The URL can be used to link to this page

2006 05-18CITY OF MERIDIAN MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Thursday, May 18, 2006, at 7:00 P.M. City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho `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 _O Keith Borup X David Moe - Vice Chairman _X David Zaremba X Michael Rohm - Chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: Approve 3. Consent Agenda: A. Tabled from May 4, 2006: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 06-010 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a drive through within 300 feet of a residence for Cherry Crossing Drive Through by Mike Robnett — 1760 West Cherry Lane: Approve 4. Presentation on Economic Update and Enterprise Zones by Cheryl Brown: Presented 5. Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: AZ 06-009 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 19.57 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Cedarcreek Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC — 470 West McMillan Road: Continue Public Hearing to June 1, 2006 6. Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: PP 06-007 Request for a Preliminary Plat with 85 single-family residential lots and 12 common lots for Cedarcreek Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC — 470 West McMillan Road: Continue Public Hearing to June 1, 2006 7. Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: AZ 06-008 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 23.39 acres from RUT to R-4, C -C and L -O zones for South Eagle and Victory Road Property Owners Alliance Annexation by the South Eagle and Victory Road Property Owners Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — May 18, 2006 Page 1 of 2 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. 0 C7 Alliance — east side of South Eagle Road on both the north and south sides of Victory Road: Recommend Approval to City Council 8. Public Hearing: RZ 06-003 Request for a Rezone of 3.13 acres from R- 4 (Low -Density Residential) to L -O (Limited Office) for Hastings by Monterey, LLC — 2300 West Everest Lane: Recommend Approval to City Council 9. Public Hearing: RZ 06-004 Request for a Rezone of 5.49 acres from R- 4 to R-15 (2.17 acres) and L -O (3.32 acres) for Rushmore Subdivision by SLC Investments, LLC — 1021 West Pine Avenue: Recommend Approval to City Council 10. Public Hearing: PP 06-021 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 7 building lots and 2 common lots on 5.49 acres in proposed R-15 and L -O zones for Rushmore Subdivision by SLC Investments, LLC — 1021 West Pine Avenue: Recommend Approval to City Council 11. Public Hearing: CUP 06-014 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for 24 multi -family dwelling units in a proposed R-15 zone for Rushmore Subdivision by SLC Investments, LLC — 1021 West Pine Avenue: Recommend Approval to City Council 12. Discussion of Procedures of Meetings Ordinance: Discussed / Move Forward for Discussion on June 1, 2006 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — May 18, 2006 Page 2 of 2 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. 0 CITY OF MERIDIAN MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Thursday, May 18, 2006, at 7:00 P.M. City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho "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 endance: Wendy Newton-Huckabay Keith Borup David Moe - Vic Chairman David Zaremba Michael Rohm - Chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: A p proVe 3. Consent Agenda: A. Tabled from May 4, 2006: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 06-010 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a drive through within 300 feet of a residence for Cherry Crossing Drive Through by Mike Robnett - 1760 West Cherry Lane: AfP rove - 4. Presentation on Economic Update and Enterprise Zones by Cheryl Brown: Pre�� 5. Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: AZ 06-009 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 19.57 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Cedarcreek Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC - 470 West McMillan Road: C (�l ihl cel j� 1 (ae AfGli'rn-7'66-/-Q6 6. Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: PP 06-007 Request for a Preliminary Plat with 85 single-family residential lots and 12 common lots for Cedarcreek Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC - 470 West McMillan h � 4ea_r i e7j -U 7. Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: AZ 06-008 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 23.39 acres from RUT to R-4, C -C and L -O zones for South Eagle and Victory Road Property Owners Alliance Annexation by the South Eagle and Victory Road Property Owners R(fCDi7ft-)erjd Appp-DVe_P -& Ci� C7e->W?( ?-�',C'n Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — May 18, 2006 Page 1 of 2 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. F-3 9. 10. 11. 12 C] Alliance — east side of South Eagle Road on both the north and south sides of Victory Road: keorrmer /ipprovai -/v OHy 6141vi Public Hearing: RZ 06-003 Request for a Rezone of 3.13 acres from R- 4 (Low -Density Residential) to L -O (Limited Office) for Hastings by Monterey, LLC — 2300 West Everest Lane: 12eCom wend AAPM✓&-� *?I_ Cowlax lax Public Hearing: RZ 06-004 Request or Rezone of 5.49 acres from R- 4 to R-15 (2.17 acres) and L -O (3.32 acres) for Rushmore Subdivision bjSLC Investments, LLC — 1021 West Pine Av nue: jVPr0Vae _4D Public Hearing: PP 06-021 Request for°Preliminary Plat approval of 7 building lots and 2 common lots on 5.49 acres in proposed R-15 and L -O zones for Rushmore Subdivision by SLC Investments, LLC — 1021 West Pine Avenue: 4J,,0 rb , j�y 6D anao',e Public Hearing: CUP 06-014 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for 24 multi -family dwelling units in a proposed R-15 zone for Rushmore Subdivision by SLC Investments, LLC — 1021 West Pine Avenue: e -b vn a _rwt .PPxDV0 --)b 0- y C6Ur10j°,0 Discussion of Procedures of Meetings Ordinance: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — May 18, 2006 Page 2 of 2 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. n I o � CITY OF MERIDIAN MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Thursday, May 18, 2006, at 7:00 P.M. City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho "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. Tabled from May 4, 2006: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 06-010 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a drive through within 300 feet of a residence for Cherry Crossing Drive Through by Mike Robnett — 1760 West Cherry Lane: 4. Presentation on Economic Update and Enterprise Zones by Cheryl Brown: 5. Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: AZ 06-009 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 19.57 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Cedarcreek Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC — 470 West McMillan Road: 6. Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: PP 06-007 Request for ' a Preliminary Plat with 85 single-family residential lots and 12 common lots for Cedarcreek Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC — 470 West McMillan Road: �4 7. Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: AZ 06-008 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 23.39 acres from RUT to R-4, C -C and L -O zones for South Eagle and Victory Road Property Owners Alliance Annexation by the South Eagle and Victory Road Property Owners Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — May 18, 2006 Page 1 of 2 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. a A 4.4. t , $ V ..,,.,. `3'�� . .:w.X V p Alliance — east side of South Eagle Road on both the north and south sides of Victory Road: 8. Public Hearing: RZ 06-003 Request for a Rezone of 3.13 acres from R- 4 (Low -Density Residential) to L -O (Limited Office) for Hastings by Monterey, LLC — 2300 West Everest Lane: 9. Public Hearing: RZ 06-004 Request for a Rezone of 5.49 acres from R- 4 to R-15 (2.17 acres) and L -O (3.32 acres) for Rushmore Subdivision by SLC Investments, LLC —1021 West Pine Avenue: 10. Public Hearing: PP 06-021 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 7 building lots and 2 common lots on 5.49 acres in proposed R-15 and L -O zones for Rushmore Subdivision by SLC Investments, LLC — 1021 West ` Pine Avenue: v 11. Public Hearing: CUP 06-014 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for 24 multi -family dwelling units in a proposed R-15 zone for Rushmore Subdivision by SLC Investments, LLC —1021 West Pine Avenue: 1 - k 12. Discussion of Procedures of Meetings Ordinance: i i ) { v A' f F h 3Li v� { 1. k x a �F k fi C Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — May 18, 2006 Page 2 of 2 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. m 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. t j { 1F y. ;a r k ei it, .Y "` .'r.x ,r: E •4 sib§ p$yr r1 }'.2 .z1'.tyin f ** TX MOTION REPORT ** DATE TIME TO/FROM MODE MIN/SEC PGS 05/18 22:06 PUBLIC WORKS EC—S 00'43" 002 05/18 22:07 WATER DEPT EC—S 00'43" 002 05/18 22:09 2088840744 EC—S 00'44" 002 05/18 22:10 POLICE DEPT EC—S 00'43" 002 05/18 22:11 8985501 EC—S 00'42" 002 05/18 22:12 LIBRARY EC—S 00'43" 002 05/18 22:14 2083776449 EC—S 00'43" 002 05/18 22:15 3886924 EC—S 00'42" 002 05/18 22:16 P -AND -Z EC—S 00'42" 002 05/18 22:17 FIRE DEPT EC --S 00'43" 002 05/18 22:19 208 888 2682 EC—S 00'43" 002 05/18 22:20 208 387 6393 EC—S 00'43" 002 05/18 22:23 2085052 EC—S 00'43" 002 05/18 22:24 LAKEVIEW GOLFCOU G3—S 01'21" 002 05/18 22:26 IDAHO ATHLETIC C EC—S 00'42" 002 05/18 22:27 ID PRESS TRIBUNE EC—S 00'43" 002 05/18 22:29 2088886701 EC—S 00'43" 002 05/18 22:33 3810160 EC—S 01'09" 002 05/18 22:44 FOR CTY DEVELMT --S 00'00" 000 THIS DOCUMENT IS STILL IN MEMORY MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho 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-callendance: &-rr� ��( 9 9 3T) iWendy Newton-Huckabay Keith Borup J n David Moe - Vi Chairman David Zaremba Michael Rohm - Chairman A. ' Tabled from May 4, 2006: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 06-010 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a drive through within 300 feet of a residence for Cherry Crossing Drive Through by Mike Robnett —1760 West Cherry Lane: Approve - Presentation on Economic Update and Enterprise Zones by Cheryl Brown: Pre -ser -t4, -d1 Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: AZ 06-009 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 19.57 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Cedarcreek Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC — 470 West McMillan Road: C or?4ii ued Pub Gd l�ec�r:�,9 -1b 6 -/--De Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: PP 06.007 Request for a Preliminary Plat with 85 single-family residential lots and 12 common lots for Cedarcreek Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC — 470 West McM oRoad: "eat P/•, bfi'e %�eGf i r' /l� �v (o—� (o Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: AZ 06-008 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 23.39 acres from RUT to R-4, C -C and L -O zones for South Eagle and Victory Road Property Owners Alliance Annexation by the South Eagle and Victory Road Property Owners eC°DYYih7er1d ApproVA-0 -& L' , J1 a"n a' Q Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - May 18, 2006 Page 1 of 2 All materials prasentod at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiong accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings please contact the City Clerk's Office at WO -4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 0 COMMUNICATIONS REPORT* TOTAL PAGES SEND 0049 RECEIVE 0001 DATE TIME TO/FROM 05/18 08:30 05/18 13:28 2089394445 05/18 15:07 208 376 2611 05/18 22:06 PUBLIC WORKS 05/18 22:07 WATER DEPT 05/18 22:09 2088840744 05/18 22:10 POLICE DEPT 05/18 22:11 8985501 05/18 22:12 LIBRARY 05/18 22:14 2083776449 05/18 22:15 3886924 05/18 22:16 P -AND -Z 05/18 22:17 FIRE DEPT 05/18 22:19 208 888 2682 05/18 22:20 208 387 6393 05/18 22:23 2088885052 05/18 22:24 LAKEVIEW GOLFCOU 05/18 22:26 IDAHO ATHLETIC C 05/18 22:27 ID PRESS TRIBUNE 05/18 222:29 2088886701 05/18 22:33 3810160 05/18 22:44 ADA CTY DEVELMT MODE EC --R EC --S EC --S EC --S EC --S EC --S EC --S EC --S EC --S EC --S EC --S EC --S EC --S EC --S EC --S EC --S G3 --S EC --S EC --S EC --S EC --S ----S fe AS OF MAY 19 '06 05:00 PAGE.01 CITY OF MERIDIAN TOTAL TIME SEND 00"17'47" RECEIVE 00000'19" MIN/SEC PGS 00'19" 001 00'30" 002 03'22" 011 00'43" 002 00'43" 002 00'44" 002 00'43" 002 00'42" 002 00'43" 002 00'43" 002 00'42" 002 00'42" 002 00'43" 002 00'43" 002 00'43" 002 00'43" 002 01'21" 002 00'42" 002 00'43" 002 00'43" 002 01'09" 002 00'00" 000 CMD# STATUS 028 OK 029 OK 031 OK 033 OK 033 OK 033 OK 033 OK 033 OK 033 OK 033 OK 033 OK 033 OK 033 OK 033 OK 033 OK 033 OK 033 OK 033 OK 033 OK 033 OK 033 OK 033 BUSY Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting May 18, 2006 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of May 18, 2006, was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Michael Rohm. Members Present: Michael Rohm, Keith Borup, David Zaremba, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, and David Moe. Others Present: Bill Nary, Machelle Hill, Caleb Hood, 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 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission to order and begin with the roll call. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: Rohm: At this time I'd like to open a little discussion on the adoption of the agenda. Items 5 and 6, which are both related to Cedarcreek Subdivision, those two items will be continued to the very next P&Z meeting, which will be June, I believe, 1st. And so if there is anybody here tonight for those items, it will not be heard tonight. So, with that being said, I'd like to have an entertained motion to accept the agenda. Zaremba: So moved. Moe: Second. Rohm: Moved and seconded to accept the agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 3: Consent Agenda: A. Tabled from May 4, 2006: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 06-010 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a drive through within 300 feet of a residence for Cherry Crossing Drive Through by Mike Robnett - 1760 West Cherry Lane: Rohm: Okay. Item 3 on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and it was tabled from the May 4th, 2006. It's the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for CUP 06-010, Meridian Planning & Zoning Comm* May 18, 2006 Page 2 of 47 related to Cherry Crossing Drive-thru, and if there are no objections to the adjustments made in that, we will entertain a motion to accept that. Moe: So moved. Zaremba: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to accept the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 4: Presentation on Economic Update and Enterprise Zones by Cheryl Brown: Rohm: At this time we'd like to have a presentation from our Economic Development Director. Brown: Good evening. I will try to talk fast and make this as short as possible and as painless. What you don't have in your packet is a piece of information that I use when I go out on site visits. I know we have talked about a medical district and I just kind of want to highlight that tonight for you and talk a little bit about it. In this packet I have our circumference population map, ranging five miles to 20 miles, showing that Meridian is the only city that can pull the workforce population out of the valley. Another piece I have in here is a letter from myself, a letter from the Mayor, and a letter from Chamber -- from the Commerce and Labor Department, how well they work with the City of Meridian and everything is addressed only for Meridian. One of the requests I get is -- and these are primarily for the out-of-town companies that are looking to come to Idaho, is where are all the higher education institutions located. So, I have this mapped out here showing, again, Meridian is central to everything. Another question that they want to know are where are the airports and not just the Boise airport, but where can they fly their private planes into. Where are the executive hangars. So, I have those charted on here as well. When they are comparing Meridian with the other Treasure Valley cities, it shows here unanimously that Meridian is the place where all the growth is happening. have -- this one speaks for itself and is a very good piece. Permitting times. And what am doing with this one is adding a comparison to other cities of the same size as Meridian. In here is the boundaries of the medical district that we are looking at. I have taken the major medical facilities, where they are located, and grafted them onto this map, showing Silverstone, EI Dorado, Pinebridge being our next project that will be coming up. This is a 170 acre mixed use project. Right now it's up at three million square feet. To give you an idea, Silverstone is 1.5. So, this would be twice the size of Silverstone. And you will be seeing that coming through very soon. Within this medical area here I have highlighted and grafted, as I said, who they are, where they are, and what they are. So, you have got each business park where -- who is in these business parks. And you have what industry they are in. If it's OB -GYN. If it's imaging. What industries are in Meridian. Then I have it -- this district highlighted within the area of Meridian Planning & Zoning Commit May 18, 2006 Page 3 of 47 impact boundary showing where in Meridian it's located. Pinebridge, again, like I said here, has frontage on Fairview, Locust Grove, Pine and Eagle Road. This is going to be a great campus style design, very pedestrian friendly. Lots of water features. Pathways. Just a rough idea of kind of the plan that we are working on with it. So, this is one piece that I'm using that -- the next piece I'm working on is one for the downtown area and how we can attract more businesses downtown. If you look at the Idaho insert here and go to the little tab, this Meridian ad here is going all over the country. You can see from this map here it's hitting a million and a half passengers on the Sky West, United Express flights for the whole month of May and June and it is just advertising Meridian. The next group of numbers that you have here is our residential versus commercial volume. This is the number of permits and it's charted back from January 2003 to the current April 2006. So, you can kind of get an idea the growth and where we have come. We have come a long way. The next page is the value comparison, showing what dollar amounts have been brought into the city. The next page is the percentage, what percentage of commercial do we have compared to residential and how has that been building since '03. You have another page in there, the last page is the largest employers in Meridian list and this is just of kind telling us who they are, how many employees they have, and what their product or their service is. Another one that I am currently working on is all of the business parks, what percentage of build out are they at, what percentage do they have left, what the square footage is, what their valued amount is, and I will have that for the next quarterly report. You have two maps in there with yellow highlights. This is the wireless mesh area we are looking at for downtown. It's a 12 block area. We sent an RFP out. This is through MDC. They will be the deciding factor on this. This is where it lies within the urban renewal district. This is the 12 block area we are looking at here. And this is just a closer picture. We are going over the pre-bid applications next Thursday for this. And we are just looking at the wireless outside network, so that people can be -- in Generations Plaza people can be out eating at restaurants and be able to jump on their laptop and have wireless access. This is my economic development implementation plan and this is what I'm following. Just to give you an idea which areas I'm focusing on, downtown is a big one, our districts are a big one. Meridian's identity and marketing and working with the resource center, they are the ones that did the ad for the airline magazine. I'm working with them on branding and putting professional packets together to send out through the mail and send out electronically as well. So, I won't bore you with anymore numbers. I have got all the -- what's happening where, but like Mr. Nary said -- do you have any questions that I can answer for you? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: Ms. Brown, on what may or may not be called enterprise zones, but the cohesive districts, what kind of response are you getting? Brown: Wonderful. Wonderful response. For the medical district, the Mayor and myself are going out doing site visits. We are targeting the medical industry and this is e Meridian Planning & Zoning CommisslaFi May 18, 2006 Page 4 of 47 anything medical related. Manufacturing. Insurance. Anything. We are meeting with these companies that are already in Meridian and saying how can we bring your venders here to help support your business? Who can we bring here to help your business? So, we are working with them that way. The downtown area is going to be more of the techy-type district, with the computer programmers, computer gamers, the type of people who are going to be living on top of the condos with the mixed use buildings for downtown, looking retail on the bottom, office on the second, and, then, condos on the top. And we are integrating with the wireless mesh network. Zaremba: Cool. Brown: Yeah. It is. Other projects I have been working on is the Alcohol Beverage Control liquor license legislation that is going to be continued on to next session. Trying to free up some of the liquor licenses for our town, which is growing so fast. I work with the Boise Valley Economic Partnership, the Idaho Economic Development Association, the chamber office, and MDC together -- we all work together. And Commerce and Labor. Rohm: Good. Sounds like you have been keeping busy. Brown: I have. Zaremba: And it sounds like you're being effective. That's great. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chairman. Ms. Brown, you had stated that Pinebridge is going to front on Fairview? Brown: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: Where is it going to come around and -- Brown: There is -- you can tell on the map I gave you. There is a little piece there that has -- it is between Meridian Road and Locust Grove. There is a little piece right there. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Nary: East of the little shopping center that has -- Brown: Yes. Nary: Next to D&B there is a small little shopping center. It's just east of that. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. s Meridian Planning & Zoning Commissl3n May 18, 2006 Page 5 of 47 Brown: It's a 170 acre project. The value on that is roughly 500 million dollars, is what that project will be worth. Just the ground alone is 50 million. So, you will be seeing that coming through fairly soon. I think you will really like that one. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. And I have one other question, just for my own education. What is -- on the residential versus commercial volume comparison -- Brown: Uh-huh. Newton-Huckabay: -- what would be the desired industry standard? I imagine it needs more residences than it does commercial development to support that. What's the -- Brown: What's the ideal -- Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. Brown: You know, each city is different. Newton-Huckabay: Right. Brown: There is no set amount. The more commercial base we have the better our tax base. Newton-Huckabay: Right. Brown: The more we can keep our residents local and not, you know, clogging up our roads as well. I would like to see it a lot higher than it is. Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh. Is there maybe a -- a statistical ratio by square foot, possibly, that -- Brown: No. Newton -H uckabay: Okay. Brown: No, there is really not, because each city is just really different. Some people want the big commercial base. Other cities don't. They want to keep it very quaint, very homey, very residential. And they don't want that commercial base. So, each city is different. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thanks. Zaremba: Well, I have expressed my opinion on that before. I think we need to take advantage of all the traffic that's coming through here and give them reasons to stop and spend their money. Meridian Planning & Zoning CommissTBn • May 18, 2006 Page 6 of 47 Brown: Yes. Yes. Zaremba: I'm all in favor of as much commercial as we can have. Brown: And it is just daily. I have tenant lists for all of the corporate business parks and they are changing daily with tenants coming in. So, our commercial base really is climbing. Newton-Huckabay: It's just -- and I honestly -- is the city partnering or working any way with the owners of the Jabil building to -- Brown: Yes. Yes. Newton-Huckabay: -- try to get something to go there? Brown: I have shown that to a few companies and right now it is under contract with a developer from Seattle. He isn't sure what he's going to do with the building. It's just too big for everybody I have been showing it to. It's 357,000 square feet. It's a wonderful facility. But we have numerous businesses look at it and it was just too big. So, it's still undecided what this developer is going to do with it. Newton-Huckabay: Is everyone looking at it from a single use standpoint? Have you had any queries from a multi -use? Brown: I have had everything. I've had everything. Multi -use to single use. Yeah. Manufacturing to retail. Everything. Newton-Huckabay: It is a very big facility. Brown: We are working on it. We are really really working on that. Zaremba: I suspect that will become even more attractive when the Locust Grove overpass is right next to it. Brown: Yes. Yes. Zaremba: Give it more access. Brown: It will. Newton-Huckabay: What district is it? Is doesn't actually fall in one of the -- Brown: No. Newton-Huckabay: --the ideal districts that you guys have gone through. Okay. • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commit May 18, 2006 Page 7 of 47 Brown: Any other questions? Rohm: Thank you very much. Brown: Thank you. Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: AZ 06-009 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 19.57 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Cedarcreek Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC - 470 West McMillan Road: Item 6: Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: PP 06-007 Request for a Preliminary Plat with 85 single-family residential lots and 12 common lots for Cedarcreek Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC - 470 West McMillan Road: Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the continued Public Hearing from April 20th, 2006, for AZ 06-009 and PP 06-007, for the sole purpose of continuing these two items to the regularly scheduled meeting of June 1st, 2006. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move that at the request of the applicant we re -continue AZ 06-009 and PP 06-007, to our regularly scheduled meeting of June 1st, 2006. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we continue AZ 06-009 and PP 06-007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Just real quick. What do we have in the que for June? Do we -- isit -- Rohm: I believe that we are going to have the third meeting and it will be the fifth Thursday of June. Is that what your question was? Newton-Huckabay: I was just -- I guess that would be the essence of it, yeah. Rohm: At this point in time I believe there has been an agenda created for that fifth Thursday and I couldn't tell you what has been placed on it, but I believe that they are -- the planning staff has intended to add that to our regular schedule. Meridian Planning & Zoning COMA May 18, 2006 Page 8 of 47 Newton-Huckabay: Have we verified that we have a quorum? I, myself, am out of town on business that entire week. Moe: That was what -- the one weekend I was going to have to -- I'm going to have a conflict as well. Rohm: Then, I guess it's up to the remaining three of us to make sure we are here. Zaremba: I will be here. I can't speak for Commissioner Borup, but I will be here. Rohm: Well, I -- Newton-Huckabay: Before we get too -- we might want to verify that. Rohm: When Commissioner Borup gets here we will ask that question. But thanks for bringing that up. Hood: Mr. Chair, if I may, just real quick to follow on that. We are trying to keep that agenda fairly light anyway. So, if it turns out there isn't a quorum -- we have one large project and that's the real reason for the hearing in the first place and I think we have one, maybe two pretty simple, straight forward projects, that are also on our agenda. So, if it turns out that we don't have a quorum, we can sure push them back to July. But that's the reason this one we anticipate will take several hours just to get through it, so -- Rohm: Boy, that sounds fun. Moe: Several hours? Hood: A couple, anyways. Item 7: Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: AZ 06-008 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 23.39 acres from RUT to R-4, C -C and L -O zones for South Eagle and Victory Road Property Owners Alliance Annexation by the South Eagle and Victory Road Property Owners Alliance - east side of South Eagle Road on both the north and south sides of Victory Road: Rohm: Okay. Good. All right. Okay. With that being said, at this time I'd like to reopen the continued Public Hearing from April 20th, 2006, for AZ 06-008, related to the South Eagle and Victory Road Property Owners Alliance Annexation and before we go to the staff report and to any public testimony on this application, this is only being opened to hear testimony associated with the R-4 inclusion to this project. We have heard very thoroughly over the last couple of times it's been opened and the only reason it was continued this last time was it was felt that the change in the application to include an R-4 zone was significant enough that it should be re -noticed. And so with that being said, I'd like to at this time ask for the staff report. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commis May 18, 2006 Page 9 of 47 Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. I'm going to keep this very brief. This item was on the March 16th agenda originally, continued to the 20th of April, and here tonight, as you stated, so we could send out new notices to the property owners. Originally, a C -N zone was proposed for the entire property -- that's the wrong project. And so new notices were sent out to property owners and the Valley Times did publish their -- the new request with the three different zones. The applicant did mention in their last letter about the staff report that I did transpose the acreage of the L- O property and the R-4 property. They are both -- one's at one point something acres and the other one is at two point something acres. But there is a larger portion of the residentially zoned property being proposed. I will scan in the new legal description into the staff report you have now, is the one from the 20th that hasn't been updated for this hearing. I will scan in the new legal descriptions as proposed by the applicant provided by that land surveyor and I will update the acreages that I just mentioned that I transposed in the staff report, as well as updating the process facts to state when the new published dates were in the Valley Times and things. But I have no new information for you. I'm sure you are all familiar with this. You have been through it a few times now and the CPA that was done last fall. So, I will stand for any questions you have at this time. Rohm: Thank you. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman. Caleb, are you satisfied that the new legal descriptions that have been supplied match what they are asking for in the different zones? Hood: Commissioner Zaremba, yes. Steve O'Brien of the Public Works Department came over and gave me his stamp of approval today. They match the concept plan, not exactly. This isn't scaled out on here, but it does generally match up center line of the streets that they are showing, at least between the yellow and the brown and the yellow and the purple. So, yes. Zaremba: Thank you. Rohm: Okay. Thank you, Caleb. At this time would the applicant like to come forward, please? And I remind you we are talking only about the R-4 zoning change and the logic behind the addition of that to this application. Thomason: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. My preparation tonight was regarding a rebuttal, because I wouldn't be speaking in context of the R-4, other than talking about the concept map. I'm sorry. Marty Thomason. I live at 2960 South Eagle Road. And I'm a member of the Property Owners Alliance. So, my understanding from the last meeting is that I would have an opportunity for rebuttal of what the public had testified to and that's what I'm prepared for. I thought what we would be doing first was opening the floor up to the public regarding the R-4. And perhaps I'm misunderstanding here and so I would ask for clarification on that. Meridian Planning & Zoning Comm* May 18, 2006 Page 10 of 47 Rohm: Okay. I think all you need to do, then, is just speak to the logic behind the addition of the R-4 zoning to the application and, then, we can take any public testimony related to that and, then, you can have your full rebuttal after that. So, if, in fact, the change in the application of -- speaks for itself, then, maybe that's where you can leave it and we will take our public testimony and, then, you will have an opportunity to rebut the public testimony. Thomason: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It clearly speaks for itself, so I will let the process continue. Rohm: Okay. Thank you very much. Wow, this is kind of interesting, because we don't have anybody signed up to speak. But at this point the floor is open. Anybody that would like to speak to this application related to the residential inclusion, please, step forward and you will be heard. Okay. Thomason: Again, this is Marty Thomason. I live at 2960 South Eagle Road, Meridian, Idaho. As I said, I'm a member of this Property Owners Alliance and tonight my discussion is really going to be oriented towards the public testimony that was given at the last meeting and I'm going to be relatively brief on that. To do this discussion, I have to rehash some of the things that were talked about at the previous four meetings, but I will move through those rather quickly. Rohm: Please do. Thomason: We are currently zoned RUT as you know. You know our area. We are -- to the north of us is the EI Dorado and Silverstone business park. To the south of us is the new proposed assisted living development. To the east is Sutherland Farms and Boise and so fourth. And to the west is Locust Grove and more subdivisions. We are pursuing a rezoning of our property, because we feel like we are in an island now, that the development plans of the city are passing by, and with all of these things that are going on around us, we determined that we would hire a consultant. You all know this. Wayne Forrey. We asked him to research the highest and best use of our property and in doing that, we determined that it was not appropriately zoned for what was going on around us and so we wanted to pursue a rezoning. I need to make clear, based on the public testimony that was presented last time, why we believe a rezoning is appropriate here. So, I will move through that rather quickly, too. Wayne presented two points. The first is that we are ideally located for community oriented businesses. The second point is there is inadequate commercial zoning in this area. Let's just clarify those two things. We are a mile and a half off the South Eagle Road interchange. It's the first interchange out of the City of Boise. Lots of businesses want to be located here. Lots of residential developers want to do their developments here, because it's the first way that they get those