Valley Shepherd Nazarene Church CUP -05-058 PAGE 5 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINNEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARG DATE OF FEBRUARY 16, 2006 3. Building Elevations B. Conditions of Approval 1. Planning Department 2. Public Works Department 3. Fire Department C. Legal Description D. Required Findings from Zoning Ordinance Valley Shepherd Nazarene Church CUP -05-058 PAGE 6 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIAPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA*G DATE OF FEBRUARY 16, 2006 A. Drawings 1. CUP Site Plan (dated: November 15, 2005) T7 1r) -An V= ey 4Lh�Rh_erd Church of the Nuarene lP 021 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINIPEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAVG DATE OF FEBRUARY 16, 2006 2. Landscape Plan (Dated November 15, 2005) I Building Elevations A-2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINOPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARG DATE OF FEBRUARY 16, 2006 saga iEoguli__ A-3 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINAPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAIBNG DATE OF FEBRUARY 16, 2006 B. Conditions of Approval 1. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1.1 The applicant shall comply with all conditions of approval for AZ -00-018 for the Valley Shepherd Nazarene Church Annexation. 1.2 No building shall be erected, moved, added to or structurally altered, nor shall any building, structure or land be established or changed in use without a Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) issued by the Planning Department. 1.3 The applicant shall submit light fixture details and a photometric test report which demonstrates compliance with UDC 11-3A-11 with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application for the 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 A drainage plan designed by a State of Idaho licensed architect or engineer is required and shall be submitted to the City Engineer (Ord. 557, 10-1-91) for all off-street parking areas. Storm water treatment and disposal must be designed in accordance with Department of Environmental Quality 1997 publication Catalog of Storm Water Best Management Practices for Idaho Cities and Counties and City of Meridian standards and policies. Off-site disposal into surface water is prohibited unless the jurisdiction which has authority over the receiving stream provides written authorization prior to development plan approval. The applicant is responsible for filing all necessary applications with the Idaho Department of Water Resources regarding Shallow Injection Wells. 1.6 Sanitary sewer and water service are readily available to this site. The applicant shall be responsible to construct any mains necessary to serve this development. The applicants engineer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. Applicant shall execute City of Meridian standard forms of easements, for any mains that are required to provide service. Cover over sanitary sewer mains shall be no less than 3 -feet from finish grade to the top of the pipe. If cover is less than 3 -feet from sub -grade to top of pipe, alternate pipe materials shall be used per the Meridian Public Works Department's Standard Specifications. 1.7 The approximately 34.8 acre site shall be responsible for all landscaping along the future collector roadway and Meridian Road. Meridian Road is a gateway corridor which requires a minimum of 35' of landscaping and the future collector roadway would require a minimum of 25' of landscaping. 1.8 If any portion of the original 32 acre parcel and approximately 1.7 acres contained in Bear Creek Subdivision is further divided then the entire 34.8 acre site shall be contained in a future plat. 1.9 The applicant shall comply with all ordinances and regulation in place at the time of the submittal of the required Certificate of Zoning Compliance. 1.10 The applicant's landscape plan is not approved as submitted. The applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan consistent with the future development plans at the time of Certificate of Zoning Compliance approval. The landscape plan shall be consistent with UDC 11-3B Landscaping. CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIAPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAIRG DATE OF FEBRUARY 16, 2006 2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2.1 Sanitary sewer service to this development is being proposed via extension of services from mains in Meridian Road. The applicant shall install all mains necessary to provide service; applicant shall coordinate main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub -grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2 Water service to this site is being proposed via extension of mains in Strada Bellisima and Bear Creek. The applicant shall be responsible to install water mains to and through this development, coordinate main size and routing with Public Works. 2.3 The applicant shall be required to loop the water system to achieve any necessary fire flow requirements. 2.4 A drainage plan designed by a State of Idaho licensed architect or engineer is required and shall be submitted to the City Engineer (Ord. 557, 10-1-91) for all off-street parking areas. Storm water treatment and disposal shall be designed in accordance with Department of Environmental Quality 1997 publication Catalog of Storm Water Best Management Practices for Idaho Cities and Counties and City of Meridian standards and policies. Off-site disposal into surface water is prohibited unless the jurisdiction which has authority over the receiving stream provides written authorization prior to development plan approval. The applicant is responsible for filing all necessary applications with the Idaho Department of Water Resources regarding Shallow Injection Wells. 2.5 The applicant shall provide a 20 -foot easement for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way (include all water services and hydrants). The easements shall be dedicated as a separate document using the City of Meridian's standard forms. Submit an executed easement (supplied by Public Works), a legal description, which must include the area of the easement (marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2" x 11" map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. 2.6 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 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 2.9 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES Permitting that may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency. 2.10 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.11 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material. 3. FIRE DEPARTMENT B-2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINOPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAVG DATE OF FEBRUARY 16, 2006 3.1 Acceptance of the water supply for fire protection will be by the Meridian Fire Department and water quality by the Meridian Water Department for bacteria testing. 3.2 Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department. a) Fire Hydrants shall have the 4 %i" outlet face the main street or parking lot aisle. b) The Fire hydrant shall not face a street which does not have addresses on it. c) Fire hydrant markers shall be provided per Public Works specifications. d) Fire Hydrants shall be placed on corners when spacing permits. e) Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10'. f) Fire hydrants shall be place 18" above finish grade. g) Fire hydrants shall be provided to meet the requirements of the IFC Section 509.5. h) Show all proposed or existing hydrants for all new construction or additions to existing buildings within 1,000 feet of the project. 3.3 The phasing plan may require that any roadway greater than 150 feet in length that is not provided with an outlet shall be required to have an approved turn around. 3.4 All entrance and internal roads and alleys shall have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside radius. 3.5 All common driveways shall be straight or have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside and shall have a clear driving surface which is 20' wide. 3.6 Provide a 20 -foot wide Fire Lane for all internal roadways all roadways shall be marked in accordance with Appendix D Section D103.6 Signs. 3.7 For all Fire Lanes, provide signage "No Parking Fire Lane". 3.8 Operational fire hydrants, temporary or permanent street signs and access roads with an all weather surface are required before combustible construction is brought on site. 3.9 Commercial and office occupancies will require a fire -flow consistent with the International Fire Code to service the proposed project. Fire hydrants shall be placed per Appendix D. 3.10 The office/commercial lots lot will have an unknown transient population and will have an unknown impact on Meridian Fire Department call volumes. The Meridian Fire Department has experienced 2612 responses in the year 2004. According to a report completed by Fire & Emergency Services Consulting Group our requests for service are projected to reach 2800 in the year 2005 and 3800 by the year 2010. 3.11 The proposed project lies outside the five-minute response zone goal. Achievement of this goal is subject to budgetary constraints and is intended to enhance the probability of a favorable outcome on a request for Basic Life Support. The budget constraints are typically defined as capital outlay for facilities that are located within 1.5 miles from a given location and sufficient operational funds to staff the facilities. 3.12 The fire department requests that any future signalization installed as the result of the development of this project be equipped with Opticom Sensors to ensure a safe and efficient response by fire and emergency medical service vehicles. This cost of this installation is to be borne by the developer. B-3 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING'6EPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAVG DATE OF FEBRUARY 16, 2006 3.13 Maintain a separation of 5' from the building to the dumpster enclosure. 3.14 Provide a Knox box entry system for the complex prior to occupancy. 3.15 All aspects of the building systems (including exiting systems), processes & storage practices shall be required to comply with the International Fire Code. 3.16 Provide exterior egress lighting as required by the International Building & Fire Codes. 3.17 Where a portion of the facility or building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction is more than 400 feet (122 m) from a hydrant on a fire apparatus access road, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building, on-site fire hydrants and mains shall be provided where required by the code official. For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2 the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183). 3.18 For Group R-3 and Group U occupancies, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m). 3.19 For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m). 3.20 There shall be a fire hydrant within 100' of all Fire Department connections. 3.21 Buildings over 30' in height are required to have access roads in accordance with Appendix D Section D105. 3.22 Emergency response routes and fire lanes shall not be allowed to have speed bumps. B-4 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINOPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAQG DATE OF FEBRUARY 16, 2006 C. Legal Description COMrnenCitla at the Northeast corner Of the Southeast one-quarter af said Section 24, thence alonga the easterly line of said Southeast one-quarter South 00"-37'-3 1" West a distance of 189.40 feet to z steel pin located at the Southeast corner of that Property conveyed to William G. Aaron and Jean L. Aaron, husband and wife, if, that warranty deed recorded July 19, 1995 as Instrument No. 8537566, Records of Ada County, Idaho. said point being the POINT OF BEG94NTNG, ;3 Thence along the southerly line of said Aaron tract, North 37°-08'-0V West a distance of 94.40 feet to a steel pin, z oft Thence continuingZ, along the southerly line of said Aaron tract. N h 89a-58'-3 Wes a distance of 1231.53 feet, more or less, tea the Southwest corner thereof, said point being on the westerly line of the Northeast One-quarter of the Southeast one-quarter of said Section 24; Thence along said westerly line South OW -29'-01" West a distance of 1145.52 feet, more or less, to the Southwest comer of the Northeast one-quarter of the Southeast one-quarter of said Section 24; Thence along the southerly line of the Northeast one-quarter of the Southeast one-quarter of said Section 24, South 89°-55%18"' East a distance of 1323.03 feet, more or less, to the Southeast comer of the Northeast one-quarter of the Southeast one-quarter of said Section 24; Thence along the easterly line of the Northeast one-quarter of the Southeast one-quatter of said Section 24, North OV -37'-3I" East a distance of 1142.10 feer, more or less, to the POINT OF BEGUINING. The above described tract of land contains 34.84 acres, more or less. subject to all rights-of-way and casements. Prepared Bv, ROYLANCE& ASSOCIATES P.A. 391 W. STATE STREET, SUFFE E EAGI E, rD 83616 by" 121181'439-282'4 (20,9) 939-2855 (FAXt MedAiazt Public Works D"t C-1 912�� CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAG DATE OF FEBRUARY 16, 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 a north easterly located church building with parking on the south and west sides of the proposed building. Staff is supportive of the layout for the proposed drive lanes and proposed traffic flow pattern for this lot with the required cross access agreements for future lots south and for future collector road access to the west, as vehicles should not interfere with internal traffic flows or traffic flows on the adjacent shared driveways or Alfani Way. Access points to the west have not been determined by ACHD at this time and would be conditioned upon future division of the site. It is unclear to staff where Alfani Way will connect through approximately to line up with Strata Bellisima Subdivision, the final location will be determined by ACHD. Parking stalls are required at the ratio of one space per 500 square -feet of gross floor area for Church (UDC 11 -3C -6A). Per this requirement, 90 stalls are required. There are 316 parking stalls provided on this site with designated handicap accessible stalls. This provision exceeds the City's minimum parking stall ratio. Staff finds that the project should have ample parking. All proposed building setbacks and landscaping shall meet the minimum standards outlined in the UDC 11-2B, and with associated platting condition of approval. Staff finds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the required yards (setbacks), open spaces, parking, landscaping and other features required by the ordinance. 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in accord with the requirements of this Title. Staff finds that the designated Comprehensive Designation is Medium Density Residential and Public Quasi Public. The a church located in a Medium Density Residential zoning district (R-8) is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for Church uses in an Medium Density Residential area as well as a Public/ Quasi Public designation. 3. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. Staff is generally supportive of the site plan design. This site is part of a larger area which has will be transitioning from rural Ada County Residential properties to Arterial associated uses. The current parcel has been Meridian City R-8 for many years and staff supports the use as being compatible in this area with several diverse uses (Residential and light office). Staff believes the applicant has designed to accommodate the transition of uses as well as shown compatibility with existing residential uses. Staff believes that a church will be compatible with other uses/buildings low CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIAPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARG DATE OF FEBRUARY 16, 2006 in the area. There is a significant amount of landscaping being provided along street buffers, and the proposed use will be required to be platted with any future division of the property. Staff finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the general design, construction, operation, and maintenance should be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing and intended character of the area. 4. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Staff finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the proposed church 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 being extended to the site through the extension of the Black Cat Sewer trunk in the lateral contained on site. The Ada County Highway District has indicated that a more detailed review will be provided with the future platting of the property. 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. Staff 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. Staff recognizes that traffic and noise will increase with the approval of a church in this location; however, staff 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. Staff 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. Staff finds 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. The only hazardous natural feature identified on the site is the D-2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINOPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAG DATE OF FEBRUARY 16, 2006 Kennedy Lateral bisecting the site which will not be affected by any buildings in this use proposal. D-3 • 0 C UP 06-001 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING March 2, 2006 APPLICANT Gordon Jones Construction ITEM NO. 3-E REQUEST Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law - 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: 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 attached Findings r / f o't—OL< Contacted: V Date: 2 Q y Phone: Emailed: Staff Ini ials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. 11 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER 0 C>Weaddian ;lwil In the Matter of the Yanke Warehouse request for an Arts, Entertainment, or Recreational Indoor use at 724 Taylor Street. Case No(s). CUP -06-001 For the Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing Date of. February 16, 2006 A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 16, 2006 incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 16, 2006 incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 16, 2006 incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 16, 2006 incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the "Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975," codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code (I.C. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has, by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted August 6, 2002, Resolution No. 02-382 and Maps. 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-5A. 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP -06-001 - PAGE 1 of 4 0 0 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval/ in accordance with this Decision, which shall be signed by the Commission Chair and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk upon the applicant, the Planning Department, the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. 7. That this approval is subject to the Legal Description, Site Plan, and the Conditions of Approval all in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 16, 2006 incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the Planning & Zoning Commission's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11-5A and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant's CUP Site Plan as evidenced by having submitted the Site Plan dated August 8, 2005 is/are hereby conditionally approved; and, 2. The site specific and standard conditions of approval are as shown in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 16, 2006 incorporated by reference. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits 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 conditional use permits that also require platting, the final plat must be recorded within this eighteen (18) month period. For projects with multiple phases, the eighteen (18) month deadline shall apply to the first phase. In the event that the development is made in successive contiguous segments or multiple phases, such phases shall be constructed within successive intervals of one (1) year from the original date of approval. If the successive phases are not submitted within the one (1) year interval, the conditional approval of the future phases shall be null and void. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11 -5B -6.G.1, the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the use not to exceed one (1) eighteen (18) month period. Additional time extensions up to eighteen (18) months as determined and approved by the Commission may be granted. With all extensions, the Director or Commission may CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP -06-001 - PAGE 2 of 4 require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11. E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis 1. The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code 67-8003, a denial of a plat or conditional use permit entitles the Owner to request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than twenty-eight (28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review may be filed. 2. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian, pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521 an affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the issuance or denial of the conditional use permit approval may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. F. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of February 16, 2006 By action of the Planning & Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the drl� day of 92006. COMMISSIONER MICHAEL ROHM VOTED COMMISSIONER DAVID MOE VOTED COMMISSIONER WENDY NEWTON-HUCKABAY VOTED COMMISSIONER KEITH BORUP VOTED COMMISSIONER DAVID ZAREMBA VOTED CHA ICHAEL ROHM Attest: a Green, Deputy City Clerk CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP -06-001 - PAGE 3 of 4 Copy served upon Applicant, The Planning Department, Public Works Department and City Attorney. � By: / �� � Dated: City Clerk's Office CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP -06-001 - PAGE 4 of 4 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAL DATE OF FEBRUARY 16, 2006 STAFF REPORT P & Z Commission Hearing Hearing Date: 2/16/2006 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Joseph Guenther, Associate City Planner SUBJECT: Yanke Warehouse • CUP -06-001 Conditional Use Permit for the Yanke Warehouse and office building to have an Arts, Entertainment, or Recreation Facility, indoors in an I -L district. I. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST The applicant, Gordon Jones Construction, is requesting a conditional approval for an Arts, Entertainment, or Recreation Facility, indoors at 724 Taylor Street which lies in an Industrial District. The subject application includes a request to convert a warehouse building (under construction CZC-05-128) with associated office uses and designed for 29' high pile storage to basketball courts. 2. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the subject use request with the conditions contained in Exhibit B. NOTE: an Arts, Entertainment, or Recreation Facility, indoors is permitted with a conditional use in an industrial district with specific use standards as listed in UDC 11-4-3.2. 3. PROPOSED MOTIONS Approval I move to approve File Number CUP -06-001 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 16, 2006, and the sitellandscape plan dated August 8, 2005 with the following modifications to the conditions of approval: (add any proposed modifications). Denial I move to deny File Number CUP -06-001 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 16, 2006, and the site/landscape plan dated August 8, 2005 for the following reasons: (you must state specific reasons for denial. They should address how the applicant might re -do the application to gain your recommendation for approval). Continue I move to continue the public hearing for File Number CUP -06-001 to (date certain). (You should state the reason for the continuance.) 4. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS a. Site Address/Location: 724 Taylor Street NE % SW % Section 8, T3N Rl W b. Owner: Idaho Tank and Culvert PO BOX 540 Yanke Warehouse CUP -06-001 PAGE 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINOPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAL DATE OF FEBRUARY 16, 2006 Boise ID 83705 c. Applicant: Gordon Jones Construction 9351 W. State Boise Id, 83706 d. Representative: Paul Howard e. Present Zoning: I -L f. Present Comprehensive Plan Designation: Industrial g. Description of Applicant's Request: 1. Date of CUP site/landscape plan (attached as Exhibit Al): August 8, 2005 h. Applicant's Statement/Justification (reference submittal material): The applicant has submitted the CUP request as Arts, Entertainment, and Recreational uses to are required to receive Conditional approval. Also, Industrial uses require Certificate of Zoning Compliance approval in an I -L District which the applicant has already completed CZC-05-0128. The proposal is consistent with the underlying district and will provide an alternate use for Yanke Warehouse designed for warehousing and office uses. 5. PROCESS FACTS a. The subject application will in fact constitute a conditional use as determined by UDC 11-2C- 1. By reason of the provisions of UDC 11-5B-6, a public hearing is required before the Planning Commission for all Conditional Use hearings. b. Newspaper notifications published on: February 13, 2006 and January 30, 2006 c. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: January 20, 2006 d. Applicant posted notice on site by: February 5, 2006 6. LAND USE a. Existing Land Use(s): Industrial b. Description of Character of Surrounding Area: Existing industrial uses west of the site (I-84 Lumber) and industrial properties to the north, south and west. c. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning 1. North: Railroad zoned I -L. 2. East: Industrial uses, zoned I -L. 3. South: Industrial uses, zoned I -L. 4. West: Industrial uses, zoned I -L. d. History of Previous Actions: none e. Existing Constraints and Opportunities Public Works Location of sewer: Taylor Street Location of water: Taylor Street Yanke Warehouse CUP -06-001 PAGE 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINOPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAL DATE OF FEBRUARY 16, 2006 Issues or concerns: none 2. Vegetation: None 3. Flood plain: N/A 4. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: N/A 5. Hazards: N/A 6. Proposed Zoning: I -L 7. Size of Property: 3.8 acres 8. Description of Use: Industrial f. Conditional Use Information 1. Non-residential square footage: 48,960 s/f warehouse 2. Proposed building height: 34'8" 3. Number of Residential units: None. g. Off -Street Parking (non-residential uses) 1. Parking spaces required: 12 2. Parking spaces proposed: 178 total. 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 to the building will be through Taylor Street. 7. COMMENTS MEETING On January 27, 2006 Planning Staff held an agency comments meeting. The agencies and departments present include: Meridian Fire Department, Meridian Police Department, Meridian Parks Department, Meridian Public Works Department, and the Sanitary Services Company. Staff has included all new comments and recommended actions as Conditions of Approval in the attached Exhibit B. 8. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS Industrial Areas are designated to allow a range of industrial uses to support industrial and commercial activities and to develop with sufficient urban services. In light industrial areas, uses may include warehouses, storage units, light manufacturing, and incidental retail and offices uses. Heavy industrial areas may include processing, manufacturing, warehouses, storage units, and industrial support activities. In all cases, standards for screening, landscaping, and adequate access would be developed and implemented. The proposed development meets the following goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan: Chapter VII Goal IV: Encourage compatible uses to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land. Objective A: Address conflicts with compatible uses and Impact Areas. Chapter VII Goal IV Objective A Action 1. Minimize noise, odor, air pollution, and visual pollution in industrial development adjacent to residential areas. Chapter VII Goal IV Objective A Action 2. Encourage industrial development to locate adjacent Yanke Warehouse CUP -06-001 PAGE 3 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING10PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIVDATE OF FEBRUARY 16, 2006 to existing industrial uses. Chapter VII Goal IV Objective A Action 3. Require industrial uses to conform to disposal, spill and storage measures as outlined by the EPA. Chapter VII Goal IV Objective A Action 4. Locate industrial uses where adequate water supply and water pressure are available for fire protection. Chapter VII Goal IV Objective A Action 5. Require industrial development to conform to Federal and State air, water, and noise pollution standards, and local landscaping, traffic, noise, and environmental standards. 9. ZONING ORDINANCE Purpose Statement of Zone: LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (I -L): The purpose of the I -L District is to provide for convenient employment centers of light manufacturing, research and development, warehousing, and distributing. In accord with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, the I -L District is intended to encourage the development of industrial uses that are clean, quiet and free of hazardous or objectionable elements and that are operated, entirely, or almost entirely, within enclosed structures. Accessibility to transportation systems is a requirement of this District. Public or quasi -public uses are conditional in an I -L district. The following specific use standards apply: 11-4-3.43: WAREHOUSE: A. Accessory uses allowed: office not to exceed twenty-five percent (25%) and retail sales not to exceed ten percent (10%) of the total enclosed area of the use. B. Outside activity areas shall be located a minimum of three hundred feet (300') from any property line adjoining a residence or a residential district 114-3.2: ARTS, ENTERTAINMENT OR RECREATION FACILITY, INDOORS AND OUTDOORS: A. General Standards 1. All structures or outdoor recreation areas shall maintain a minimum setback of one hundred feet (100') from any abutting residential districts. The playing areas of golf courses, including golf tees, fairways, and greens, are an exception to this standard. 2. No outdoor event or activity center shall be located within fifty feet (50') of any property line and shall operate only between the hours of 6 a.m. and 11 p.m. 3. Accessory uses include, but are not limited to: retail, equipment rental, restaurant and drinking establishments may be allowed if designed to serve patrons of the use only. 4. Outdoor speaker systems shall comply with the Section 11-3A-13 OUTDOOR SPEAKER SYSTEMS of this Title. 10. ANALYSIS Yanke Warehouse CUP -06-001 PAGE 4 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN*PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAIV DATE OF FEBRUARY 16, 2006 a. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ANALYSIS: Based on the policies and goals contained in the Comprehensive Plan and the general compliance of the proposed development with the Zoning Ordinance, staff believes that this is a good location for the proposed public use and allowing the proposed buildings will promote the best interests of the City of Meridian. Please see Exhibit D for detailed analysis of facts and fmdings. Commercial Streets: The proposal is consistent with all other development in on Taylor Street Landscaping: The proposal is consistent with the UDC for the required landscape buffers to adjacent uses and local streets. b. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of CUP -06-001 for the Yanke Warehouse as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 16, 2006 based on the Findings of Fact as listed in Exhibit D and subject to the conditions of approval as listed in Exhibit B as attached to this report. Staff has prepared findings consistent with this recommendation. 11. EXHIBITS A. Drawings 1. CUP Site/Landscape Plan (dated: August 8, 2005) B. Conditions of Approval I. Planning Department 2. Fire Department C. Legal Description D. Required Findings from Zoning Ordinance Yanke Warehouse CUP -06-001 PAGE 5 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINAPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARODATE OF FEBRUARY 16, 2006 A. Drawings 1. CUP Site Plan (dated: August 8, 2005) A -I kq hp, CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIAPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAL DATE OF FEBRUARY 16, 2006 fills a b 724 w TAYLOR ST, U3WMUN, m 63649 P.aa�rYMRIMM ArddWb =J A-2 e -, CA -mw BULL an um Luft iL. m ee®� CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIAPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAR DATE OF FEBRUARY 16, 2006 B. Conditions of Approval 1. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1.1 All conditions of the previously approved certificate of zoning Compliance (CZC-06-001) shall also be considered conditions of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP -06-001) application. 1.2 No signs are approved with this application. All wall and free-standing signs require a separate permit. All signage shall be in accordance with the standards set forth in Section 11-14 of the City Zoning and Development Ordinance. 1.3 Provide the building address numbers on the monument facing Taylor Street. Please contact Joe Silva (888-1234) for further information regarding this condition and the size of the numbering/lettering. 1.4 No building shall be erected, moved, added to or structurally altered, nor shall any building, structure or land be established or changed in use without a Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) issued by the Planning Department. 1.5 The landscape plan prepared by Patrick McKeegan Architects., is approved as submitted 1.6 The landscape plan may change based on site plan modifications. If the site plan is not approved by Meridian Fire Department or SSC as presented, then an amended landscape plan must be submitted for review. 1.7 The applicant shall comply with the approved Certificate of Zoning Compliance 1.8 Comply with the conditions and comments of all City Departments, and other agencies. 1.9 The applicant shall submit light fixture details and a photometric test report which demonstrates compliance with UDC 11-3A-11 with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application for the campus. 1.10 If construction has not begun within 18 months of City Council approval, anew conditional use permit must be obtained prior to the start of development. 2. FIRE DEPARTMENT 2.1 Acceptance of the water supply for fire protection will be by the Meridian Fire Department and water quality by the Meridian Water Department for bacteria testing. 2.2 Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department. a. Fire Hydrants shall have the 4 %2" outlet face the main street or parking lot aisle. b. The Fire hydrant shall not face a street which does not have addresses on it. C. Fire hydrant markers shall be provided per Public Works spec. d. Locations with fire hydrants shall have the curb painted red 10' to each side of the hydrant location. e. Fire Hydrants shall be placed on corners when spacing permits. f. Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10'. g. Fire hydrants shall be place 18" above finish grade. "M CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINOPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAR DATE OF FEBRUARY 16, 2006 1. Fire hydrants shall be provided to meet the requirements of the IFC Section 509.5. 2.3 All entrance and internal roads shall have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside radius 2.4 Provide a 20 -foot wide Fire Lane for all internal roadways all roadways shall be marked in accordance with Appendix D Section D103.6 Signs. 2.5 Insure that all yet undeveloped parcels are maintained free of combustible vegetation. 2.6 Fire lanes and streets shall have a vertical clearance of 13'6". This includes mature landscaping. 2.7 Operational fire hydrants, temporary or permanent street signs and access roads with an all weather surface are required before combustible construction is brought on site. 2.8 Commercial and office occupancies will require a fire -flow consistent with the International Fire Code to service the proposed project. Fire hydrants shall be placed per Appendix D. 2.9 Maintain a separation of 5' from the building to the dumpster enclosure 2.10 Provide a Knoxbox entry system for the complex prior to occupancy. 2.11 All aspects of the building systems (including exiting systems), processes & storage practices shall be required to comply with the International Fire Code. 2.12 Provide exterior egress lighting as required by the International Building & Fire Codes. 2.13 For Group R-3 and Group U occupancies, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m). For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m). here shall be a fire hydrant within 100' of all fire department connections. 2.14 There shall be a fire hydrant within 100' of all Fire Department connections. B-2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIAPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAIODATE OF FEBRUARY 16, 2006 C. Legal Description Sep ue ua uN:sua rout Harwara eue-eau-cauu p.c OrderNo.: A0545063 WARRANTY DEED FOR VAJ= R8C8rM, IDAHO TANK & CULVERT, INC., an Idaho corporation, the Grantor, does hereby grant, bargain sell and convey unto SIL. LLC, as Idaho limited liability company whose cement address is 4414 S. Golod-e , Boise, ID 83716, the Grantee, the following described premisea. in Ada County. Idaho. TO WIT: A portion of the Southwest Quarter In Section 12, Township 3 North, Range 1 Wast, Boise Meridian, Ada County. Idaho, mare particularly desadbed as follows: Commencing at the Quarter comer common to Sections 12 and 13, Township 3 North, Range 1 Wong. Boise Meridian, Ada COUW. Idaho, said point being a brass cap an Frmklia Road; titence North 0'00'35" West 1447.51 feet to a point on the South line of the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way; thence along said right-of-way North 89°0632" Was 317.24 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEQINNINO; thence South 0°00'35" East 586.43 feet to &POW an the North rightmf-way of Taylor Avenue; thence ahmg said right-of-way North 89049'00" West 265.32 feet to a point of curvature; theneo on a ourve to the left whose central eagle is 5" 1724', whose radius is t 10.00 feet, whose tangent is 5.08 feat, whose length is 10.16 feet and whose long chord bears South 87°32'19" West 10.15 feet; thence North 0°01'00" West 590.30 feet to a paint on the South has of the Union PaeiSc Railroad right-of-way; thence along said right-of-way South 89"06'32" East 275.57 feet to tha POINT OF BE(iROM0. C-1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINOPARTmENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAR DATE OF FEBRUARY 16, 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 a centrally located warehouse building with parking on two sides. Staff is supportive of the layout for the proposed drive lanes and proposed traffic flow pattern for this lot association with the existing Yanke Warehouse building from CZC-05-128. Vehicles should not interfere with internal traffic flows or traffic flows on the adjacent properties on Taylor Street. Parking stalls are required at the ratio of one space per 2,000 square -feet of gross floor area for office/warehouse (UDC 11 -3C -6B). Per this requirement, 12 stalls are required. There are 178 parking stalls provided on this site with designated handicap accessible stalls. This provision exceeds the City's minimum parking stall ratio. Staff finds that the project should have ample parking to accommodate the proposed basketball court usage. All proposed building setbacks and landscaping meet the minimum standards outlined in the UDC 11-2B, and with associated platting conditions of approval. Staff finds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the required yards (setbacks), open spaces, parking, landscaping and other features required by the ordinance. 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in accord with the requirements of this Title. Staff finds that the designated Comprehensive Designation is Industrial. The property is existing industrial zoning and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for office/warehouse/service uses in an industrial area. The Recreational use would also be consistent with the proposal as all activities will take place indoors and not be subject to disruption by more intense industrial uses. 3. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. Staff is generally supportive of the site plan design. The current parcel has been Meridian City I- L for several years and staff supports the use as being compatible in this area with several diverse uses. Staff believes the applicant has designed to accommodate the mixes of uses as well as shown compatibility with future industrial uses. Staff believes that a recreational use will be compatible with other uses/buildings in the area. There is a significant amount of landscaping being proposed along street buffers, and the proposed use is consistent with the approvals for industrial properties. [E CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINOPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAS DATE OF FEBRUARY 16, 2006 Staff finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the general design, construction, operation, and maintenance should be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing and intended character of the area. 4. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Staff finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the proposed warehouse/recreational use will not adversely affect other property in the area. The Commission and Council 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 being extended to the site through the extension of Taylor Street. All public facilities were planned under CZC-05-128 The Ada County Highway District staff previously acted on the CZC applications and has allowed one access point to Taylor Street for the project. The Commission and Council 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. Staff 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. Staff recognizes that traffic and noise will increase with the approval of an entertainment/recreational use in this location; however, staff 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. Staff 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. Staff finds that there should not be any other health, safety or environmental problems associated with this proposal that should be brought to the Commission's attention. ACRD considers road safety issues in their analysis. No hazardous features were identified on this site. D-2 n CUP 06-003 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING March 2, 2006 APPLICANT Dave Buich ITEM NO. 3-F REQUEST Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law - 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 CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Emailed: COMMENTS See attached Findings Approve Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. 0 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER dµ f C b17V iIG ;90 In the Matter of a Request for a Conditional Use Permit for an addition of a drive-thru coffee shop at the east end of the existing building at 3005 Fairview Avenue, by Dave Buich. Case No(s). CUP -06-003 For the Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing Date of. February 16, 2006 A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 16, 2006 incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 16, 2006 incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 16, 2006 incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 16, 2006 incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the "Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975," codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code (I.C. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has, by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted August 6, 2002, Resolution No. 02-382 and Maps. 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-5A. 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP -06-003 - PAGE I of 4 • 0 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this Decision, which shall be signed by the Commission Chair and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk upon the applicant, the Planning Department, the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. 7. That this approval is subject to the Legal Description, Site Plan, and the Conditions of Approval all in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 2, 2006 incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the Planning & Zoning Commission's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11-5A and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant's CUP Site Plan as evidenced by having submitted the Site Plan dated October 26, 2005 is hereby conditionally approved; and, 2. The following modifications to site specific conditions were made at the Planning & Zoning Commission hearing: a. Modify Condition 1.2 to read: "The proposed seven parking spaces at the east end of the building shall be reserved for employees only and shall have a sign which reads "Employees Only" placed in each stall." 3. The site specific and standard conditions of approval are as shown in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 16, 2006 incorporated by reference. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits 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 conditional use permits that also require platting, the final plat must be recorded within this eighteen (18) month period. For projects with multiple phases, the eighteen (18) month deadline shall apply to the first phase. In the event that the development is made in successive contiguous segments or multiple phases, such phases shall be constructed within successive intervals of one (1) year from the original date of approval. If the successive phases are not submitted within the CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP -06-003 - PAGE 2 of 4 9 0 one (1) year interval, the conditional approval of the future phases shall be null and void. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11 -5B -6.G.1, the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the use not to exceed one (1) eighteen (18) month period. Additional time extensions up to eighteen (18) months as determined and approved by the Commission may be granted. With all extensions, the Director or Commission may require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11. E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis 1. The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code 67-8003, a denial of a plat or conditional use permit entitles the Owner to request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than twenty-eight (28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review may be filed. 2. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian, pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521 an affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the issuance or denial of the conditional use permit approval may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. F. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of February 16, 2006 By action of the Planning & Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the 2vid day of 17 k-% , 2006. COMMISSIONER MICHAEL ROHM (Chair) COMMISSIONER DAVID MOE COMMISSIONER WENDY NEWTON-HUCKABAY COMMISSIONER KEITH BORUP COMMISSIONER DAVID ZAREMBA VOTED VOTED VOTED VOTED VOTED , , e A CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP -06-003 - PAGE 3 of 4 0 0 CHAIRMAN MICHAEL ROHM Attest: ,� ff •,;�, ara Green, Deputy City Clb-rk Copy served upon Applicant, 'Trf,&, ° ent, Public Works Department and City ,��IIV 11 /e fl rlllei\ Attorney. By:C�� A") e ( _ l� Dated: City Clerk CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP -06-003 - PAGE 4 of 4 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINOPEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAPG DATE OF FEBRUARY 16 200 6 STAFF REPORT P & Z Commission Hearing Hearing Date: 2/16/2006 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Josh Wilson, Associate City Planner SUBJECT: Office Value Remodel 1. CUP -06-003 Conditional Use Permit for Request for addition of a drive-thru coffee shop at the east end of the existing building for Office Value Remodel by Dave Buich at 3055 Fairview Avenue. 1. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST The applicant, Dave Buich, has applied for Conditional Use Permit approval for the addition of a drive- thru coffee shop to an existing building at 3055 E. Fairview Avenue. The site is located on the south side of E. Fairview Avenue, west of N. Eagle Road. Concurrent to the CUP application, the applicant is requesting design review approval, as this property is located on an Entryway Corridor. The property is currently zoned I -L (Light Industrial.) The existing building is located within Treasure Valley Business Center (TVBC). The existing Development Agreement for this site allows, among other uses, office, retail and restaurant uses in the I -L zone. The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for the Treasure Valley Business Center, subjects all development within TVBC to obtain CUP approval. 2. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION The subject applications (Conditional Use Permit and Design Review) were submitted to the Planning Department for concurrent review. Staff has provided a detailed analysis of the requested applications below. Staff recommends approval of CUP -06-003 for Office Value Remodel as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 16, 2006 based on the Findings of Fact as listed in Exhibit D and subject to the conditions of approval as listed in Exhibit B as attached to this report. Staff has prepared findings consistent with this recommendation. 3. PROPOSED MOTIONS Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number CUP - 06 -003 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 16, 2006, and the site plan labeled CU -1, dated October 26, 2005 with the following modifications to the conditions of approval: (add any proposed modifications). I further move to direct staff to prepare an appropriate findings document to be considered at the next Planning and Commission hearing on March 2, 2006. Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number CUP-06- 003as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 16, 2006, for the following reasons: (you must state specific reason(s) for the denial of the conditional use permit.) I further move to direct staff to prepare an appropriate findings document to be considered at the next Planning and Commission hearing on March 2, 2006. Office Value Remodel CUP -06-003 PAGE I CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN#pARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAL DATE OF FEBRUARY 16 2006 Recommend Continuance After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to continue File Number CUP -06-003 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (you should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) 4. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS a. Site Address/Location: South side of E. Fairview Avenue, west of N. Eagle Road/ 3055 E. Fairview Avenue Section 8, T3NRIE b. Owners: Dave Buich 3100 N. Glen Stuart Boise, ID 83709 c. Applicant: Dave Buich 3100 N. Glen Stuart Boise, ID 83709 d. Representative: Billy Ray Strite, BRS Architects e. Present Zoning: I -L (Light Industrial) f. Present Comprehensive Plan Designation: Commercial g. Description of Applicant's Request: The applicant is requesting Conditional Use Permit approval for the addition of a drive-thru coffee shop at the east end of the existing building. The applicant is concurrently requesting Design Review approval for exterior facade renovations to the existing building. There is a small amount of new parking and landscaping proposed adjacent to the drive-thru, and no changes are proposed to the remainder of the site. 1. Date of CUP site/landscape plan (attached in Exhibit A): October 26, 2005 2. Date of Building Elevations (attached in Exhibit A): January 3, 2006 h. Applicant's Justification Statement (from application materials): "Pursuant to the required Pu pre -application and neighborhood meeting, the applicant, Dave B " "Pu respectfully requests Conditional Use approval to construct a drive-through addition to the existing Office Value building. Located at 3055 Fairview, the site is approximately 1.7 acres, is zoned I -L and has all existing previously approved improvements. This application will also include new improvements to allow for city -required cross -access to the new developments to the east. Although not required by the application, the applicant is proposing to remodel the existing facility and will submit for the required CZC once the Conditional Use Permit is approved. We believe this application is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets the required findings for Conditional Use approval. We trust your staff will concur and positive findings and approval will result." 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 11-5B-6, a public hearing is required before the Planning and Zoning Commission on this matter. Office Value Remodel CUP -06-003 PAGE 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN*pARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA1�G DATE OF FEBRUARY 16 2006 b. Newspaper notifications published on: January 30 and February 13, 2006 c. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: January 20, 2006 d. Applicant posted notice on site by: February 6, 2006 6. LAND USE a. Existing Land Use(s): Existing commercial building b. Description of Character of Surrounding Area: The area along this portion of Fairview Avenue is developed as mostly commercial, with some industrial uses to the south of the site. c. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning 1. North: Vacant land, zoned RUT (Ada County) 2. East: Vacant land, zoned I -L. 3. South: Existing light industrial uses, zoned I -L. 4. West: Existing commercial building, zoned C -G. d. History of Previous Actions: In 1985 a 17 lot subdivision, Treasure Valley Business Center Phase I, was recorded on the southwest comer of Eagle Road and Fairview Avenue. In 2002, a conditional use permit application and re -subdivision application was submitted to the City which included seven of the lots in TVBC #1. A Site Specific Condition of Approval for CUP -02-036 requires all future uses within this development to obtain CUP approval. e. Existing Constraints and Opportunities 1. Public Works Location of sewer: Services already run to this building. Location of water: Services already run to this building. Issues or concerns: None. 2. Vegetation: Existing landscaping along Fairview Avenue. 3. Flood plain: NA 4. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: No major facilities. 5. Hazards: None. 6. Proposed Zoning: I -L 7. Size of Property: 1.7 acres h. Proposed and Required Non -Residential Setbacks: per the I -L zone I -L Standard Front 0 feet Side 0 feet Rear 0 feet Max. Building Height 50 feet Min. Lot Size None Min. Street Frontage None Office Value Remodel CUP -06-003 PAGE 3 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINOEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIIQG DATE OF FEBRUARY 16, 2006 i. Summary of Proposed Streets and/or Access (private, public, common drive, etc.): The access to the site will be from an existing curb cut on Fairview Avenue. There is an existing cross - access agreement for the lots within TVBC #1 to share the approved access points to Fairview Avenue. The applicant is proposing to record a cross -access and parking agreement with the property owner to the west. Staff is supportive of the proposed cross -access and cross -parking agreement. 7. COMMENTS MEETING On January 13, 2006 Planning Staff held an agency comments meeting. The agencies and departments present include: Meridian Fire Department, Meridian Police Department, Meridian Parks Department, Meridian Public Works Department, and the Sanitary Services Company. Staff has included all comments and recommended actions as Conditions of Approval in the attached Exhibit B. 8. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS The 2002 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designates the subject property as `Commercial'. In Chapter VII of the Comprehensive Plan, `Commercial' areas are anticipated to provide a full range of commercial and retail to serve area residents and visitors. Uses may include retail, wholesale, service and office uses, multi -family residential, as well as appropriate public uses such as government offices. Staff finds that the request generally conforms to this stated purpose and intent of the commercial designation within the Comprehensive Plan. Staff finds the following Goals, Objectives, and Action items contained in the 2002 Comprehensive Plan to be applicable to this application (staff analysis is in italics below policy): • "Require all commercial businesses to install and maintain landscaping." (Chapter V, Goal III, Objective D, Action item 5) The applicant will be required to construct landscaping which complies with the Unified Development Code. • "Permit new ...commercial development only where urban services can be reasonably provided at the time of final approval and development is contiguous to the City." (Chapter IV, Goal I, Objective A, Action item 6) The subject site can be serviced by the City of Meridian's sanitary sewer and water systems. • "Plan for a variety of commercial and retail opportunities within the Impact Area." (Chapter VII, Goal 1, Objective B) The proposed use does contribute to the variety of commercial uses in this area, as envisioned with the Comprehensive Plan. Stafffinds that the proposal is harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. 9. ZONING ORDINANCE a. Zoning Schedule of Use Control: UDC 11-2B-2 lists retail store as an Accessory use in the I -L zone. NOTE: The existing retail building is allowed under an approved Planned Development for the property. b. Purpose Statement of Zone: The purpose of the I -L District is to provide for convenient employment centers of light manufacturing, research and development, warehousing, and Office Value Remodel CUP -06-003 PAGE 4 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINOPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAROG DATE OF FEBRUARY 16 2006 distributing. In accord with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, the I -L District is intended to encourage the development of industrial areas that are clean, quiet, and free of hazardous or objectionable elements and that are operated entirely, or almost entirely, within enclosed structures. Accessibility to transportation systems is a requirement of this district. 10. ANALYSIS a. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Special Considerations: Staff is generally supportive of the proposed site design as presented in the CUP site plan labeled as Sheet CU -1, dated October 26, 2005, with the following comments: Parking Lot Landscaping • The site contains existing landscaping installed with the construction of the existing building and the applicant has proposed additional landscaping adjacent to the proposed drive-thru at the east end of the building. Staff is generally supportive of the proposed landscaping, with the following change: I. UDC 11 -3B -6C2 requires that all landscape planters shall contain at least one tree and vegetative groundcover and/or shrubs. The applicant should confirm whether the existing planter islands in the parking contain trees and be aware that additional trees will be required at the time of Certificate of Zoning Compliance issuance, if sufficient trees do not currently exist. Drive-thru Design• Staff is generally supportive of the proposed drive-thru configuration, with the following changes: L The Meridian Fire Department has expressed concerns about the width of the drive- thru exit at the northeast corner of the building. While staff understands that the applicant narrowed this opening in response to staff comments regarding safe traffic flow and preventing wrong way traffic through the drive-thru, staff finds that the drive-thru lane should be increased in width to a minimum 20 feet for its entire length. Safe and efficient traffic flow can still be maintained through the use of signage and striping. 2. Staff is not supportive of the parking spaces along the eastern edge of the drive-thru which lie partly on the Denny's property and back into the drive-thru lane. The site has 83 currently existing parking spaces, which far exceeds the 40 spaces required by Code. Staff feels that the seven proposed spaces along the drive-thru could cause interference with the safe and efficient use of the drive-thru, and should be eliminated. 