people off the street. The second component is that we are on the south side of 1-84 and that's an important place for residential travel. The fact that Silverstone and EI Dorado are already there makes community -oriented businesses further south more important to service those subdivisions developing to the south of us. The second point that Wayne made in the October 17th meeting is that the commercial Meridian Planning & Zoning Comm* May 18, 2006 Page 11 of 47 zoning in this area isn't adequate. Yes, there is EI Dorado and Silverstone, but they draw from the valley to here. They don't service the adjacent communities that are developing. The Kawalis and Mackey letter I thought made that very clear, which I read at the last meeting, which Wayne had introduced at the October 17th meeting. The second issue is that, yeah, there is commercial zoned land on the middle of the mile between Eagle and Victory -- or, excuse me, on Victory between Eagle and Locust Grove, but there is still the question of when that will develop, what will go in there, is it even enough for the commercial -- or the community oriented businesses that need to come up and support these residential areas. And, again, commercial oriented businesses want to be located in highly visible areas on high traffic zones, which is what our 20 acres represents. This led us to the point of understanding that -- based on Wayne's research and our understanding of what's happening in the City of Meridian, land would not develop under its currents zoning anyway. And with that -- with that mind set, we determined that we would rather have the land rezoned prior to our selling it. The current situation with our land needs to be understood, too, based on the public testimony at the last meeting. Our proposal is unique. I recognize that. It doesn't include a development project. Our proposal is simply for a rezoning and annexation. This land will be developed at some point, though. I don't want to -- I don't want that to be missed here. Our land is going to be developed. We all desire a rural setting. The decision before us today is whether this proposal for rezoning and annexation has merit, not whether our concept map is -- should be a development project. I think the best way to illustrate this issue is to talk about the way the land -- the current situation with the land and the current zoning. Caleb, if I could have that bottom page that just shows the part -- oh, you're ahead of me. Thank you. Ten tax parcels, five property owners. All of these tax parcels -- well, seven of them are under three acres right now and that's an important component to understand, given -- which allows certain flexibilities for our developments today. Three of these parcels could all be split, because of the grandfathered opportunity for the one time split on these parcels. So, the essence is all of this land will be under three acres and I will make clear why that's important in just a moment. Our current situation, in the absence of a rezoning of this entire unit, where this land might develop in a piecemeal fashion, what I want to make clear here, the options that are available for us today are R-8. We are zoned for medium density residential. We could put that on all these properties. That's 160 dwellings on these 20 acres, if we chose to go that route. But, of course, we could do a step up as well, which was discussed at the October 17th meeting, where we could go to high medium density residential, without having to do a rezoning. And that's 15. All of a sudden we are talking about 300 dwellings on these 20 acres on these two arterial roadways. Our next potential option is that we could put light office on all of these parcels now if we sold them individually. According to the resolution amending the text of the City of Meridian's Comprehensive Plan -- and that's Resolution No. 04-454, which states: At the discretion of City Council, areas -- at the discretion of City Council, areas with a residential Comprehensive Plan designation may request office uses, if their property has frontage on an arterial street or section line road and is three acres in size or less. And all of these parcels, as I mentioned, that would be the case with them. So, we already have the flexibility for light office, provided the plan was appropriate without having to do rezoning. The second thing that we need to understand is how the area Meridian Planning & Zoning Comm* May 18, 2006 Page 12 of 47 might develop in a piecemeal fashion in the absence of rezoning this as a block. First of all -- Caleb, if I could have the next page down, please. This is a crude rendering of how the parcels break out. I did it in color so I could highlight the fact that there are several parcels here. If we look at the north corner of Victory and South Eagle Road, there is a parcel in yellow. That's probably the one that would sell first, because that's the one that the market has already expressed the most interest in. It's anybody's guess, I suppose, at this point what would go in there. Obviously, we know it could be R-8, possibly a bump up to R-15 or it could be light office. But I have driven around and looked at what five lane road intersection corners look like and they don't look that way, typically. They look like a bank branch or they look like a convenience store gas station, something that's highly retail in orientation. But, again, that may not go in there, but that's probably the parcel that at that first attempt at rezoning would occur on. The next one may be the parcel that's at the top of the screen, it's a one acre parcel next to the commercial dog kennel of McKibbens Kibby's Kennel. Again, we know what it's zoned, R-8, R-15 potential, or light office, since it's under an acre. But it's backed up against a commercial dog kennel and the owner of which testified at the last meeting that he doesn't want to see residential there, because of the potential difficulties that that would raise in the future. So, again, the buyer of that parcel might likely be interested in pursuing a rezoning for that particular parcel. Not that that would get approved, but that's the issue that we are talking about here in a piecemeal development, there wouldn't be a coordination. The next question is bigger than the others and that is what parcel would go next. If we sold these in parcel by parcel -- and the reason that would occur is because that's probably how us property owners would get the biggest bang for our buck. The reality is that rather than looking at them in some sort of multiple block. The next parcel that would sell is probably the parcel that has the frontage on Victory Road. Again, we know what it's zoned today, R-8, step up to R-15, could go light office, because it would be under the three acres, but is that what would go there, is that what the person who bought it would be interested in doing, would there be an attempt at a rezone, because there is so much of that land that's on the Victory Road arterial frontage. This all raises more issues now. If there is a hodgepodge of development along the arterials, then, what happens at the interiors? What kind of transition, then, is appropriate? Is R-40 appropriate in one of those parcels for transition? Maybe not. I don't know. But it's probably something that would be pursued parcel by parcel. There is the next question of compromise on buffers. We have made tremendous compromises on buffers, which I'll explain in just a moment. But a buyer of each of these parcels piece by piece probably is going to be less inclined to do more than what the code requires in terms of a compromise. And probably wouldn't be required to do more than that either. There is the issue of curb cuts that we have all talked a bunch about. If I could have the transparency portion of that put down. Another crude drawing. This shows the number of curb cuts that would be on this property as of the widening of the South Eagle and Victory Road project. Ada County Highway District has already committed to 14 curb cuts onto these parcels. That's the number of curb cuts that are in their plan. In a piece -by -piece development of this over a several year period, I have no idea how many of these will be eliminated, but it's not as many as we are proposing, I'm sure. Then there is the other issue that's probably close to your home and that's how many hearings will these ten parcels generate. There will be the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commis May 18, 2006 Page 13 of 47 request for a rezone -- I know I'm making light of it here and, of course, I don't have to say anymore, because you recognize the issue. We are convinced this land won't develop under its current zoning. That's what brings this proposal forward. Rohm: And I want to at this point -- this testimony that you're making tonight, really, is part of the original testimony -- Thomason: Yes, it is. Rohm: And we -- we have all got that information before us and I'm not trying to cut you off from the standpoint of not wanting to understand your project, but I think the project is pretty well understood. Thomason: Okay. I appreciate that. Thank you. Rohm: And I will tell you from this Commission, I think that you have done an excellent job trying to lay things out in an orderly fashion and it's made it a much easier job for us to assess it and I thank you for your work and if there is some concluding remarks, you know, I will give you that. Thomason: Okay. Rohm: But I think, really, the project's pretty well understood by this Commission. Thomason: Thank you. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. I will, then, conclude. Yes, have more to say, but I will save that. We have a letter from a resident in Tuscany think that recaps this very well and I will give you each copies of that and I will commit it to the record just as quickly as I can: Dear Marty: As you know, I live in Tuscany and commute on 1-84 to and from work. I don't want to see more residential properties putting more cars on Eagle Road just when I am going to and from work. Furthermore, I would prefer some closer community oriented retail and services that I or my children can get to without going down to Overland or still further away. Therefore, I support the proposal of the South Eagle Road and Victory Road Alliance Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Please feel free to submit this correspondence in support of your Alliance's property to the Commission or City Council, sincerely Clint. And I'll give each of you a copy of that. Rohm: Thank you very much. Thomason: Thank you. Okay. With that, if there are any questions regarding the current concept map, which I don't have up there right now that Caleb went over to begin with. We have put in an R-4 buffer. We are currently zoned R-8. We have more than compromised. We improved several of the conditions, we believe. We have a light office area. Again, that was the compromise of the planning staff. We have put teeth into a development agreement for what can be done in each one of those C -C zoned areas. And, again, we want the C -C zoning because of the flexibility it provides Meridian Planning & Zoning Commit May 18, 2006 Page 14 of 47 us, since this isn't a development project, and our thoughts are that if we develop this property as a whole, the Alliance wants to have it rezoned before we sell it. With that, thank you for your time. Rohm: I appreciate your testimony. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Moe: I have no questions. Rohm: I have no questions. Any questions from you, Commissioner Zaremba? Zaremba: It's all been thoroughly explained. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Thomason: Thank you. Rohm: Okay. Good. Zaremba: But it is nice to have thorough presentations. We are not joking about that. Rohm: Absolutely. Zaremba: We appreciate that. It makes everything clear to begin with. Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I would move to close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-008. Moe: Second. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-008. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, short discussion? Rohm: Short discussion. You're up. Zaremba: Okay. This is a discussion, that as has been mentioned, we sort of had during the Comprehensive Plan amendment hearing as well, as earlier parts of this hearing. I'm inclined to recommend approval of the annexation, but I would add to that Meridian Planning & Zoning Commis3R8n May 18, 2006 Page 15 of 47 a sentence that -- that we do not approve the concept plan for having too many access points. And all it does is put the applicant on notice or any future buyer on notice that when they come in with a real preliminary plat, it probably shouldn't look like this concept plan. Rohm: I think I'd support that same conclusion. Moe: I agree a hundred percent. Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, do you have some thoughts on this before we take a motion? Newton-Huckabay: Nothing additional. As you guys are all aware, I was -- felt like that the Property Alliance had done, each time they have come before us, what they have been asked to do. So, I would like to see this move onto City Council and give the residents of -- in that area the chance and give us an opportunity to see how City Council is going to act and I personally appreciate the fact that this property may all develop at the same time, because you are right, three acre developments, one acre developments, are hard to do and they are very frustrating for me as a Planning and Zoning Commissioner to look at and say, oh, that's a good idea. So, I appreciate the fact that this is going to a large development, hopefully. Rohm: Thank you. And with that being said, would -- Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number AZ 06-008 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 20, 2006, and subsequent continuances, with the following changes: I would note that the concept plan is not approved, as it depicts too many accesses to the future arterials. And, second, I would suggest that when it reaches the City Council agenda it be matched with a previous Comprehensive Plan amendment on the same subject. End of motion. Moe: Would you mind adding the -- basically what we are zoning up to? Because of the continuation of the meeting tonight to bring in the R-4, it might be prudent to make sure that we know that it's the R-4, C -C, and L -O zones that we are approving. Zaremba: That's included. Thank you. Add that to the motion. Moe: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning Comm* • May 18, 2006 Page 16 of 47 Rohm: It's been moved and seconded we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 06-008, to include the staff report and noted amendments for changes to that staff report. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: Again, folks, thank you very much and I appreciate your diligence and you did a great job making your presentation. Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Thomason, you have had enough training now that you will be able to enjoy your new career. You have enough training in this now that you can endeavor into your new career. Item 8: Public Hearing: RZ 06-003 Request for a Rezone of 3.13 acres from R4 (Low -Density Residential) to L -O (Limited Office) for Hastings by Monterey, LLC - 2300 West Everest Lane: Rohm: Public speaking. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on RZ 06-003 for Hastings and begin with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This is a request for a rezone of 3.3 acres from R-4 to L -O. The subject property is located on the south side of McMillan Road. It is two lots within -- I'm sorry, south side of Chinden Boulevard. These two lots within Lochsa Falls Subdivision. These two lots were previously approved as part of the planned development with the use exception for office uses on here. They are zoned R-4. This is pretty much a clean up rezone to zone the property to reflect the future land uses on these lots. In fact, just this last week, I believe, our department has issued two certificates of zoning compliance for two office buildings, one on each lot there. We are also processing a couple of short plat applications, so they can divide the property up into eight total tax parcels, eight total lots, and construct eight separate office buildings is the intent here. But, again, the application before you is just to rezone that to office to match the -- the future land uses. I do want to point out a couple of things. One, there is in the staff report -- I hope it's not confusing, I'm just trying to save myself a little bit of work here when it goes to City Council. I have included the vacation application analysis. You do not need to make an action on that. If you have a feeling one way or the other, you can sure express that to me. It seems pretty -- pretty straight forward as well. I was just trying to incorporate it all, so I can just take this and send it on to City Council as well. There is one thing that I didn't get a chance today -- we had a 3:00 o'clock staff meeting. I did have a chance to talk with Anna a little bit and I apologize to the applicant, I don't exactly know -- there is a recommendation in Exhibit B, it's the third one there, it's more of a heads -up kind of, than anything, for the applicant at this point in time. I guess I should back up a second. The City Council just last week heard Knighthill Center Subdivision, which was before this Commission six weeks ago or so. There was some concern about the lack of sidewalk along Everest Lane. The Mayor and Council had some concerns about if we get a grocery store in here and things, that people in Lochsa will be wanting to walk to Meridian Planning & Zoning Commis3Tdn May 18, 2006 Page 17 of 47 those. So, just based on that concern Anna asked me to look into a sidewalk requirement. Put in the staff report that it's recommended that they construct a sidewalk there on the north side. It's not a condition as its written now. I think before this gets to the City Council we are going to look at amending the existing development agreement. What appears to have happened -- staff brought it up back in 1999 and year 2001 when Lochsa Falls was originally going through. Somehow it doesn't appear as part of the motion that they had that the Council let them off the hook in not having to provide a sidewalk, it just -- it never made it in the Findings. So, I'll do some more research on that before we get to City Council, but it looks like that condition was inadvertently left off the original approval. I haven't had a chance to talk with them about constructing a sidewalk, if that's going to put a huge hiccup in the project or not, but I think that's, really, the only thing that needs to be discussed with this application. It's pretty clean. And basically at the request of city staff and also in order to get their short plats approved. So, with that I will stand for any questions you may have. Rohm: Thank you, Caleb. Any questions of staff? Moe: I just want to make sure I'm in the right spot. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would mention that the discussion you're having about the sidewalk is, actually, in Exhibit A, not -- you mentioned Exhibit B, but it's in Exhibit A. Hood: I'm sorry. Exhibit A has the recommendations for approval or comments I guess they are at this point. I apologize. Moe: 1.13; correct? Hood: Correct. Moe: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: Okay. At this time would the applicant like to come forward, please? Hosac: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, my name is Nate Hosac, one of the owners of Hasting Subdivision and we really have -- really have no comments -- Rohm: Could we get an address, too, please? Hosac: Sorry. The address is 10221 West Emerald. Rohm: Thank you. Hosac: In Boise. And we are in agreement with the findings of staff. I just want to make a quick note on the sidewalk that we are talking about. I don't think we'd have any trouble with the sidewalk at all. It's going to be a pretty heavily developed area when it's done out there and the residents of Lochsa Falls will probably want to use the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commit May 18, 2006 Page 18 of 47 sidewalk. The only gray area is that Everest, as constructed by the Loshsa Falls developer, is pretty narrow. It's very narrow. And, eventually, Everest is going to be kind of a conduit road that goes from the entrance of Lochsa Falls Subdivision over to Linder. Now, when that happens -- and I haven't spoken with ACHD, but I will bet that they will want it widened. And, if so, we would be in the position of, then, tearing out a sidewalk if we go ahead and put it in now. So, I'm not certain if we want to go ahead and put the sidewalk in now or if we want to find out what in the future ACHD is going to have us do, because I think the development on the corner of Chinden and Linder and to the east of our project, are probably a couple two or three years behind us. And that's, really, the only comment. I think a sidewalk is no problem as far as cost or what it does to our project. It doesn't matter, but only that we don't want to put it in, have ACHD come back later, say widen this road and we'd have to tear it back out and build another one. Hood: Mr. Chair, if I may. Members of the Commission. I just -- maybe a little bit of background information. We have talked about all of this before in relation to that Knighthill Center Subdivision. The City Council did require that developer -owner to construct sidewalk -- sorry, I don't want to put this pointer in your eye here. They did require the stub street that comes up here, they did require a sidewalk there, a 25 foot land use buffer adjacent to all the residential. They did require a sidewalk from their extension that comes out at the drive aisle and ties back into Everest Lane. They did require a sidewalk up into their property that they abut. So, the sidewalk would be, you know, right stubbed to that Everest Lane. Now, Everest Lane is a 30 foot wide lot in Lochsa Falls Subdivision No. 12 and there is a 20 foot wide landscape buffer on the south side of that, so there is, really, 50 feet there. However, I don't think ACHD is going to jump in the middle of this or really have anything to say. It's a private lane, an approved private street, so they aren't going to have any requirements and that's really why we need to get a sidewalk, because it's going to need to function as a private drive aisle, essentially, for a service drive for public and private, but ACHD is not going to help us out here and get sidewalk in the future. If that were the case, then, we would just let them do that, but since we approved it as a private street, the sidewalk on the north side seems to be the best location and I guess just to further that thought, we haven't exactly determined the exact location. Probably what makes the most sense is to have just the southern most five feet of your property and do that sidewalk easement. So, that would be taking the 30 feet and making it a 20 foot wide drive aisle and sidewalk, trying to cram it all in there, pave as much of that 30 feet as possible and, then, put a five foot -- give us an easement -- or a pedestrian easement for a sidewalk and we will get that all the way across is kind of a -- Hosac: On the north of the street? Hood: On the north side. Hosac: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning Comm* May 18, 2006 Page 19 of 47 Hood: So, that it's fully on your property and you don't have to go to the homeowners association and say, hey, I want to build a sidewalk in this common lot to do it and, then, it would still get a pedestrian connection as those seven lots come in. So, that's -- that's kind of the idea beyond that requirement, so -- Hosac: Yeah. I can't think of any issues that we'd have with that. You know, if we are confident that the ACHD -- it is private land, so if we are confident that ACHD won't come back and want to do anything with that -- with that lane, then, we have no issues with that. Rohm: It sounds like just something -- change the text of the development agreement to include the addition of the five foot sidewalk, something like that, Caleb? Hood: Yeah. Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. In the motion if you can accept the staffs recommendation, the applicant's willingness to construct a sidewalk on the southern part of their property adjacent to Everest Lane, that would be good enough and we will work on changing the language a little bit to give some more analysis for the City Council, you know, in a separate section or whatever we are talking about that, but we will just update this hearing with that provision. Rohm: Okay. Good. Thank you, Caleb. Thank you. And we do not have anybody signed up for this application to speak in addition to the applicant, but at this time if someone would like to come forward now is the time. Seeing none -- Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I move we close the Public Hearing on RZ 06-003. Zaremba: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on RZ 06-003. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number RZ 06-003 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of May 18th, 2006, with the following change: In Exhibit A, under the planning department, Section 1.3, 1 would just like to extend the information there where staff recommends that the sidewalk be constructed on the north side of Everest Lane and none exists, unless you guys want to put would Meridian Planning & Zoning Commis316n May 18, 2006 Page 20 of 47 be the southern five foot of the applicant's property on the north side of Everest Lane. End of motion. Zaremba: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward on to City Council recommending approval of RZ 06-003, to include all staff comments with the aforementioned changes. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: Well, if we are not going to get to 9:00 o'clock, maybe we should take a 15 minute break now. Zaremba: We are going to miss our break. Rohm: We are going to miss our break. Newton-Huckabay: Give me a break. Item 10: Public Hearing: PP 06-021 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 7 building lots and 2 common lots on 5.49 acres in proposed R-15 and L -O zones for Rushmore Subdivision by SLC Investments, LLC - 1021 West Pine Avenue: Item 11: Public Hearing: CUP 06-014 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for 24 multi -family dwelling units in a proposed R-15 zone for Rushmore Subdivision by SLC Investments, LLC - 1021 West Pine Avenue: Rohm: Okay. And I'm just kidding. We are not going to take a break. Okay. With that being said, at this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on RZ 06-004, PP 06-021, and CUP 06-014. All three items relating to Rushmore Subdivision and begin with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. The Rushmore Subdivision is a rezone of 5.49 acres, approximately half -- the northern half of that property currently contains the Meridian Friends Church. They are proposing to zone that to L- O, office designation, where churches are principally permitted. The southern half is proposed for -- and, I'm sorry, this is skewed a little bit, so the cul-de-sac -- actually, that's -- yeah. I can't really see it. Okay. That's right. There is the lateral, the Nine Mile is at the northern boundary there, which splits the R-15 and the L -O zone. So, there is an existing stub street to the property that the applicant is proposing to add a cul-de-sac and add seven -- or, excuse me, six four-plex buildings on and construct a drive aisle and parking around. So, the cul-de-sac is here. Their drive aisle and parking -- this is a real busy site plan. I'm sorry, I didn't look to see how busy it is. But there is parking adjacent to each one of these six four-plex units. They do have a manager's office on Meridian Planning & Zoning Comm* May 18, 2006 Page 21 of 47 the northern most unit. There are some other amenities. A monument sign. Community mailbox. They will have a bike storage area over in that general location. They do meet all the amenities. They did a pretty nice job of all the required amenities for 20 plus four-plexes. They seem to have complied with that requirement. The only question -- I think -- I'm pretty confident that they meet the calculation for the required open space -- common open space per unit, but I did ask them to calculate how much of this area is common open space in that common lot, just to confirm that there is enough per ordinance required common open space. These are all the same building. Let's see if I have -- there is the elevation. There are two two bedroom units and two three bedroom units in each four-plex. So, there is the front elevation. And with your private usable open space per unit. And a side elevation. So, I think the only other thing I wanted to just point out to you does relate to the church lot. Now, the church is a lot within the subdivision. The only question -- I don't have a very good slide of that either, I apologize. There is an existing parking lot for the church that about two-thirds of it comes right up to Pine and there is not the required landscape buffer there. The other -- approximately a third that's on the eastern boundary of the church was approved by the planning department for a parking lot improvement back in 2000. They did provide the required -- the church -- they being the church, did provide the required landscape buffer adjacent to that portion of Pine. There is a section in the staff report that I would propose to even modify at this point. I think the intent of the development agreement -- if you look at the development agreement starts on page ten. The one I'd like to talk about is the 11 th point in that development -- the development agreement provisions and that talks about alternative compliance. Now, the church is not proposing to do anything at this time. However, they are part of a subdivision. So, we do generally get all the subdivision required improvements when the subdivision comes in. To make the record clean and to just take care of this issue, I believe that the applicant, the church, or whoever -- an alternative compliance request should be submitted to our department so we can evaluate what's there now. If we can mitigate that somehow by planting maybe denser trees or -- or something when the church redevelops. Now, I'm okay with how it is now, they are not proposing to do anything now, but I would just ask the Commission to maybe chime in on that and I'll look for it -- while the applicant's giving their presentation I'll look for that site plan that kind of shows more detail what I'm talking about, how close the parking there on Pine does come to -- encroaches into that required landscape buffer. I really think it's a pretty clean application. I don't have a lot of comments. I would just ask, again, that the applicant clarify their common open space, just to make sure that we have a correct acreage there and percentage of the site. And, then, fencing, I didn't see any fencing on the plan and that's something that usually almost always comes back into question mark. So, we do not require the perimeter to be fenced, just would like some clarification on the intentions to fence the property or the four-plex area or whatever. So, I think with that -- Mike did pull that, so I may just finish off that thought about the landscape buffer at this time. So, here is the existing church building. This is the portion of the parking lot that talked about that has the landscape buffer. Here is the portion that comes up, but the sidewalk is right approximately there. There is two or three feet, maybe, between the stalls and the back of walk, approximately, in the scale of this map. So, that's the question, I guess, and, again, I'd like some comments. There is not a lot, really, as far Meridian Planning & Zoning Commit May 18, 2006 Page 22 of 47 as alternatives to a 20 buffer that you can really do in a few feet. So, the question is should this -- the parking go away. And it doesn't have to be answered now, it's just -- as far as staff is concerned, I don't know what a true alternative would be to meet the intent of that landscape buffer. So, it's more, I believe, an opportunity for the church to get some input from some appointed officials as to what they think is an appropriate land use buffer there, because it will go staff -- the alternative compliance is just approved at staff level. They can, of course, appeal that to the City Council if they don't like what Anna comes back with, but I -- that's the issues, I guess, at hand and it really doesn't have -- other than it's in the same subdivision, much to do with what's going on and what's proposed on the south side of the Nine Mile. So, with that I will stand for any questions you may have. Rohm: Any questions of staff? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: The property to west of this along Pine Street, have they done the -- they have the street buffer; right? Hood: Yeah. Rock Creek is currently under construction. I am not sure about their status at this point. I haven't driven that down far on Pine recently. Zaremba: But it was required? Hood: It was required for a full 25 foot buffer. Zaremba: And I realize the properties to the east are still currently residential -- existing residential. Hood: Yes. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: Any other questions of staff? At this time would the applicant like to come forward, please? Vance: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. My name is Michael Vance. My address is 4585 East Victory Road. Very close to the llama guy. So, I was interested to hear kind of what's going on down there. I want to thank staff for their presentation. I know that there are difficult circumstances there, people leaving, and I know Caleb has had to jump on board kind of at the last minute. What I would like to say as an opening statement here is that with the new ordinance that was adopted it changed a lot of things as far as multi -family developments go and we have tried to live with the spirit and the letter of the new ordinance. We have had three meetings with Meridian Planning & Zoning Commis May 18, 2006 Page 23 of 47 Anna and a couple of other people who are no longer here and we feel like we have made an effort to live up to the new ordinance. This is an interesting project in that we don't always see a church as part of a conditional use application or a preliminary plat, but the church has been there for a long time and has decided to -- in order to facilitate perhaps additional buildings, is allowing some development in the southern portion of their property. So, with that, you are going to see a rezone application from R-4, which the church is today, to L -O, which more lends itself to what churches need to belong to. So, that's why the church is asking for this. At the same time, the rear portion or the southerly one-third, if you will, is being requested for similar zoning to what is happening to the east and to the west of that project. So, Rock Creek is not just the only project, it goes beyond that. In addition, there are a number of mixed uses within this whole community, if you will. There already is multi -family. There already is single family. So, it's kind of -- if you go to the east of this project, directly east, you will find single family. If you go right on the other side, easterly of that, you're going to find multi -family. So, we believe that we conform to the comp plan. We believe that the private open space that Caleb was alluding to, I am not going to get into tonight, except to say that we believe that we will conform to every single ordinance requirement that you have. We think we have done it now. If there is a concern, we still say we are not asking for any variances with this application. We would like to let the project stand on its own and whatever motion is made, as long as it's to live with whatever the ordinance is, that's what we want to do and that's what we think we have done. The amenities for multi- family projects, there is like 20 to -- I don't remember the top number, but it now requires amenities that