3. UDC 11-313-6C2 requires that internal landscape planters shall be used to delineate and guide major traffic movements and shall be placed at the end of rows of parking. Staff recommends that a planter island which complies with UDC 11 -3B - 6C2 be placed at the eastern end of the row of parking adjacent to the entrance to the drive- thru at the southeast comer of the building. Perimeter Landscape Strip: UDC 11-3B-6 requires that a five foot perimeter landscape strip shall be required along all vehicular use areas which are adjacent to an interior lot line, containing 1 tree per 35 feet and vegetative groundcover and/or shrubs. The required width of planter strip currently exists on the south property line, and the applicant should confirm Office Value Remodel CUP -06-003 PAGE 5 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIAPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAROG DATE OF FEBRUARY 16, 2006 whether this planter complies with Code. Additional trees will be required at time of Certificate of Zoning Compliance if sufficient trees do not currently exist. Cross Access A reement• The applicant has proposed to record a cross access agreement between the subject parcel and the parcel to the east (Denny's). The applicant shall submit a recorded copy of said cross access agreement prior to issuance of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance. Design Review Standards: UDC 11-3A-19 requires that all structures located on Entryway Corridors (as identified on the 2002 Future Land Use Map) be subject to administrative design review standards. Fairview Avenue in this location is an Entryway Corridor, and the applicant has submitted a Design Review application for concurrent review. Staff is supportive of the submitted application with the following comments: Architectural Character: The submitted building elevations dated January 3, 2006 conform with the architectural standards as follows: • The proposed modifications exhibit fagade modulations, roof line recesses and projections along a minimum of 20% of the length of the fagade as required; • The proposed modifications clearly define primary building entrances and awnings, windows, or arcades total a minimum of 30% of the fagade length; • The proposed modifications demonstrate roof lines which demonstrate overhanging eaves, two or more roof planes, varying parapet heights, and cornices; • The proposed modifications exhibit at least two changes in color, texture and materials; and • The proposed modifications screen all ground -level and rooftop mechanical equipment as viewed from the property line. 2. Color and materials: The submitted building elevations demonstrate the appearance and use of high quality materials, such as stone and stucco and do not contain prohibited materials or construction. 3. Parking Lots: No more than 70% of the off-street parking area for the structure shall be located between the front fagade of the building and abutting streets. The site currently contains existing parking in front which is 57% of the total for the building, and satisfies this requirement. 4. Pedestrian Walkways: Staff finds that the proposal does not meet the pedestrian walkways requirements, and changes should be as follows: • A continuous pedestrian walkway that is a minimum of eight feet in width shall be provided from the perimeter sidewalk to the main building entrance. The proposal does not depict this required walkway, and staff finds that the applicant shall modify the site and landscape plans prior to submittal for Certificate of Zoning Compliance to include a walkway from the sidewalk along Fairview Avenue to the building which complies with this requirement. The walkway shall also be distinguished from the vehicular driving surface through the use of pavers, brick, or colored/scored concrete. b. Staff' Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of CUP -06-003 for Office Value Remodel as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 16, 2006 based on the Findings of Fact as listed in Exhibit D and subject to the conditions of approval approval as listed Office Value Remodel CUP -06-003 PAGE 6 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINOPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 16, 2006 in Exhibit B as attached to this report. Staff has prepared findings consistent with this recommendation. Office Value Remodel CUP -06-003 PAGE 7 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINOPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAVG DATE OF FEBRUARY 16, 2006 11. EXHIBITS A. Drawings 1. CUP Site and Landscape Plan (dated October 26, 2005) 2. Building Elevations (dated January 3, 2006) B. Conditions of Approval 1. Planning Department 2. Public Works Department 3. Fire Department 4. Police Department 5. Parks Department 6. Sanitary Service Company 7. Ada County Highway District C. Legal Description D. Required Findings from Zoning Ordinance Office Value Remodel CUP -06-003 PAGE 8 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN*EPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAR DATE OF FEBRUARY 1 6, 2006 A. Drawings 1. CUP Site and Landscape Plan (dated October 26, 2005) JAN. 12, 2006_10:29A1V— RRs ARCW1TCrT Exhibit A CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN*pARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HERS DATE OF FEBRUARY 16, 2006 2. Building Elevations (dated January 3, 2006) OFFICE VALUE Remodel "13,e %03 Z ARCHITECTS Exhibit A CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINOPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA10 DATE OF FEBRUARY 16, 2006 B. Conditions of Approval 1. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1.1 The applicant shall comply with all conditions of approval for Treasure Valley Business Center Phase I, and Treasure Valley Business Center #3 (CUP -02-036 & PP -02-024) as part of the subject Conditional Use Permit (CUP -06-003). The Site Plan labeled as CU -1, prepared by BRS Architects, dated October 26, 2005 is approved, with the conditions listed herein. 1.2 The proposed seven parking spaces at the east end of the building shall be reserved for employees only and shall have a sign which reads "Employees Only" placed in each stall 1.3 Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) permit, the applicant shall submit a copy of a recorded cross-access/cross-parking agreement with the property owner to the east. 1.4 The Site and Landscape Plan labeled as CU -1, prepared by BRS Architects, dated October 26, 2005 is approved with the following modifications/notes: • The drive-thru lane shall be increased in width to a minimum 20 feet for its entire length. • A planter island which complies with UDC 11 -3B -6C2 shall be placed at the eastern end of the row of parking adjacent to the entrance to the drive- thru at the southeast corner of the building. • A continuous pedestrian walkway that is a minimum of eight feet in width shall be provided from the perimeter sidewalk to the main building entrance. The walkway shall also be distinguished from the vehicular driving surface through the use of pavers, brick, or colored/scored concrete. • UDC 11 -3B -5H requires all landscape areas to be at least 70% covered with vegetation at maturity, with mulch used under and around the plants. Provide landscape materials within all landscape areas, including Fairview Avenue, consistent with UDC 11-3B. • UDC 11 -3B -8C2 requires that all parking lot landscape islands contain at least one tree and vegetative groundcover and/or shrubs. Modify the landscape plan as necessary to ensure compliance with this requirement. • UDC 11-3B-6 requires that a five foot perimeter landscape strip shall be required along to all vehicular use areas which are adjacent to an interior lot line, containing 1 tree per 35 feet and vegetative groundcover and/or shrubs. Modify the landscape plan as necessary to ensure compliance with this requirement. • A written certificate of completion shall be prepared by the landscape architect, designer, or qualified nurseryman responsible for the landscape plan and submitted prior to occupancy of the building. All standards of installation shall apply as listed in UDC 11-3B-14. Submit a landscape plan, reflecting the changes/notes mentioned above, with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. 1.5 This project complies with the Design Review requirements of UDC 11-3A-19. The building elevations prepared by BRS Architects, dated January 3, 2006 are approved. 1.6 To ensure that all of the conditions of approval for CUP -06-003 are complied with, the applicant shall be required to obtain a Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) permit, and occupancy, from the Planning Department prior to operation. NOTE: Any future tenant(s) in the retail portion of the subject building shall not be required to obtain CUP approval, unless required by the UDC. Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINSPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAL DATE OF FEBRUARY 16, 2006 1.7 All required improvements must be complete prior to obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy for the proposed development. A temporary Certificate of Occupancy may be obtained by providing surety to the City in the form of a letter of credit or cash in the amount of 110% of the cost of the required improvements (including paving, striping, landscaping, and irrigation). A bid must accompany any request for temporary occupancy. 1.8 No signs are approved with this CUP application. All business signs require a separate sign permit in compliance with the sign ordinance. 1.9 The applicant shall have a maximum of 18 months to commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval listed above. If the business has not begun within 18 months of approval, a new conditional use permit must be obtained prior to operation. 2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2.1 All Public Works concerns have already been addressed in the civil plan review for the building plans on this lot. 3. FIRE DEPARTMENT 1. Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department. a. Fire Hydrants shall have the 4 %z" outlet face the main street or parking lot aisle. b. The Fire hydrant shall not face a street which does not have addresses on it. c. Fire hydrant markers shall be provided per Public Works specifications. d. Fire Hydrants shall be placed on comers when spacing permits. e. Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10'. f. Fire hydrants shall be place 18" above finish grade. g. Fire hydrants shall be provided to meet the requirements of the IFC Section 509.5. h. Show all proposed or existing hydrants for all new construction or additions to existing buildings within 1,000 feet of the project. 2. All entrance and internal roads and alleys shall have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside radius. 3. Provide a 20 -foot wide Fire Lane for all intemal roadways all roadways shall be marked in accordance with Appendix D Section D103.6 Signs. 4. Fire lanes and streets shall have a vertical clearance of 13'6". This includes mature landscaping. 5. Commercial and office occupancies will require a fire -flow consistent with the International Fire Code to service the proposed project. Fire hydrants shall be placed per Appendix D. 6. Maintain a separation of 5' from the building to the dumpster enclosure. 7. All aspects of the building systems (including exiting systems), processes & storage practices shall be required to comply with the International Fire Code. 8. Provide exterior egress lighting as required by the International Building & Fire Codes. 9. Where a portion of the facility or building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction is more than 400 feet (122 m) from a hydrant on a fire apparatus access road, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building, on-site fire hydrants and mains shall be provided where required by the code official. For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2 the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183). a. For Group R-3 and Group U occupancies, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m). b. For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m). Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINWARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARD DATE OF FEBRUARY 16, 2006 4. POLICE DEPARTMENT 1. The Police Department has no concerns related to the application. 5. PARKS DEPARTMENT 1- The Parks Department has no concerns related to the application. 6. SANITARY SERVICES COMPANY 1. Please contact Bill Gregory at SSC (888-3999) for detailed review of your proposal and submit stamped (approved) plans with your certificate of zoning compliance application. 7. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT 1. It has been determined that the Right -of -Way and Development Services Department does not have ay site specific requirements for you at this time due to the fact that street improvements exist. 2. A traffic impact fee may be assessed by ACRD and will be due prior to the issuance of a building Permit. Contact ACID Planning & Development Services at 387-6170 for information regarding impact fees. Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIAPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAL DATE OF FEBRUARY 16 ,2006 006 C. Legal Description e2 q4199 7 v A PL oter Cmry.roty PIONEER TITLE COMPANY DF ADA CG(,,VN 703 S. Americana, Suite 190 f Boise, Idaho 83702 (208)373-3744 AOA CAUNTY REiORDER L DAVID NAVARRO AMOUNT 3.e0 1 801&H mm e9131101 01:40 Ptd OEFIdfY Ya15Aft pp pp pp nn n {{p}i�nn NEEDED-REOUESTOF u�If1l'��I���"�U��I PIMW 184112589 EVARRANTV DEED Far Vakre Redd Five Diamond pro erti P es, LLC, an IdaM limited liability eompaay heednafler referred to as Grant", does hercbygrant, bar8aia, seB, wnrreat oml convey unto David A. 811 and Ka— L- Bulch, buaimrd and We ^� It—inafter referred to as Grantee, whose eanmt address is .3't/Q 7 /l d1Q 1 dE. Ore fogowing desvd.A Premises, to-wu; E 41 115 %- H Lot 3 in Block 1 of the Lot Lina Adrecordjt,s — Sarvey, Record of S=q No. 2066, Lm 3 ®�irm�ry 6 1992 as tosaumettt No. 920721, offa:fal retard% which said ForticW-IY dtsat'Ited as follams: Loi 3, EXCEPT the W- 20 feet ft"& an i- Block 1 cfTreasura Valley Btisinew Cemcr - Pham I, award 10 the ofnclal Plat thereof filed In Book 53 of Plats at Pages 4790 thru 7492. records of Ada Caaoty, Idaho, Tax Parcel R8525Jo0420 To HAVE AND TO HOLD the told promises, with flttdr VIrrvenances mus the svid Grantee, his Inrirs ""'19-1—cm. � afraid the Oramor dog h --by covemnt to and with the said Grantee. fkal Gramm, is the owner in fa prcrdses; that said pear, m3es' IvIi- and Lase -=t% and ease U.S. pnjents are five tram all a t"'na, antra except current end easeatenta viDble upon the Premises, and that Grantor will war= nim• de i:nd ft casements of mwrd, whatsomer, and deferal the same from an claims Dated: August 31, 2004 FluX�.R�(mk,. ad p w ' LLFer�.._/� BY.PhOber B Sheryl i. !nark, rrthQ STATE OF IDAHO. Caonty of Ada , ss i. aPXmd PhDIP C. Roark �m Yap of 2004. bafam ax lam y )3lauh a notary Pab1 a Pe mmUy member(byamm Sheryl L Rack known or identified tD i e loth ofthe limited liabilityen,qu aml the nifed tiabDiry e�W, of Five D4,nnnd Properties, LLC. an Idah, mnx m file fere o m.=.ftr(ayvmna9er(s) who subsmNd raid limited i Ailitycomparry IWilled h2biliryComppsny t arrdacknowledgedmum�i��abtaha't�eyeae utedfhesarraina Exhibit C r �"may � - a � 3 a Q Exhibit C CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINOPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAM DATE OF FEBRUARY 16, 2006 D. Required Findings from Zoning Ordinance 1. Conditional Use Permit Findings: 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 building and uses on this site can accommodate and meet all dimensional and development regulations of this district. Parking stalls are required at the ratio of one space per 500 square feet of gross floor area in commercial districts (UDC 11-3C-6). Per this requirement, 40 stalls are required. There are 83 parking stalls proposed on this site, with designated handicap accessible stalls. This provision exceeds the City's minimum parking stall ratio. Staff finds that the project should have ample parking. The Commission finds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the required yards (setbacks), parking, landscaping and other features required by the ordinance. 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in accord with the requirements of this Title. The Commission finds that the designated Comprehensive Designation for this property is Commercial. The property is currently zoned I -L, with a requirement for CUP approval of each building/use. The proposed use is generally harmonious with the requirements of the UDC (see Sections 8 and 10, above for more information regarding the requirements for this use.) 3. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. The Commission finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the general design, construction, operation, and maintenance of a restaurant and retail building should be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing and intended character of the area. 4. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. The Commission finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the proposed uses will not adversely affect other property in the area. 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools, parks, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, and sewer. Exhibit D CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN*pARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAIVDATE OF FEBRUARY I 6, 2006 The Commission finds that sanitary sewer, domestic water, refuse disposal, and irrigation are currently available to the subject property. Please refer to any comments prepared by the Meridian Fire Department, Police Department, Parks Department, Sanitary Services Corporation and ACRD. Based on comments from other agencies and departments, staff finds that the proposed use will be served adequately by all of the public facilities and services listed above. 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 thath proposed use will not be detrimental to the community's economic welfare. t e 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 restaurant and retail uses in this location; however, staff does not believe that the amount generated wi11 be detrimental to the general welfare of the public. The Commission does not anticipate the proposed use will create excessive noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors. The Commission finds that the proposed uses 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 finds that there are not be any health, safety or environmental problems associated with this project that should be brought to the Commission's attention. The Commission finds that the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural, scenic or historic feature of major importance. Exhibit D CUP 05-059 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING March 2, 2006 APPLICANT Rudeen & Associates ITEM NO. 3-G REQUEST Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law - Conditional Use Permit for a drive-thru within 300 feet of a residential district for Silverstone Towne Square - 1660 South Jade Way AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: COMMENTS See attached Findings J Contacted: Date: -71Zg 6 (.( Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER i F➢'i" iib- j+x�� �_ i CV. In the Matter of a Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a drive-thru within 300 feet of a residential district for Silverstone Towne Square, by Rudeen and Associates. Case No(s). CUP -05-059 For the Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing Date of. February 16, 2006 A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 16, 2006 incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 16, 2006 incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 16, 2006 incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 16, 2006 incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the "Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975," codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code (I.C. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has, by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted August 6, 2002, Resolution No. 02-382 and Maps. 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-5A. 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP -05-059 - PAGE 1 of 4 0 0 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this Decision, which shall be signed by the Commission Chair and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk upon the applicant, the Planning Department, the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. 7. That this approval is subject to the Legal Description, Site Plan, and the Conditions of Approval all in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 16, 2006 incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the Planning & Zoning Commission's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11-5A and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: L The applicant's CUP Site Plan as evidenced by having submitted the Site Plan dated October 5, 2005 is hereby conditionally approved; and, 2. The site specific and standard conditions of approval are as shown in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 16, 2006 incorporated by reference. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits 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 conditional use permits that also require platting, the final plat must be recorded within this eighteen (18) month period. For projects with multiple phases, the eighteen (18) month deadline shall apply to the first phase. In the event that the development is made in successive contiguous segments or multiple phases, such phases shall be constructed within successive intervals of one (1) year from the original date of approval. If the successive phases are not submitted within the one (1) year interval, the conditional approval of the future phases shall be null and void. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11 -5B -6.G.1, the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the use not to exceed one (1) eighteen (18) month period. Additional time extensions up to eighteen (18) months as determined and approved by the Commission maybe granted. With all extensions, the Director or Commission may CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP -05-059 - PAGE 2 of 4 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 The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code 67-8003, a denial of a plat or conditional use permit entitles the Owner to request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than twenty-eight (28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review may be filed. 2. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian, pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521 an affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the issuance or denial of the conditional use permit approval may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. F. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of February 16, 2006 By action of the Planning & Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the ^d day of 11 yaj-e , )2006. COMMISSIONER MICHAEL ROHM (Chair) COMMISSIONER DAVID MOE COMMISSIONER WENDY NEWTON-HUCKABAY COMMISSIONER KEITH BORUP COMMISSIONER DAVID ZAREMBA Attest: VOTED VOTED VOTED VOTED VOTED CHAIRMAN MICHAEL ROHM CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP -05-059 - PAGE 3 of 4 Tara Green, Deputy City Copy served upon Applicant, Attorney. NVN , �o'� �I By: Dated City Clerk Works Department and City 6,3 2- I ---o6 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP -05-059 - PAGE 4 of 4 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINGORPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARINDATE OF FEBRUARY 16, 2006 STAFF REPORT P & Z Commission Hearing Hearing Date: 2/16/2006 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Josh Wilson, Associate City Planner SUBJECT: Silverstone Towne Square CUP -05-059 C I FIN �19 r4Y Conditional Use Permit for a drive-thru within 300 feet of a residential district for Silverstone Towne Square L SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST The applicant, Rudeen and Associates, has applied for Conditional Use Permit approval for a drive-thru within 300 feet of a residential district at 1660 South Jade Way in Silverstone Business Campus. The site is located on the southeast corner of Jade Way and Overland Road. The site is platted as Lots 3 and 4, Block 2, Silverstone Subdivision. The proposed building received staff level Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review approval on November 30, 2005 without a drive-thru. If the CUP for the drive-thru is approved, the applicant shall be required to submit for a Certificate of Zoning Compliance for construction of the drive-thru. 2. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Staff has provided a detailed analysis of the requested application below. Staff recommends approval of CUP -05-059 for Silverstone Towne Square as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 16, 2006 based on the Findings of Fact as listed in Exhibit D and subject to the conditions of approval as listed in Exhibit B as attached to this report. Staff has prepared findings consistent with this recommendation. 3. PROPOSED MOTIONS Approval 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 16, 2006, and the site plan labeled CU -1, dated October 26, 2005 with the following modifications to the conditions of approval: (add any proposed modifications). I further move to direct staff to prepare an appropriate findings document to be considered at the next Planning and Commission hearing on March 2, 2006. Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number CUP -05- 059 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 16, 2006, for the following reasons: (you must state specific reason(s) for the denial of the conditional use permit.) I further move to direct staff to prepare an appropriate findings document to be considered at the next Planning and Commission hearing on March 2, 2006. Recommend Continuance After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to continue File Number CUP -05-059 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (you should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) 4. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS Silverstone Towne Square CUP -05-059 PAGE 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINGOPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARD ATE OF FEBRUARY 16, 2006 a. Site Address/Location: SE Corner of Jade Way and Overland Road/ 1660 S. Jade Way Section 21, T3N RIE b. Owners: Sundance Investment Limited Partnership 9100 W. Blackeagle Drive Boise, ID 83709 c. Applicant: Rudeen and Associates 199 N. Capital Blvd., Suite 602 Boise, ID 83703 d. Representative: Byron Folwell, Rudeen and Associates e. Present Zoning: C -G f. Present Comprehensive Plan Designation: Mixed -Use Regional g. Description of Applicant's Request: The applicant is requesting Conditional Use Permit approval for a drive-thru within 300 feet of a residential district. h. 1. Date of CUP Site Plan (attached in Exhibit A): October 5, 2005 2. Date of Landscape Plan (attached in Exhibit A): September 28, 2005 2. Date of Building Elevations (attached in Exhibit A): Not dated. Applicant's Justification Statement (from application materials): "The propertyis proposed to receive a new building which will have mixed occupancies of both Business and Mercantile. Mercantile, or light retail, will be the predominant tenants on the main level. Business, or professional offices, will be the predominant tenants on the second level. A bank is proposed on the eastside of the building. The bank will have a drive up teller window with as many as three drive lanes and an escape lane. The drive up lanes are proposed to have a canopy covering the 3 lanes for a width of approximately one car length." 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 11-5B-6, a public hearing is required before the Planning and Zoning Commission on this matter. b. Newspaper notifications published on: January 30 and February 13, 2006 c. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: January 20, 2006 d. Applicant posted notice on site by: February 6, 2006 6. LAND USE a. Existing Land Use(s): Vacant b. Description of Character of Surrounding Area: Developed largely as professional office and small scale retail, with an existing residential subdivision on the north side of Overland Road. c. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning Silverstone Towne Square CUP -05-059 PAGE 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINGIRPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEADATE OF FEBRUARY 16, 2006 1. North: Existing homes in Jewel Subdivision, zoned RI (Ada County) 2. East: Vacant land, zoned C -G. 3. South: Existing commercial development, zoned C -G. 4. West: Existing commercial development, zoned C -G. d. History of Previous Actions: CZC-05-135 approved on November 30, 2005 e. Existing Constraints and Opportunities 1. Public Works Location of sewer: There are existing stubs to this property. Location of water: There are existing stubs to this property. Issues or concerns: None. 2. Vegetation: None. 3. Flood plain: NA 4. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: No major facilities. 5. Hazards: None. 6. Proposed Zoning: C -G 7. Size of Property: 2.33 acres h. Proposed and Required Non -Residential Setbacks: per the C -G zone C -G Standard Front 0 feet Side 0 feet Rear 0 feet Max. Building Height 65 feet Min. Lot Size None Min. Street Frontage None i- Summary of Proposed Streets and/or Access (private, public, common drive, etc.): The access to the site will be from existing curb cuts on S. Jade Avenue and E. Overland Road. 7. COMMENTS MEETING On January 13, 2006 Planning Staff held an agency comments meeting. The agencies and departments present include: Meridian Fire Department, Meridian Police Department, Meridian Parks Department, Meridian Public Works Department, and the Sanitary Services Company. Staff has included all comments and recommended actions as Conditions of Approval in the attached Exhibit B. 8. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS The subject site is designated `Mixed Use -Regional' on the Future Land Use Map. In Chapter VII of the Comprehensive Plan, this designation is defined in part as an area that is situated in highly visible or transitioning parts of the City where innovative and flexible design opportunities are encouraged. The MU -R has no upper limit on the square footage of non-residential uses and is intended to allow a broad range of uses. Silverstone Towne Square CUP -05-059 PAGE 3 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINGIRPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAIDA TE OF FEBRUARY 16, 2006 Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this property and apply to the Proposed development (staff analysis in italics below policy): • Require that development projects have planned for the provision of all public services. (Chapter VII, Goal III, Objective A, Action 1) When the City established its Area of City Impact, it planned to provide City services to the subject property. The City of Meridian plans to provide municipal services to the lands proposed to be annexed in the following manner. • The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Meridian Rural Fire District. Once annexed the lands will be under the jurisdiction of the Meridian City Fire Department, who currently shares resource and personnel with the Meridian Rural Fire Department. • The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Ada County Sheriff's Office. Once annexed the lands will be serviced by the Meridian Police Department (MPD). • The roadways adjacent to the subject lands are currently owned and maintained by the Ada County Highway District (AChD). This service will not change. • The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian School District #2. This service will not change. • The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian Library District. This service will not change and the Meridian Library District should suffer no revenue loss as a result of the subject annexation. Municipal, fee -supported, services will be provided by the Meridian Building Department, the Meridian Public Works Department, the Meridian Water Department, the Meridian Wastewater Department, the Meridian Planning Department, Meridian Utility Billing Services, and Sanitary Services Company. • Chapter VII, Goal I, Objective B: Plan for a variety of commercial and retail opportunities within the Impact Area. Staff finds that the site is designated for MU -R on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. Commercial uses have been specifically planned for this property which meet the general classif cations for mixed use regional. • Chapter VII, Goal I, Objective B, Action 5: Locate new community commercial areas on arterials or collectors near residential areas in such a way as to complement with adjoining residential areas. Overland Road is classified as an arterial roadway. The site shares a curb cut on Overland Road with the adjoining property and staff believes that the commercial project proposed compliments the existing and planned commercial areas in the vicinity. • Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective D: Encourage appropriate land uses along transportation corridors. Staff believes that the proposed land uses are appropriate along the adjoining transportation corridor (Overland Road). • Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective D, Action 2: Restrict curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets. Silverstone Towne Square CUP -05-059 PAGE CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINGIRPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA)DATE OF FEBRUARY 16, 2006 The ACM evaluates access points in their analysis and the proposed access point to the arterial street generally complies with ACHD's standards. Staff also fords the following 2002 Comprehensive Plan text policies to be applicable to this application: ■ "Require all new parking lots to provide landscaping in internal islands." (Chapter V, Goal III, Obj. D, #3, page 43) ■ "The capacity of arterial ... roadways can be greatly diminished by excessive driveway connections to the roadways. The City should cooperate with ACHD to minimize access points on arterial ... roadways as development applications are reviewed." (Chapter VI, page 72) ■ "Develop methods, such as cross -access agreements, frontage roads, to reduce the number of existing access points on to arterial streets." (Chapter VI, Goal II, Obj. A, #12, page 79). ■ "Restrict curb cuts and access points on ... arterial streets." (Chapter VII, Goal IV, Obj. D, #5, page 107) Stafffinds that the proposal is harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. 9. ZONING ORDINANCE a. Zoning Schedule of Use Control: UDC 11-2B-2 lists a drive-thru as a Permitted/Conditional use in the C -G zone. b. Purpose Statement of Zone: The purpose of the Commercial Districts is to provide for the retail and service needs of the community in accord with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. Four Districts are designated which differ in the size and scale of commercial structures accommodated in the district, the scale and mix of allowed commercial uses, and the location of the district in proximity to streets and highways. C -G General Retail And Service Commercial District: The purpose of the C -G district is to provide for commercial uses which are customarily operated entirely or almost entirely within a building; to provide for a review of the impact of proposed commercial uses which are auto and service oriented and are located in close proximity to major highway or arterial streets; to fulfill the need of travel -related services as well as retail sales for the transient and permanent motoring public. All such districts shall be connected to the municipal water and sewer systems of the city, and shall not constitute strip commercial development and encourage clustering of commercial development. 10. ANALYSIS a. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Special Considerations: Staff is generally supportive of the proposed site design as presented in the CUP site plan labeled as Sheet A1.01, dated October 5, 2005, with the following comments: Perimeter Landscape Strip: UDC 11-3B-6 requires that a five foot perimeter landscape strip shall be required along all vehicular use areas which are adjacent to an interior lot line, containing 1 tree per 35 feet and vegetative groundcover and/or shrubs. As noted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance approval, additional trees will be required along the southern boundary of the project. Silverstone Towne Square CUP -05-059 PAGE 5 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINGOPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARODATE OF FEBRUARY 1 6, 2006 Drive-thru Design: Staff is supportive of the proposed drive-thru configuration, and finds that it meets the requirements set forth in UDC 11-4-3.11, which states that "a site plan shall be submitted that demonstrates safe pedestrian and vehicular access and circulation on the site and between adjacent properties. At a minimum, the site plan shall demonstrate compliance with the following standards: • Stacking lanes shall have sufficient capacity to prevent obstruction of the public right-of- way by patrons; • The stacking lane shall be a separate lane from the circulation lanes needed for access and parking; • The stacking lane shall not be located within ten feet (10') of any residential district or existing residence; • Any stacking lane greater than one hundred feet (100') in length shall provide for an escape lane. • A letter from the Transportation Authority indicating the site plan is in compliance with the authority's standards and policies shall be required. Staff finds that the site plan as submitted complies with the drive thru standards set forth in UDC 11-4-3.11. b. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of CUP -05-059 for Silverstone Towne Square as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 16, 2006 based on the Findings of Fact as listed in Exhibit D and subject to the conditions of approval as listed in Exhibit B as attached to this report. Staff has prepared findings consistent with this recommendation. Silverstone Towne Square CUP -05-059 PAGE 6 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINGIRPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAL DATE OF FEBRUARY 16, 2006 11. EXHIBITS A. Drawings 1. CUP Site and Landscape Plan (dated October 26, 2005) 2. CUP Landscape Plan (dated September 28, 2005) 3. Building Elevations (Not dated) B. Conditions of Approval 1. Planning Department 2. Public Works Department 3. Fire Department 4. Police Department 5. Parks Department 6. Sanitary Service Company 7. Ada County Highway District C. Legal Description D. Required Findings from Zoning Ordinance PAGE 7 Silverstone Towne Square CUP -05-059 Y<< t k�CJx J1 t t.- PAGE 7 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN*PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAL DATE OF FEBRUARY 16 2006 A. Drawings 1. CUP Site Plan (dated October 5, 2005) - \ - At- - — — - Exhibit A - --------- co 2 WA, 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN*pARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAL* DATE OF FEBRUARY 16, 2006 2. Landscape Plan (dated September 28, 2005) . I - 144 A, N -S ti fig 4 W IT FIlipX 5 UP 4 oii 81 05 4 W;T C" V-4 Exhibit A CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIAPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAR DATE OF FEBRUARY 16 2006 I Building Elevations (Not dated) Exhibit A CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINGIPPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEADATE OF FEBRUARY 16 2006 Exhibit A CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINGIRPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARODATE OF FEBRUARY 16, 2006 B. Conditions of Approval 1. PLANNING DEPARTMENTS 1.1 The Site Plan labeled as A1.01, prepared by Rudeen and Associates, dated October 5, 2005 is approved, with the conditions listed herein. 1.2 The Site and Landscape Plan labeled as CU -1, prepared by BRS Architects, dated October 26, 2005 is approved with the following modifications/notes: • UDC 11-3B-6 requires that a five foot perimeter landscape strip shall be required along to all vehicular use areas which are adjacent to an interior lot line, containing 1 tree per 35 feet and vegetative groundcover and/or shrubs. Modify the landscape plan as necessary to ensure compliance with this requirement, and as noted in the CZC approval. • A written certificate of completion shall be prepared by the landscape architect, designer, or qualified nurseryman responsible for the landscape plan and submitted prior to occupancy of the building. All standards of installation shall apply as listed in UDC 11-3B-14. Submit a landscape plan, reflecting the changes/notes mentioned above, with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. 1.5 To ensure that all of the conditions of approval for CUP -05-059 are complied with, the applicant shall be required to obtain a Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) permit, and occupancy, from the Planning Department prior to operation of the drive-thru. 1.6 All required improvements must be complete prior to obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy for the proposed development. A temporary Certificate of Occupancy may be obtained by providing surety to the City in the form of a letter of credit or cash in the amount of 110% of the cost of the required improvements (including paving, striping, landscaping, and irrigation). A bid must accompany any request for temporary occupancy. 1.7 No signs are approved with this CUP application. All business signs require a separate sign permit in compliance with the sign ordinance. 1.8 The applicant shall have a maximum of 18 months to commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval listed above. If the business has not begun within 18 months of approval, a new conditional use permit must be obtained prior to operation. 2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2.1 All Public Works concerns have already been addressed in the civil plan review for the building plans on this lot. 3. FIRE DEPARTMENT 4. POLICE DEPARTMENT 1. The Police Department has no concerns related to the application. 5. PARKS DEPARTMENT 1. The Parks Department has no concerns related to the application. 6. SANITARY SERVICES COMPANY 1. Please contact Bill Gregory at SSC (888-3999) for detailed review of your proposal and submit stamped (approved) plans with your certificate of zoning compliance application. 7. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT 1. It has been determined that the Right -of -Way and Development Services Department does not Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINAARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA ODATE OF FEBRUARY 16, 2006 have ay site specific requirements for you at this time due to the fact that street improvements exist. 2. A traffic impact fee may be assessed by ACRD and will be due prior to the issuance of a building permit. Contact ACRD Planning & Development Services at 387-6170 for information regarding impact fees. Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINOPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAL DATE OF FEBRUARY 16, 2006 C. Legal Description ,r a A Planeer Ccmgray PIONEER TnU COMPANY oP ADA co[rcry 703S. Aanedcarcu, State 1901 Boise, Idaho 83702 (208)373.3744 AOA 04UNTYRUMBER 1 SAW NAVARRO AMOUNT 3.00 1 I BOISE IDAHO OIT3004 04-40 PTI OEPOTY FiVAUm R ED-REQUESTOE 01llllflllmw 104I12EI P0IIt1011�1 6YARRANTY DEED For Velure Recdved Five Diamond Pro p0dics, LLC, an Idaho limited IiahilTry coatPay heednsAer referred to as Granter, does hereby grant, b argala, sell, w:uraat and convey a10 Davfd A. Bach and K— G Boleti, hnsba� sod w,& hereuciRer referred to as Granter, whale catrsvt address (s 3'V,7'1 the fo➢owiag described Prciu a to -wit. e"-6 �! - f 1%E Lot 3 In Block 1 of the Lot Liao Adjustment Survey. Record of Smvey No. 2066, recorded Fehnmgq 6. 1992 as tastma¢m No. 920721, offrcW rmw Lot 3 is mare patim&,ly described ss foRaws: whk said Lot 3. EXCEP`r the W- 2"" feel tbereof All m Block 1 ofTrearvre VeNay Business Caner - records 1t according t0 Idaho, afoetal plat thereat records of Ada C",, filed 790 d in Book 53 ofPlats pages 4thm 7492, h Tex Parcel 88525100420 To BAVE AND TO HOLD the ®id pretrdsea, wtlh their aPlummmcea wao die said Great", his heirs is lhe sad assigns forwer. And the wid Grantor does hereby Covenant to and wilh the said Grater. ghat Grantor Mrs � leev let rind R oaP f m% �e. drat said U.S.Palm ars Oce Goa an emymhrancey except Cwrem «ml easements vTs$le upon Um eft . Potent reservazioas. restrictions -%=c is of record, whatsoever. Pt'emises• sad that Omntor alll warrant and defend the sura Gom an claims Dated: -Bust 31.2004 Five 7ad Properties, LLC Phf11p C. Roark, A bar Bim/• �•� IT. L Rou- k, V STATE OF IDAHO. Co mlyofAda, ss Augm, M -red PhUip C. Roark Roark anI h mar Roark, . lieJora me Jau L 81me6 ."p. bl c personally �beksy— Sheryl [. Roark, (mowo of identified to be Troth otitic Gaited BabiB gec(s) In a limited liability cmnany, of Five Diamond Pro pmies� LM �rlonY and due rtswtber(s)lmarragcr(s) who subsrnbed said a Idaho aarnr to the foregolag imoarmt, "'d acknowledged to me that holshet Ilmitc j fiab➢Ity eontpany llmhed fiaMlry CO�ny namer they eaxuted the same mid Exhibit C e q AA, e fie' r rangy[ fa!<A In i rrrrr6.lellr:...... Exhibit C CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN*pARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAL DATE OF FEBRUARY I 6, 2006 D. Required Findings from Zoning Ordinance 1. Conditional Use Permit Findings: 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 building and uses on this site can accommodate and meet all dimensional and development regulations of this district. The Commission finds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the required yards (setbacks), parking, landscaping and other features required by the ordinance. 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in accord with the requirements of this Title. The Commission finds that the designated Comprehensive Designation for this property is Mixed -Use Regional. The proposed use is generally harmonious with the requirements of the UDC (see Sections 8 and 10, above for more information regarding the requirements for this use.) 3. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. The Commission finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the general design, construction, operation, and maintenance of an office and retail building should be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing and intended character of the area. 4. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. The Commission finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the proposed uses will not adversely affect other property in the area. 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools, parks, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, and sewer. The Commission finds that sanitary sewer, domestic water, refuse disposal, and irrigation are currently available to the subject property. Please refer to any comments prepared by the Meridian Fire Department, Police Department, Parks Department, Sanitary Services Corporation and ACRD. Based on comments from other agencies and departments, staff finds that the proposed use will be served adequately by all of the public facilities and services listed above. 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. Exhibit D CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIAPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAADATE OF FEBRU ARY 16, 2006 If approved, the applicant will be financing any improvements required for development. The Commission finds there will not be excessive additional requirements at public cost and that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the community's economic welfare. 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. The Commission recognizes that traffic and noise will increase with the approval of office and retail uses in this location; however, staff does not believe that the amount generated will be detrimental to the general welfare of the public. The Commission does not anticipate the proposed use will create excessive noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors. The Commission finds that the proposed uses 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 health, safety or environmental problems associated with this project that should be brought to the Commission's attention. The Commission finds that the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural, scenic or historic feature of major importance. Exhibit D • CUP 05-061 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING March 2, 2006 APPLICANT Mark Chang ITEM NO. 3-H REQUEST Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law - 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 - 3155 East Fairview Ave. AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: / A A t, Emailed: COMMENTS See attached Findings Date:Z � APP Phone: f3� S3 ?() v v Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER u Cwa nnr r,w�j; . a malrm_ 4 In the Matter of a Conditional Use Permit request 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. Case No(s). CUP -05-061 For the Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: February 16, 2006 A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 16, 2006 incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 16, 2006 incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 16, 2006 incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 16, 2006 incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law 1- The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the "Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975," codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code (I.C. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has, by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted August 6, 2002, Resolution No. 02-382 and Maps. 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-5A. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP -05-061 - PAGE I of 4 • 0 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this Decision, which shall be signed by the Commission Chair and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk upon the applicant, the Planning Department, the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. 7. That this approval is subject to the Site Plan, and the Conditions of Approval all in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 16, 2006 incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the Planning & Zoning Commission's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11-5A and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: I. The applicant's Site Plan as evidenced by having submitted the Site Plan dated October 12, 2005 is hereby conditionally approved; and, 2. The following modifications to site specific conditions were made at the Planning & Zoning Commission hearing: a. That the applicant may be allowed to construct angle parking adiacent to the off-site drive-through lane if the drive aisle is increased to 23 feet measured back of stall to face of curb)(see Condition 13 in Exhibit B of the Staff Report for the hearing date of February 16 2006) 3. The site specific and standard conditions of approval are as shown in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 16, 2006 incorporated by reference. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits 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 conditional use permits that also require platting, the final plat must be recorded within this eighteen (18) month period. For projects with multiple phases, the eighteen (18) month deadline shall apply to the first phase. In the CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP -05-061 - PAGE 2 of 4 event that the development is made in successive contiguous segments or multiple phases, such phases shall be constructed within successive intervals of one (1) year from the original date of approval. If the successive phases are not submitted within the one (1) year interval, the conditional approval of the future phases shall be null and void. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11 -5B -6.G.1, the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the use not to exceed one (1) eighteen (18) month period. Additional time extensions up to eighteen (18) months as determined and approved by the Commission may be granted. With all extensions, the Director or Commission may require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11. E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code 67-8003, a denial of a plat or conditional use permit entitles the Owner to request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than twenty-eight (28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review may be filed. 2. Please take notice that this is. a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian, pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521 an affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the issuance or denial of the conditional use permit approval may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. F. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of February 16, 2006 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP -05-061 - PAGE 3 of 4 • 0 By action of the Planning & Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the day of M(jTV-N , 2006. COMMISSIONER MICHAEL ROHM (Chair) COMMISSIONER DAVID MOE COMMISSIONER WENDY NEWTON-HUCKABAY COMMISSIONER KEITH BORUP COMMISSIONER DAVID ZAREMBA Attest: ara Green, Deputy City Clerk VOTED VOTED t_ a.r a VOTED VOTED 'L A ta VOTED_ U� LNM 0 CHA ICHAEL ROHM Copy served upon Applicant, The Planning Department, Public Works Department and City Attorney. ry� By: City Clerk Dated: CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP -05-061 - PAGE 4 of 4 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINOPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAL DATE OF FEBRUARY 16 2006 STAFF REPORT Hearing Date: 2/16/2006 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: C. Caleb Hood Current Planning Manager 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: Denny's Restaurant • CUP -05-061 a X grid- -- F.� a,•r � r 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 L SUMMARY DESCRIPTION The applicant, Mark Chang, is requesting Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval to construct a 12,680 square foot commercial building. If approved, the proposed building will house a Denny's Restaurant and retail uses. The site is located on the south side of Fairview Avenue, approximately 900 feet east of Hickory Avenue. Concurrent to the CUP application, the applicant is requesting design review approval, as this property is located on an Entryway Corridor. The property is currently zoned I -L (Light Industrial.) The proposed building is located within Treasure Valley Business Center (TVBC). The existing Development Agreement for this site allows, among other uses, office, retail and restaurant uses in the I -L zone. The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for the Treasure Valley Business Center, subjects all development within TVBC to obtain CUP approval. 2. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Below, staff has provided detailed analysis and recommended conditions of approval for the requested Conditional Use Permit application. Staff recommends a royal of the sub'ect a lication CUP -OS -061 with the conditions contained in Exhibit B. 3. PROPOSED MOTIONS Approval 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 with the following modifications to the conditions of approval: (add any proposed modifications). I further move to direct staff to prepare an appropriate findings document to be considered at the next Planning and Commission hearing on March 2, 2006. Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move deny File Number CUP -05- 061 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 16, 2006, for the following reasons: (you must state specific reasons for denial.) I further move to direct staff to prepare an appropriate findings document to be considered at the next Planning and Commission hearing on March 2, 2006. Continuance Denny's Restaurant CUP -05-061 PAGE I CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIAPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAL DATE OF FEBRUARY 16, 2006 After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to continue File Number CUP -05-061 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (you should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) 4. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS a. Site Address/Location: 3155 E. Fairview Avenue/south side of Fairview Avenue, generally west of Eagle Road. Section 8, T3N RIE b. Owner: Mark Chang 4425 Desert Hollow Glendale, AZ 85310 c. Applicant: Mark Chang 4425 Desert Hollow Glendale, AZ 85310 d. Representative: Billy Rae Strite, BRS Architects e. Present Zoning: I -L f. Present Comprehensive Plan Designation: Commercial g. Description of Applicant's Request: The applicant is requesting Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval to construct a 12,680 square foot commercial building. If approved, the proposed building will house a Denny's Restaurant and future retail uses. The proposed building is located on Lot 2, Block 1, Treasure Valley Business Center Phase 1. The applicant is proposing to provide 111 parking spaces on this site. 1. Date of CUP site plan (attached in Exhibit A): October 10, 2005 2. Date of Landscape plan (attached in Exhibit A): October 5, 2005 3. Date of Building Elevations (attached in Exhibit A): September 28, 2005 and October 7, 2005 h. Applicant's Statement/Justification: Having completed this task, again, as a result of the previously -approved master plan for the Treasure Valley Business Center (CUP -02-036), the applicant, Mark Change, respectfully requests Conditional Use approval to construct a single building in which the first phase is to house a Denny's Restaurant. It is the applicant's intent to complete the entire site work as delineated on the site plan, including the required cross access and shared parking to the west. We believe this application is consistent with the original approval and the Comprehensive Plan and meets the dimensional standards of the zone (please see applicant's submittal letter.) 5. PROCESS FACTS a. The subject application will in fact constitute a conditional use as required by the previously approved concept master plan for this site. By reason of the provisions of UDC 11-5B-6, a public hearing is required before the City Council on this matter. Denny's Restaurant CUP -05-061 PAGE 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIAPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA DATE OF FEBRUARY 16, 2006 b. Newspaper notifications published on: January 30" and February 13d, 2006 c. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: January 20", 2006 d. Applicant posted notice on site by: February 6`b, 2006 6. LAND USE a. Existing Land Use(s): Vacant. b. Description of Character of Surrounding Area: This area is rapidly transitioning into a commercial area. There are new restaurants and other commercial users to the east and west of the subject site. The lot to the south and the large property across Fairview Avenue from this site have not yet been developed. C. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning 1. North: Agricultural, zoned RUT (Ada County) 2. East: Commercial buildings, zoned I -L (TVBC & Krispy Kreme) 3. South: Vacant, zoned I -L (TVBC) 4. West: Commercial building, zoned I -L (TVBC) d. History of Previous Actions: In 1985 a 23 lot subdivision, Treasure Valley Business Center Phase I, was recorded on the southwest comer of Eagle Road and Fairview Avenue. In 2002, a conditional use permit application (CUP -02-036) and re -subdivision application (PP - 02 -024) was submitted to the City which included eight of the lots in TVBC #1. A Site Specific Condition of Approval for CUP -02-036 requires all future uses within this development to obtain CUP approval. This site is part of CUP -02-036. e. Existing Constraints and Opportunities 1. Public Works Location of sewer: There is an eight -inch sewer main in the commercial drive aisle on the east side of this property. Location of water: There is an eight -inch water main in the commercial drive aisle on the east side of this property, and a twelve -inch main in Fairview. Issues or concerns: None. 2. Vegetation: N/A 3. Flood plain: N/A 4. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: N/A 5. Hazards: N/A 6. Existing Zoning: I -L 7. Size of Property: 1.7 acres f. Conditional Use Information: 1. Non-residential square footage: 12,680 square foot building 2. Proposed building height: 17 feet, 6 inches 3. Number of Residential units: 0 g. Off -Street Parking: Denny's Restaurant CUP -05-061 PAGE 3 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN*PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAL* DATE OF FEBRUARY 16, 2006 1. Parking spaces required: 26 2. Parking spaces proposed: 111 3. Compact spaces proposed: 14 4. Off-site parking proposed: The applicant is proposing to construct 10 parking spaces on the west side of the building that span the existing property line. Due to the proposed drive-through near these parking spaces and the narrow width of the drive - aisle, staff is recommending that this partially off-site parking be removed. h. Summary of Proposed Streets and/or Access (private, public, common drive, etc.): The access to the building will be through the previously approved access points to Fairview Avenue with Treasure Valley Business Center Phase I. There is an existing, shared driveway to Fairview Avenue located at the east property line (Krispy Kreme), and an existing access point located approximately 100 -feet to the west of the western property line (Office Value). This is the last vacant parcel in TVBC #1 with frontage on Fairview Avenue. The applicant is proposing to connect the existing drive -aisles to the east and west, thereby allowing vehicles to access all of the businesses within TVBC without being forced to enter Fairview Avenue or Eagle Road. There is an existing cross -access agreement for the lots within TVBC #1 to share the approved access points to Fairview Avenue. The applicant is proposing to record a cross -access and parking agreement with the property owner to the west. Staff is supportive of the proposed cross -access and cross -parking agreement. 7. COMMENTS MEETING On January 27, 2006 Planning Staff held an agency comments meeting. The agencies and departments present include: Meridian Fire Department, Meridian Police Department, Meridian parks Department, Meridian Public Works Department, and the Sanitary Services Company. Staff has included all comments and recommended actions as Conditions of Approval in the attached Exhibit B. 8. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS This property is designated "Commercial" on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this property and apply to the proposed development (staff analysis in italics): • Require that development projects have planned for the provision of all public services. (Chapter VII, Goal III, Objective A, Action 1) When the City established its Area of City Impact, it planned to provide City services to the subject property. The City of Meridian plans to provide municipal services to the lands in the following manner: • Sanitary sewer and water service will be extended to the project at the developer's expense. • The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Meridian Rural Fire District. Once annexed the lands will be under the jurisdiction of the Meridian City Fire Department, who currently shares resource and personnel with the Meridian Rural Fire Department. • The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Ada County Sheriff's Office. Once annexed the lands will be serviced by the Meridian Police Department (MPD). • The roadways adjacent to the subject lands are currently owned and maintained by the Ada County Highway District (ACID). This service will not change. Denny's Restaurant CUP -05-061 PAGE 4 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINOPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAS DATE OF FEBRUARY 16, 2006 • The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian School District #2. This service will not change. • The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian Library District. This service will not change and the Meridian Library District should suffer no revenue loss as a result of the subject annexation. Municipal, fee -supported, services will be provided by the Meridian Building Department, the Meridian Public Works Department, the Meridian Water Department, the Meridian Wastewater Department, the Meridian Planning Department, Meridian Utility Billing Services, and Sanitary Services Company. • "Restrict curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets." (Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective D, Action 2) The applicant is not proposing any new access points to Fairview Avenue with the subject application. All vehicular access will be taken from the existing driveways to/from Fairview Avenue. • "Require all commercial businesses to install and maintain landscaping." (Chapter V, Goal III, Objective D, Action 5) The applicant is proposing to install internal and perimeter landscaping. Please see the CUP Analysis in Section 10 below for more information on landscaping this site. • "Require appropriate landscape and buffers along transportation corridors (setback, vegetation, low walls, berms, etc.)." (Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective D, Action 4) The applicant is proposing to construct a landscape buffer along Fairview Avenue, an entryway corridor. Please see Section 10 below for information regarding landscaping on this site. • "Plan for a variety of commercial and retail opportunities within the Impact Area." (Chapter VII, Goal 1, Objective B) Staff believes that the proposed uses do contribute to the variety of uses in this area. Staff believes that the proposed restaurant and retail uses are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the previously approved applications for this site. Staff recommends that the Commission rely on any verbal or written testimony that may be provided at the public hearing when determining if the applicant's request is appropriate for this property. 9. ZONING ORDINANCE a. Allowed Uses in Industrial Districts: UDC Table 11-2B-2 lists the permitted, accessory, and conditional uses in the I -L zoning district. Restaurants are allowed as an accessory use in the I- L zone. Retail uses are allowed as an accessory use in the I -L zone. The existing Development Agreement for this site allows, among other uses, office, retail and restaurant uses in the I -L zone, with CUP approval. b. Purpose Statement of Zone: The purpose of the I -L District is to provide for convenient employment centers of light manufacturing, research and development, warehousing, and Denny's Restaurant CUP -05-061 PAGE 5 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINAPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAL* DATE OF FEBRUARY 16 2006 distributing. In accord with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, the I -L District is intended to encourage the development of industrial uses that are clean, quiet and free of hazardous or objectionable elements and that are operated, entirely, or almost entirely, within enclosed structures. Accessibility to transportation systems is a requirement of this District. c. General Standards: No dimensional modifications are being requested for the proposed development; full compliance with the UDC is required. This site/building is subject to design review. Analysis of the design standards for buildings located in designated design review areas are provided in Section 10 below. 10. ANALYSIS a. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation As mentioned above, this site, and all of the Treasure Valley Business Center is currently zoned for industrial uses. However, this site has conceptually been approved for commercial uses. Staff finds that the proposed restaurant and retail uses are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the existing uses in this area. Staff is generally supportive of the site plan landscape plan, and elevations submitted for this site. Parkin -: The applicant is proposing to construct 111 parking stalls for this use; 26 parking stalls are required by Ordinance. UDC Table 11-3C-1 requires 90 -degree parking stalls to be 19 -feet long, adjacent to 25 -foot wide drive aisles. UDC 11 -3C -5B4 allows parking stall dimensions to be reduced by 2 feet in length if 2 feet is added to the width of the sidewalk or landscape area. Compact stalls may be reduced in depth by an additional two feet. UDC 11 -3A -17A requires sidewalks to be at least 5 -feet wide. The applicant is proposing to construct some 17 -foot long stalls on this site, adjacent to 6 -foot wide sidewalks and 5 -foot wide landscape strips. The applicant is also proposing to construct some compact stalls that are only 7.5 feet wide by 13 feet long. The applicant should construct parking in accordance with the provisions listed above. See Exhibit B below. The applicant is proposing to construct 10 angle parking stalls on the west side of the proposed building. This parking is directly adjacent to a one-way drive-through lane. Staff believes that this parking may be problematic and cause conflicts. Because there appears to be adequate parking spaces on this site without the 10 angle parking spaces on the west side of the building, staff recommends that this parking not be constructed. See Exhibit B below. One bicycle parking space shall be provided for every 25 vehicle parking spaces (UDC 11 -3C - 6G). Provide a minimum 4 -bicycle rack on this site. See Exhibit B. Access: There is an existing agreement for the lots within Treasure Valley Business Center Phase I to share the access points to Fairview Avenue. The applicant has submitted a draft copy of a cross -parking and cross -access agreement with the property owner to the west (Buich). Staff is supportive of the recordation of a document that will allow cross -access and cross -parking among the two parcels. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) permit, the applicant should submit a copy of a recorded cross-access/cross-parking agreement with the Property owner to the west. See Exhibit B below. Landscaping_ The landscape plan prepared by Harvest Design, P.C., on 10-5-05, labeled Sheet LS -1 is approved with the following modifications/notes: • Provide a landscape buffer along Fairview Avenue that is at least 35 -feet wide, exclusive of right-of-way (UDC 11 -3B -7C 1). • Provide at least 8 trees within the Fairview Avenue landscape buffer; seven currently shown (UDC 11-3B-7C3b). Denny's Restaurant CUP -05-061 PAGE 6 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN*pARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARgV DATE OF FEBRUARY 16 200 6 UDC 11 -3B -5H requires all landscape areas to be at least 70% covered with vegetation at maturity, with mulch used under and around the plants. Provide landscape materials within all landscape areas, including Fairview Avenue, consistent with UDC 11-3B. There is an existing median in the center of the eastern driveway to Fairview Avenue. Half of this median is on the subject site, and half of this median is on the adjacent owner's property. This median has created havoc for the Meridian Fire Department, Sanitary Services Company, and other large vehicles that try to maneuver into and out of this driveway. The applicant should coordinate the removal of this median with the adjacent property owner. A written certificate of completion shall be prepared by the landscape architect, designer, or qualified nurseryman responsible for the landscape plan and submitted prior to occupancy of the building. All standards of installation shall apply as listed in UDC 11-3B-14. Submit a landscape plan, reflecting the changes/notes mentioned above, with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. Certificate of Zoning Comyliance• The purpose of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) Permit is to ensure that all construction, alterations and/or the establishment of a new use complies with all of the provisions of the UDC before any work on the structure is started and/or the use is established (UDC 11 -5B -1A). To ensure that all of the conditions of approval listed in Exhibit B are complied with, the applicant should be required to obtain a CZC permit and occupancy from the Planning Department. Design Review Standards (UDC 11-3A-19): Staff fords that the subject site complies with the standards for uses along entryway corridors as follows: 1. Architectural Character: a. Facades: Facades visible from a public street shall incorporate modulations in the facade, roof line recesses and projections along a minimum of twenty percent (20%) of the length of the facade. b. Primary public entrance(s): The primary building entrance(s) shall be clearly defined by the architectural design of the building. Windows, awnings, or arcades shall total a minimum of thirty Percent (30%) of the facade length facing a public street. c. Roof lines: Roof design shall demonstrate two or more of the following: a) overhanging eaves b) sloped roofs; c) two (2) or more roof planes; d) varying parapet heights; and e) cornices. , d. Pattern variations: At least two (2) changes in one (1) or a combination of the following shall be incorporated into the building design: color, texture and/ materials. e. Mechanical equipment: All ground -level and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be screened to the height of the unit as viewed from the property line. 2. Color and materials: Exterior building walls shall demonstrate the appearance of high-quality materials of stone, brick, wood or other native materials. Acceptable materials include tinted or textured masonry block, textured architectural coated concrete panels, tinted or textured masonry Denny's Restaurant CUP -05-061 PAGE 7 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINGOARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE DATE OF FEBRUARY 16, 2006 block, or stucco or stucco -like synthetic materials. Smooth -faced concrete block, tilt -up concrete panels, or prefabricated steel panels are prohibited except as accent materials. 3. Parking Lots: No more than seventy percent (70%) of the off-street parking area for the structure shall be located between the front fagade of the structure and abutting streets, unless the principal building(s) and/or parking is/are screened from view by other structures, landscaping and/or berms. 4. Pedestrianwalkways• a. A continuous internal pedestrian walkway that is a minimum of eight feet (8') in width shall be provided from the perimeter sidewalk to the main building entrance. The walkway width shall be maintained clear of any outdoor sale displays, vending machines, or temporary structures. b. The internal pedestrian walkway shall be distinguished from the vehicular driving surfaces through the use of pavers, colored or scored concrete, or bricks. c. Walkways at least eight feet (8) in width, shall be provided for any aisle length that is greater than one -hundred fifty (150) parking spaces or two hundred feet (200') away from the main building entrance. d. The walkways shall have weather protection (including but not limited to an awning or arcade) within twenty feet (20) of all customer entrances. The buildin elevations r aced by BMS Architects Sheet CU -2 dated 10-7-05and Kenneth L. Butts Sheet A2A, dated 9-28-051 are approved as they comply with the Design Review standards contained in UDC 11-3A-19. b. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of CUP -05-061 for Denny's Restaurant as presented in the Staff Report for the hearing date of February 16, 2006 based on the Findings of Fact as listed in Exhibit C and subject to the conditions of approval as listed in Exhibit B. 11. EXHIBITS A. Drawings 1. Date of CUP Site Plan: October 12, 2005 2. Date of Landscape plan: October 5, 2005 3. Date of Building Elevations: September 28, 2005 and October 7, 2005 B. Conditions of Approval 1. Planning Department 2. Public Works Department 3. Fire Department 4. Police Department 5. Ada County Highway District (ACRD) 6. Sanitary Services Company C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code Denny's Restaurant CUP -05-061 PAGE 8 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINGOARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIODATE OF FEBRUARY 16 2006 A. Drawings 1. CUP Site Plan (dated: October 12, 2005) Exhibit A Page I 01 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINSPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAL* DATE OF FEBRUARY 16, 2006 2. Landscape Plan (Dated October 5, 2005) FJ�'SLTW'i Mt+LAS1Yl�y�.y�CEyy. ,� E � Y �� J i Exhibit A Page 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINCOARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIODATE OF FEBRUARY 16, 2006 3. Building Elevations x 4 Exhibit A Page 3 TV'Lax 9XVI-1J CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINAWARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAADATE OF FEBRUARY 16, 2006 Exhibit A Page 4 Nham, r4_1, lip CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING*ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE ATE OF FEBRUARY 16, 2006 Exhibit A Page 5 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINAPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE DATE OF FEBRUARY 16, 2006 Exhibit A Page 6 m CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINAARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE ATE OF FEBRUARY 16, 2006 B. Conditions of Approval 1. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1.1 The applicant shall comply with all conditions of approval for Treasure Valley Business Center Phase I, and Treasure Valley Business Center #3 (CUP -02-036 & PP -02-024) as part of the subject Conditional Use Permit (CUP -05-061). The Site Plan labeled as CU -1, prepared by BRS Architects, dated October 12, 2005 is approved, with the conditions listed herein. 1.2 All 90 -degree parking stalls shall be 19 -feet long, adjacent to 25 -foot wide drive aisles; 17 -foot long stalls may be constructed on this site, adjacent to 7 -foot wide sidewalks and 7 -foot wide landscape strips. Compact stalls may be reduced an additional 2 -feet. 1.3 The proposed angle parking on the west side of the building, adjacent to the proposed drive- through, is tiet approved if the spaces are enlarged and moved to the west to enlarge the drive aisle behind them to provide 23 -feet measured between the back of the stalls and the curbing adiacent to the off-site drive-through lane 1.4 Provide a minimum 4 -bicycle rack on this site. 1.5 Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) permit, the applicant shall submit a copy of a recorded cross-access/cross-parking agreement with the property owner to the west. 1.6 The landscape plan prepared by Harvest Design, P.C., on 10-5-05, labeled Sheet LS -1 is approved with the following modifications/notes: • Provide a landscape buffer along Fairview Avenue that is at least 35 -feet wide, exclusive of right-of-way (UDC 11 -3B -7C 1). • Provide at least 8 trees within the Fairview Avenue landscape buffer; seven currently shown (UDC 11-3B-7C3b). • UDC 11 -3B -5H requires all landscape areas to be at least 70% covered with vegetation at maturity, with mulch used under and around the plants. Provide landscape materials within all landscape areas, including Fairview Avenue, consistent with UDC 11-3B. • There is an existing median in the center of the eastern driveway to Fairview Avenue. Half of this median is on the subject site, and half of this median is on the adjacent owner's property. This median has created havoc for the Meridian Fire Department, Sanitary Services Company, and other large vehicles that try to maneuver into and out of this driveway. The applicant should coordinate the removal of this median with the adjacent property owner. • A written certificate of completion shall be prepared by the landscape architect, designer, or qualified nurseryman responsible for the landscape plan and submitted prior to occupancy of the building. All standards of installation shall apply as listed in UDC 11-3B-14. Submit a landscape plan, reflecting the changes/notes mentioned above, with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. 1.7 This project complies with the Design Review requirements of UDC 11-3A-19. The building elevations prepared by BRS Architects (Sheet CU -2, dated 10-7-05)) and Kenneth L. Butts (Sheet A2A, dated 9-28-05) are approved. Exhibit B Page 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINAARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE ATE OF FEBRUARY 16, 2006 1.8 To ensure that all of the conditions of approval for CUP -05-061 are complied with, the applicant shall be required to obtain a Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) permit, and occupancy, from the Planning Department prior to operation. NOTE: The future tenant(s) in the retail portion of the subject building shall not be required to obtain CUP approval, unless required by the UDC. 1.9 All required improvements must be complete prior to obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy for the proposed development. A temporary Certificate of Occupancy may be obtained by providing surety to the City in the form of a letter of credit or cash in the amount of 110% of the cost of the required improvements (including paving, striping, landscaping, and irrigation). A bid must accompany any request for temporary occupancy. 1.10 No signs are approved with this CUP application. All business signs require a separate sign permit in compliance with the sign ordinance. 1.11 The applicant shall have a maximum of 18 months to commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval listed above. If the business has not begun within 18 months of approval, a new conditional use pen -nit must be obtained prior to operation. 2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2.1 Sanitary sewer service to this development is being proposed via extension of mains in the commercial drive aisle to the east of this property. The applicant shall install all mains necessary to provide service; applicant shall coordinate main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub -grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2 Water service to this site is being proposed via extension of mains in Fairview Road. The applicant shall be responsible to install all water mains necessary to serve this development, coordinate main size and routing with Public Works. 2.3 The applicant may be required to loop the water system to achieve any necessary fire flow requirements. 2.4 A drainage plan designed by a State of Idaho licensed architect or engineer is required and shall be submitted to the City Engineer (Ord. 557, 10-1-91) for all off-street parking areas. Storm water treatment and disposal shall be designed in accordance with Department of Environmental Quality 1997 publication Catalog of Storm Water Best Management Practices for Idaho Cities and Counties and City of Meridian standards and policies. Off-site disposal into surface water is prohibited unless the jurisdiction which has authority over the receiving stream provides written authorization prior to development plan approval. The applicant is responsible for filing all necessary applications with the Idaho Department of Water Resources regarding Shallow Injection Wells. 2.5 The applicant shall provide a 20 -foot easement for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way (include all water services and hydrants). The easements shall be dedicated as a separate document using the City of Meridian's standard forms. Submit an executed easement (supplied by Public Works), a legal description, which must include the area of the easement (marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2" x 11" map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. 2.6 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. Exhibit B Page 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAWNGOARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE DATE OF FEBRUARY 16, 2006 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 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 2.9 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES Permitting that may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency. 2.10 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.11 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material. 3. FIRE DEPARTMENT 3.1 Acceptance of the water supply for fire protection will be by the Meridian Fire Department and water quality by the Meridian Water Department for bacteria testing. 3.2 Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department. a. Fire Hydrants shall have the 4 %Z" outlet face the main street or parking lot aisle. b. The Fire hydrant shall not face a street which does not have addresses on it. C. Fire hydrant markers shall be provided per Public Works specifications. d. Fire Hydrants shall be placed on corners when spacing permits. e. Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10'. f. Fire hydrants shall be place 18" above finish grade. g. Fire hydrants shall be provided to meet the requirements of the IFC Section 509.5. h. Show all proposed or existing hydrants for all new construction or additions to existing buildings within 1,000 feet of the project. 3.3 All entrance and internal roads and alleys shall have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside radius. Remove the e sting median located in the center of the roadway near Fairview Avenue entrance. 3.4 Operational fire hydrants, temporary or permanent street signs and access roads with an all weather surface are required before combustible construction is brought on site. 3.5 For all Fire Lanes, provide signage "No Parking Fire Lane". 3.6 Fire lanes and streets shall have a vertical clearance of 13'6". This includes mature landscaping. 3.7 Building setbacks shall be per the International Building Code for one and two story construction. 3.8 Commercial and office occupancies will require a fire -flow consistent with the International Fire Code to service the proposed project. Fire hydrants shall be placed per Appendix D. 3.9 Maintain a separation of 5' from the building to the dumpster enclosure. 3.10 Provide a Knox box entry system for the complex prior to occupancy. Exhibit B Page 3 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEDATE OF FEBRUARY 16, 2006 3.11 The Fire Dept. has concerns about the ability to address the project and have the addresses visible from the street which the project is addressed off of. Please contact Vicki Heugly at 898-5500 to address this concern prior to the public hearing. 3.12 Provide exterior egress lighting as required by the International Building & Fire Codes. 3.13 Where a portion of the facility or building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction is more than 400 feet (122 m) from a hydrant on a fire apparatus access road, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building, on-site fire hydrants and mains shall be provided where required by the code official. For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2 the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183). a. For Group R-3 and Group U occupancies, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m). b. For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 M). 3.14 There shall be a fire hydrant within 100' of all Fire Department connections. 3.15 Emergency response routes and fire lanes shall not be allowed to have speed bums. 4. POLICE DEPARTMENT 4.1 Recommend restricting the access at the Fairview Avenue entrance to be right-in/right-out only. 5. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT 5.1 It has been determined that the Right -of -Way and Development Services Department does not have ay site specific requirements for you at this time due to the fact that street improvements exist. 5.2 A traffic impact fee may be assessed by ACHD and will be due prior to the issuance of a building permit. Contact ACHD Planning & Development Services at 387-6170 for information regarding impact fees. 6. SANITARY SERVICES COMPANY 6.1 Please contact Bill Gregory at SSC (888-3999) for detailed review of your proposal and submit stamped (approved) plans with your certificate of zoning compliance application. Exhibit B Page 4 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING*ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIWATE OF FEBRUARY 16, 2006 C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code 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 building and uses on this site can accommodate and meet all dimensional and development regulations of this district. Parking stalls are required at the ratio of one space per 500 square feet of gross floor area in commercial districts (UDC 11-3C-6). Per this requirement, 26 stalls are required. There are 111 parking stalls proposed on this site, with designated handicap accessible stalls. This provision exceeds the City's minimum parking stall ratio. The Commission finds that the project should have ample parking. The Commission finds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the required yards (setbacks), parking, landscaping and other features required by the ordinance. 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in accord with the requirements of this Title. The Commission finds that the designated Comprehensive Designation for this property is Commercial. The property is currently zoned I -L, with a requirement for CUP approval of each building/use. The proposed use is generally harmonious with the requirements of the UDC (see Sections 8 and 10, above for more information regarding the requirements for this use.) 3. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. The Commission finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the general design, construction, operation, and maintenance of a restaurant and retail building should be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing and intended character of the area. 4. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. The Commission finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the proposed uses 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. Exhibit D Page l CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINGOARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEATE OF FEBRUARY 16, 2006 The Commission finds that sanitary sewer, domestic water, refuse disposal, and irrigation are currently available to the subject property. Please refer to any comments prepared by the Meridian Fire Department, Police Department, Parks Department, Sanitary Services Corporation and ACRD. Based on comments from other agencies and departments, the Commission finds that the proposed use will be served adequately by all of the public facilities and services listed above. 6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. If approved, the applicant will be financing any improvements required for development. The Commission finds there will not be excessive additional requirements at public cost and that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the community's economic welfare. 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. The Commission recognizes that traffic and noise will increase with the approval of restaurant and retail uses in this location; however, the Commission does not believe that the amount generated will be detrimental to the general welfare of the public. The Commission does not anticipate the proposed use will create excessive noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors. The Commission finds that the proposed uses 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 finds that there should not be any health, safety or environmental problems associated with this subdivision. The Commission finds that the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural, scenic or historic feature of major importance. Exhibit D Page 2 e 0 AZ 05-058 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING March 2, 2006 APPLICANT Todd Campbell ITEM NO. 4 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from February 2, 2006 - Annexation and Zoning of 49.95 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Keego Springs Subdivision - 5910 North Black Cat Road AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Emailed: COMMENTS See Previous Item Packet / Minutes Date: Phone: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ME b 1S.+. .. {F yn d } s 1_ is t �3 ME MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING March 2, 2006 APPLICANT Todd Campbell ITEM NO. 5 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from February 2, 2006 - PreliminaryPlat approval of 201 building lots and 9 common lots on 49.95 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Keego Springs Subdivision - 5910 North Black Cat Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: See Previous Item Packet / Minutes In AZ Packet CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY VO CITY POLICE DEPT: , F T�I CITY FIRE DEPT: 5 x CITY BUILDING DEPT: ter. CITY WATER DEPT. CITY SEWER DEPT: x CITY PARKS DEPT: .' MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: f� p . SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: s - IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: k Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented of public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. s gj e t, S I� nn s i r 5 • :" 3 �' P. N d SN x a y�.. 2 A AZ 05-067 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING February 16, 2006 APPLICANT Insight Architects ITEM NO. ' REQUEST Annexation and Zoning of 6.9 acres from Ada County RUT to R-15 Medium r High Density residential zone for Casa Meddiana - 1777 Victory Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: � j p CITY ENGINEER: g 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 Merldlan. �a �4 3 S� I'd '✓f y� � � M .��t" Rsik 1v� .. �} 4.�.. 3C'8 �"A �3`� '{� �s Y+�' ` +rY t 3`.L SF .Mw iK� 'iS'ti'".}^ee nl < <r k ,S 94� fR# Aw a r_ e ki -2» ..yp ..� �.. r, $$apt ffi� y, 'Y14.., %r '� '' i i � i 5,✓"y,��} .. tJ 6 i `c 9bx�a6 by "` - i CUP 05-060 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING March 2, 2006 APPLICANT Insight Architects ITEM NO. % k REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from February 16, 2006 -Conditional Use Permit for a 32 unit multi -family development in a proposed R-15 zone for Casa Meddiana - 1777 Victory Road 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: Y MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: ' SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: 3 IDAHO POWER: m4 INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. t ,, k fix: i .. , "�•n MTh` x. sx N k LE x+ k Yr ^" " 7y,�a. t4."- m x' M1: tY i' -, �, X £J° G*t4"`��' if `i Y.k `t' ''+"!ti-➢. _ tY •s,�.}+, fq' �r ai: •Yi ` u -4 3 ! ✓" z e "'°5 x`"iRw{ F f n r "Y- v. ¢ • 0 AZ 06-005 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING March 2, 2006 APPLICANT Sea 2 Sea, LLC ITEM NO. 8 REQUEST Annexation and Zoning of 58.56 acres from RR to R-4 (32.86 acres), TN. -C (14.54 acres) and C -C (11.16 acres) for Knight Sky Estates Subdivision - northwest comer of Chinden Boulevard and Linder Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See affidavit of Posting See memo for Continuance No Comment Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ,.rt.; � �� da L� �- +r3 ✓ �'�� � .s,.. t ,9iv ;. ,�, K4[b9 ,� t k !*$ ,l. 3 v u y kn } "f ? P i & # i sii MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING March 2, 2006 APPLICANT Sea 2 Sea, LLC ITEM NO. 9 REQUEST Preliminary Plat approval of 126 residential lots (24 townhouse lots and 102 detached single-family lots), 7 commercial lots and 26 common lots on 55.83 acres in proposed R-4, TN -C and C -C zones for Knight Sky Estates Subdivision AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: COMMENTS See memo for continuance In AZ Packet Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. x � r r x R " at,;fv.: fa 4= i Y, i S3 f d sT s 4 {} x � r AZ 06-003 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING March 2, 2006 APPLICANT Hightower, LLC ITEM NO. 10 REQUEST Annexation and Zoning of 24.03 acres from RUT to R-8 (12.31 acres), R-15 (7.53 acres) and C -C (4.19 acres) for Hightower Subdivision - southwest corner of Chinden Boulevard and Jericho Road AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Emailed: COMMENTS See memo for continuance No Comment See attached Comments Date: Phone: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. 3 � 55 Yr3 �s t ;✓� '�3 a i �` d k S, gy gg Y 0 d .Tj' key i ^6+. r t XZ`.k{?"§id„ } �,p t 0 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8, ZONING MEETING March 2, 2006 APPLICANT Hightower, LLC ITEM NO. i 1 REQUEST Preliminary Plat approval of 106 residential lots, 4 commercial lots, 2 private street lots and 25 common lots on 22.94 acres in proposed R-8, R-15 and C -C zones for Hightower Subdivision - southwest comer of Chinden Blvd. and Jericho Road 0 AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See memo for continuance In AZ packet 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 attached Comments SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: See attached Comments IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted• Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff initials: �— Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the CHy of Meridian. 0 o CUP 06-004 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING March 2, 2006 APPLICANT Hightower, LLC ITEM NO. 12 REQUEST Conditional Use Permit for a Mixed Use Planned Development that includes single-family detached, townhouse units, commercial uses, private streets, a neighbor- hood park and a vehicular access to Chinden Blvd. for Hightower Subdivision AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Emailed: COMMENTS See memo for continuance in AZ packet Date: Staff Initials: Phone: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. ,.zt t e i '4 4`Ci ;P f,-�k. S'NA Ltl u- ri Y 9� ftp a no Y Rye r # AZ 06-006 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING March 2, 2006 APPLICANT Sea 2 Sea, LLC ITEM NO. 3 REQUEST Annexation and Zoning of 10.01 acres from RUT to C -G zone for Knighthill Center Subdivision - southwest comer of Linder Road and Chinden Boulevard AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: 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: No Comment CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See affidavit of Posting Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. 0 i. WIN MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING March 2, 2006 APPLICANT Sea 2 Sea, LLC ITEM NO. 14 REQUEST Preliminary Plat approval of 4 commercial building lots and 1 common lots on 10.01 acres in a proposed C -G zone for Knighthill Center Subdivision - southwest comer of Linder Road and Chinden Boulevard AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Emailed: COMMENTS See Staff Report In AZ Packet Date: Phone: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. < < acs ;r 3 � 07, 04 2 £ ff�1. 3, ks,� i v ^> f 5 , f d T 7r 0 ! � . fP MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING March 2, 2006 APPLICANT Strada Bellissima, LLC ITEM NO. is REQUEST Annexation and Zoning of .43 acres from RUT to L -O (Limited Office District) for Strada Bellissima Subdivision Outparcel - 3015 South Meridian Road AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: COMMENTS See attached Staff Report k 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: Y CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: ' INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: ' OTHER: See affidavit of Posting Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: <µ Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. l.�'. J • ;t€ift VA4r r iF dyu �� .. HT , �- "� � ! - � - _ ., •' �s �,,,, � aV baa � , tj,- 4yc:. ! . -.5. G G PPS { } `,'a` x Fy s CUP 06-005 E MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING March 2, 2006 `4 APPLICANT Brighton Development ITEM NO. 6 Y S REQUEST Modification of a Conditional Use to allow zero lots line setbacks Lots on 1-6 Block 27, Lots 1-7 Block 28, Lots 1-7 Block 29, Lots 1-7 Block 30 of Quenzer Commons t Subdivision No. 9 - west of North Locust Grove Road and south of East McMillan Road AGENCY m COMMENTS CITY CLERK: ' CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See attached Staff Report CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: 'K .55 < CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: < CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: No Comment ,. CITY PARKS DEPT: 4 MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: a SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: 45 ne- IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: f Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. } '� C;' ' ""i { .;�*YM .., v4 n�- t`tj X�i,'c 'i rs' fl`q+ #k`k4,.u'}7% C `4 t,", i+e7h 7Zn9, � e f 4 e v v icy ' .: i 3 j: �Rt4>w3 Vit,.., •`t 4 4 ` ,. F y4 t 2 1 641, {� 4 5 ' ,SAY k d� ,.,3,k'` -y f.' 5 { Y 4r+1 • MERIDIAN PLANNING 8, ZONING MEETING March 2, 2006 • AZ 05-038 APPLICANT Dyver Development, LLC ITEM NO. 17 REQUEST Annexation and Zoning of of 38.5 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Irvine Subdivision - southeast comer of Ten Mile Road and Chinden Boulevard AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT. CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Emailed: See affidavit of Posting COMMENTS See attached Staff Report Date: Phone: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. • MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING March 2, 2006 • PP 05-037 APPLICANT Dyver Development, LLC ITEM NO. 18 REQUEST Preliminary Plat approval of 175 building lots and 12 common lots on 38.5 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Irvine Subdivision - southeast comer of Ten Mile Road and Chinden Boulevard AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT. CITY FIRE DEPT. CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Emailed: COMMENTS See Staff Report in AZ Packet No Comment See attached Comments See attached Comments See attached Comments See attached Revised Preliminary Plat Date: Phone: Staff Initials: Materials Presented at public meetings shall become property of the CHy of Meridian. CUP 05-039 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING March 2, 2006 APPLICANT Dyver Development, LLC ITEM NO. 19 REQUEST Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for single family detached residential units and single family attached residential units in a proposed R-8 zone for Irvine Subdivision - southeast comer of Ten Mile Rd. & Chinden AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: COMMENTS Applicaflon Withdrawn Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. F �,f i it III t?r 3?tF 3� O • AZ 06-007 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING March 2, 2006 APPLICANT Providence Development Group, LLC ITEM NO. 20 REQUEST Annexation and Zoning of 59.88 acres from RUT To R-8 zone for Solitude Subdivision - southeast corner of East McMillan Road and North Meridian Road AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Emailed: COMMENTS See attached Staff Comments No Comment See affidavit of Posting Date: Phone: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. � t � rk c u Y+ �,a PP 06-006 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8, ZONING MEETING March 2, 2006 5 APPLICANT Providence Development Group, LLC 21 ITEM NO. e REQUEST Preliminary Plat approval for 225 single family residential lots and 16 other lots for Solitude Subdivision - southeast corner of McMillan Road and Meridian Road AGENCY COMMENTS ., CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Staff Report in AZ Packet CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: �� v." CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: See attached Comments q z _ SANITARY SERVICES: ten" ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: x IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: �sv OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City Meridian. of --------------- S. �flF q i x St 'k .. Sn P i {' .xJ f•ik .2 ,i t.�1f �t k To l�.,f}''47y # Ys+= ' - ''a5 _ `" t rid T t. gl- N" � i 9 fi n W104 t� 3 Fz. AZ 06-004 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING March 2, 2006 APPLICANT Treehaven, LLC 22 .; ITEM NO. REQUEST Annexation and Zoning of 358.57 acres from RR to R-2 (66.02 acres), R-8 w (167.02 acres), R-15 (79.82 acres), C -N (17.26 acres) and C -C (28.45 acres) for The Tree Farm - north side of Chinden Blvd. on both sides of Black Cat Rd.; west of Spurwing Sub AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: ;. 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: No Comment CITY PARKS DEPT: �1t MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: See attached Comments SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: See attached Comments ` Y NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: �k SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: aw, INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. r � a• e f hex t F'{en55i b '� •.s - 'k •w.i %h # i:yX S K R q, ik'sq� ;rf 4tin 3k�• S '^Ar r d„ua t sit ia+ ,. 5 d ';