really belong with a hundred units, but this project is going to provide those additional amenities, bike storage, maintenance facilities, and all this. It will provide all of that. The Pine Avenue buffer has been discussed with the planning director. No one has been able to find the agreement that was made with the church years ago. We are unable to find it. Anna can't find it. We can't find it. Caleb can't find it. And I think that if there was some compromise position here over a period of time, perhaps after, the church may come in for a conditional use or a building permit of their own to expand the church, perhaps that might be an appropriate time to talk about that. However, it is not a condition of ACHD that that be done. It's a condition of the City of Meridian and it may be the timing of that condition of approval very well may be after the church put the parking lot there. But as Caleb said, I think there is a compromise position here that can be made. The open space that Caleb mentioned in his opening statement, I, again, say we are not trying to obtain any variances from this body. We believe that we have the open space that is required of a multi -family project and I will just leave it at that. If you will just understand that all we are trying to do is do what is required of us under the new ordinance for multi -family. As far as the perimeter fencing, the Rutledge Canal is going to be covered. Tiled in. So, there is really no need for a fence there. And the developer agrees to fencing both sides of Nine Mile Creek. We believe that we have shown through several meetings in trying to get staff to understand the new ordinance and us to understand the new ordinance, because this project was submitted ten months ago under the old ordinance. The new ordinance had just been approved like a month before. So, we went through and tried to very carefully make sure that we were within the spirit of the new ordinance. We believe that the required findings from the UDC, Exhibit D, indicates a project in compliance and in agreement Meridian Planning & Zoning Commit May 18, 2006 Page 24 of 47 with city codes and we would ask your recommendation for approval be forwarded to the City Council. I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have. Rohm: Thank you, sir. Any questions of this applicant? Zaremba: Maybe later. Moe: Just one real quick and it probably doesn't even apply to this application, I was just curious. You bring up the church and possible expansion. I was just kind of curious, I actually heard through the grapevine that they had -- that that church actually had purchased the Seventh-Day Adventist Church that moved on that property over there. Do you -- Vance: That very well could be. Moe: Okay. Vance: That very well could be. Moe: And I bring that up, because I'm trying to anticipate what that's going to look like, along with this project, to kind of -- Vance: Correct. What we are trying to do here is bring the zoning into something that the church can bring back to you under a separate application. Moe: Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to testify at this time? Moe: What that means is when you signed in he can't read anything you have written there. You're up. Redford: Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission, my name is Ken Redford and I live at 4115 West Daily Lane in Meridian. I'm serving as the pastor of Meridian Friends and as you know that's at 1021 West Pine. We all face challenges when we come into an existing situation. Want to look ahead, but also are dealing with what's already there. Meridian Friends knows that better than anybody. Twelve years ago they brought in a 25 year old pastor and they had no idea of what they were getting into. We have experienced some growth in the church and we are excited about that. The community has expanded. When they first bought this property 38 years ago they were advised against it, because it was way too far out of town. Just nobody around. It's in farmland, so you don't want to do that. Now, of course, what we are trying to do is we are trying to develop a comprehensive plan and one that's affordable for the church, so we talked to Anna at the same time that we were selling these back two pieces when we learned it's not going to be possible to cover the ditch, so we lose that ground as far as we are able to use it. So, at that time we decided Meridian Planning & Zoning Commis May 18, 2006 Page 25 of 47 to go ahead and sell that off and, then, try to figure out a way of maximizing the three acres that we still have. Anna suggested this would be a great time to go ahead and rezone. It's the kind of zoning that it should be anyway as a church and so we went ahead and piggy backed with this application to do that. The one concern that we do have is with the parking and we are requesting, if it's possible, to salvage the parking spots. Of course that's to our interest. We have contracted a master planner consultant that works exclusively with churches. They have rules of thumb for how many actual parking spaces are needed for a church versus city code, which is, actually, two to one, versus four to one, because we don't want to be in a position of having cars all over Pine Avenue to fill the building. So, what the plan that you have there, the site plan that is here that we are developing, reflects that desire to actually be usable as a church and a balanced campus for everything else. So, if it's possible for us to save some of those parking stalls, I mean we certainly appreciate it and we want to go to the extra cost and so forth, but we do want you to know, by presenting that site plan, that we have tried to think through a campus that would be attractive and it would be useful and so forth, that maximizes it, instead of doing it piecemeal. So, anyway, our request -- I don't know if it's appropriate at this level and appreciated Caleb or -- it was Caleb; right? Yeah. I see Craig right there and it's -- wait a minute. Sorry. Hood: It's along story. Redford: Oh. Okay. I appreciated Caleb's help -- Zaremba: We can't afford a new sign, I guess. Redford: So, anyway, appreciated his help in helping me to understand some of that. But, obviously, part of our confusion was in 2000 we did apply to go ahead and pave as much as we could afford to do along that east side and when we did that, we weren't required to adjust what was already there and so, naturally, to find out when we -- you know, we want to modify the rest of it in a way that brings the campus together. We are hoping that because that part of it's not changed -- could you point to those parking stalls I'm referring to? When we did this piece in 2000 right there, we did honor the 20 foot landscape buffer, of course, and we did not modify the other piece in front of the church building that is east of the part that was changed in the year 2000. We don't have plans, as you notice in that master plan, to change that as far as doing something else with it. So, anyway, that's part of what our hope is. And, again, I don't know if at this level it's even okay to ask for that, but it is, as you mentioned, an opportunity for us to hear what your desire is for our planning. So, we appreciate that. Rohm: Okay. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else that would like to testify to this application? Seeing none. Caleb, was I -- did I understand you correctly that this applicant would just work with staff and Anna on the resolution to those parking stalls and any other adjustments that would be required to come into compliance? Hood: Yeah. I didn't finish that thought. I pointed you to the development agreement provisions and called out 11. 1 guess I'd like that to be changed slightly to really tie back Meridian Planning & Zoning Commis May 18, 2006 Page 26 of 47 to when the church redevelops and so the first part of that -- let him have his four-plex development do its thing, but when Lot 1, Block 1 comes in for a re -development -- and before, hopefully. I mean let's get this -- you know -- and that's why I was hoping to just get some guidance from the Commission on what you think would be appropriate for staff to approve here. There are certain conditions and findings we have to make in granting alternative compliance as well, but just what you think would be a reasonable compromise or if you think -- I really don't -- it's going to be one way or the other. Either you leave it out here and you have that three foot wide buffer or whatever it turns out to be, or you remove that bank of parking, which is, what, eight, nine stalls and you provide landscaping. I mean I don't really see any other alternative. You can't lose half the stalls and provide half of your buffer. So, that's why the alternative compliance, if you direct the applicant to go that way, I guess, or the church to go that way, it would probably be approving as is, because I just don't see any other way to do anything, so guess you could save a couple of them by putting it the other way and having some -- some parallel stalls to the sidewalk. But that's why condition 11 should probably be amended to tie it back to the church and not put it on the four-plex in that first sentence there that says if the applicant agrees to submit alternative compliance for Lot 1, Block 1, prior to occupancy of the four-plexes, but -- Moe: Mr. Chairman, having listened to the applicant, I guess I would be okay with the simple fact that they are doing a study for their parking, you know, what they would have, if they did expand and it does sound like they are planning to expand. You know, once their consultants can figure that out, I -- number one, I do believe -- I'd like to see the 20 foot buffer when they do reconstruct, you know, some additional area of the church, but -- and so I think that notation should be left in here. I think the four-plex should go away and just leave it that when the church is ready to expand, that that buffer is going to be required. And at the same point with their consultants, they may be able to figure out that they, indeed, do have enough parking for -- at that time they can come in for, you know, compliance, if, in fact, they are finding that they really do need that parking. Rohm: Makes sense tome. Zaremba: The comment that I would make in support of eventually having the proper landscape buffer is that there is no connection between -- there is no either roadway or ' walkway connection, I think, between this and the residential property to the south of it. 3 f There is a canal across there. Which means that there is not going to be extra traffic beyond the people that are attending the church. I mean there is no place to go, except to the church. So, I'd be comfortable with putting that change off until they do redo the ' church, but I would agree that at that time I think it should be required. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: It gives a consistency along Pine, which will eventually be a major corridor. Rohm: Okay. Any other comments before we close this Public Hearing? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commissl'an 41 May 18, 2006 Page 27 of 47 Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, so moved. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on RZ 06-004, PP 06-021, and CUP 06-014. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I just had one comment on the applicant's testimony and it has to do with the fencing that they are not proposing to provide along their south boundary. All other things required, I do -- I do see that as a potential hazard. I mean that is the railroad tracks right there. I -- it's not a requirement. It's a Conditional Use Permit, you can put any condition on you want to, but I think it makes some sense to put a fence along that southern boundary to keep people, you know, out of the -- playing on the right of way of the railroad tracks. So, just the comments that I appreciate the applicant clarifying what they are proposing to do, but -- or not do, but I think that's a consideration that should be made. Rohm: I think that's reasonable. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman. Yeah. My comment would be on most projects we require perimeter fencing all the way around, even when there is not a railroad there, and this has a very safety reason to -- Vance: No objection. Moe: Just make that in your motion and we are set to go. Zaremba: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I just have one comment on this and when I got this -- when I got this application I wasn't -- I was really annoyed, not because of this application, but when Rock Creek came through we specifically asked for -- I specifically said we should have a stub behind this church, so that there be connectivity there and the developer of that development, so, oh, we don't need a stub, that's going to develop in multi -family. And here we are two years later with exactly the kind of development that needs a nice little stub street. So, I just wanted to take the opportunity to say I told you so. That's all. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commit May 18, 2006 Page 28 of 47 Rohm: And a comment well taken. Thank you. And a marvelous memory you have. With that said -- Zaremba: I remember all of that discussion and, actually, I was thinking that we had required them to make their pathway usable as a secondary access, but I -- in the notes I see that their pathway is only five feet wide. This applicant has offered to continue that pathway, but it's not the connection that I was remembering it was going to be. Because I do remember there being some serious discussion about that. Newton-Huckabay: I just didn't want to pass up that opportunity, so -- Rohm: That's -- Moe: So noted. Zaremba: In that case, Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers RZ 06-004, FP 06-021, and CUP 06-014, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of May 18th, 2006, with the following modifications. This can be an amendment to what is noted as paragraph 4. 1.11 on Exhibit B, page two, and that is that the required landscape buffer along Pine Street can be delayed and made a part of their expansion project. So, that does not have to be built right now. And, then, where was fencing? Somewhere there is a comment about fencing and -- Moe: At 1.1.2. Zaremba: Thank you. Moe: Possibly. Zaremba: Okay. Yeah. Add to 4.1.2 under general requirements that we need to include a fence along the railroad track itself, as well as those offered by the applicant. End of motion. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of RZ 06-005, PP 06-021, and CUP 06-014, to include all staff comments with the aforementioned amendments -- or adjustments. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commit May 18, 2006 Page 29 of 47 Item 12: Discussion of Procedures of Meetings Ordinance: Rohm: Thank you, folks, for coming in. The last item on the agenda here is a discussion of procedures of meetings ordinance. I guess we will turn it over to our attorney. Nary: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. You have before you a draft ordinance. I have introduced this to the City Council. One of their directions was to bring this back to you at this meeting to get your feedback. If you aren't prepared to have a lengthy discussion about this tonight and still need some opportunity to review that, that's certainly fine as well. Since I have been on board here with the city we have kicked around this idea of creating a little bit better structure to our meeting through ordinance than what currently exists. Moe: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I don't have a copy of that. Did everyone else get one? Zaremba: I do have one. It was in my packet. Nary: You can have this one, Commissioner Moe, because I have it up on my computer. Moe: You know it by heart. Nary: I wouldn't say that. You will notice in the -- in the ordinance itself, the portion that is struck out is the current city ordinance in regards to procedures for public hearings. Only one portion of that was deleted in the last year and there was a -- there used to be a requirement that everyone -- every person had to be sworn in. We removed that at the City Council level sometime last year. Mr. Baird and I both have combed through this process and procedure. I have sought some input from some other city attorneys as well, trying to be sure we can create an ordinance that's workable and defendable if necessary. I think that's where we are. I think this -- the intent is to provide a little bit better structure, base it on an ordinance, so that it doesn't have to be something that each Commission or Commission Members or the Council or the Chair or the Mayor have to recreate at each meeting or have to -- if there is any question or concern. Ordinances are meant to be done for these types of reasons that we can make it clear right on its face how our process is done for everybody to be able to see that. Probably the highlights of some of the things we added in -- we have had a recent request for a site visit. We have a provision here currently in Idaho -- there is one case in the state of Idaho that talks about site visits. It doesn't encourage site visits. It's a very difficult issue in the law. I guess to give you the simplest answer, if you, specifically because of a particular project, go drive out to the site and look at it, courts in Idaho have frowned upon that type of action, whether it's a Commission or the Council. The basic reason for it is because you're viewing this project without any opportunity -- or you're viewing this site without any opportunity for anyone to provide any input, rebuttal -- most of the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commis May 18, 2006 Page 30 of 47 cases, as you can imagine -- or the case that's probably the most telling on it, after all the testimony was done in that particular case, it was a planning and zoning commissioner at the county level. The planning and zoning commissioner said, well, I have heard all the testimony, but I actually drove out there myself and this is what I saw and that's what I'm basing my decision on. Never had brought that up originally. Never allowed the applicant or any of the public to dispute that or to provide any rebuttal to that and so the court was very strong in its statement that that was not -- that was not appropriate to do that. What they didn't weigh out is that in a small town or even a town the size of ours, many of you drive around town and know a lot of these places anyway. I mean this project tonight on Pine is a great example. Many of you probably have driven by that site a thousand times. So, just so you're aware of it, because you're usually aware of where this place is, it's down the street or whatever. The court didn't say anything as to what that means. It just happened to be one where they were much more specific, because the person -- the commissioner in that case had made a specific point of going out to the site for the purpose of evaluating it prior to a decision. So, we put some language in there to discourage that type of behavior, but it doesn't certainly prohibit you from talking about a project you're aware of. Most of the time what I would normally do is recommend that if you have those type of strong feelings, because of your knowing of the project, make that known in the hearing, so that there is an opportunity for rebuttal. We put some order to how the process works. Sign-up sheets. Premarking exhibits. You know, have -- doing the agenda call. That was something that we had a discussion about a number of times. Would it be easier, especial at this Commission level, to be able to go through your agenda at the opening part of the meeting and create, essentially, a modified Consent Agenda. If you have no objections from applicant's, you have no objection to the staffs recommendation. The Commissioners themselves have no objections. A good example -- I think only Commissioner Newton-Huckabay missed the privilege of being here until 3:00 o'clock in the morning last month. The last one, if you recall, which I think was your findings for tonight on Cherry Crossing Drive-thru, that last gentleman was here until 3:00 a.m., no objection, no real discussion, seemed a very clean application. The Commission might have had a question or two, but it was more clarification. You know, if you had the opportunity to created a modified consent, that gentleman could have been out of here at 7:15 versus 3:00 a.m. We thought that might be something helpful. The Council was supportive of that idea as well. That might be helpful to both you, the applicant, and the public. You know, clearly the intent of all of these public hearings is for the public to have the opportunity for input. When your hearings drag on because of the length of time some of these take and the public doesn't really get a fair opportunity -- and neither does the Commission have a real fair opportunity to weigh it as they would like to. So, if you get some of those other ones -- and I know there is sometimes a concern of when you take all the easy ones out, all you have left are the really complex, difficult, lengthy ones, that doesn't necessarily make your evening any easier. You at least get a few of them off of your plate. That was the thought. Certainly welcome whatever comments you have about that. I'm trying to think if there are any other significant changes that might be -- like I said, most of this is format. It seems fairly self-explanatory. The times of the particular presentations, we tried to be a little stricter on that. There is the opportunity for the Commission or the Council to extend those with good cause, but we Meridian Planning & Zoning Commis May 18, 2006 Page 31 of 47 wanted to make it clear. One of the things I think all of you have seen occasionally is the public doesn't always understand why the staff gets an opportunity to explain what this project is in relation to the code. The applicant will get 15 minutes, sometimes with questions it can stretch out fairly lengthy, and, then, the public gets three. And so for -- this is an opportunity to at least put that into concrete to make it clear to people that there is a reason for that and that the ordinance is what governs the meeting protocol and that, hopefully, makes it a little bit better. I think we actually expanded the testimony piece for the rebuttal, too, a little bit. I think we gave them five minutes. Sometimes it just depends on what they are doing. We also wanted to try to put into code a clarification on when you're representing a group. We thought that was important to do. Sometimes it's unclear, I think, to the public of how that works. One of the things we would likely do, if this ordinance in whatever form it ends up, passes, is, then, to print that up to be able to provide that to the public, you know, at the table when they sign in, so they can see what the rules are right from the outset, without any real question about that. The last thing and, then, I'll let the rest of you have your opportunity for input. One of the things we added was a more concrete method for reconsideration. At the Council level -- and some of you may or may not be aware, we get numerous requests for reconsideration of particular decisions of the Council and the way we have handled those to this point has been that if the findings themselves have not been completed, so there is no final action, then, the Council has the freedom to reconsider their action and re -hear it. But we do require that they have another Public Hearing, that they notice it up as they would any other hearing, and, essentially, they are just starting over. You will have the ability now at this Commission level to make final decisions as well. We felt it was important, then, to create a better structure than, essentially, a policy choice of how reconsiderations are done. So, again, it's clear that the intent is to make sure that that opportunity exists, but that there is some finality to your action at some point. So, there is an ending part of this ordinance that at least tries to codify that. I don't have anything else to introduce the ordinance itself. Again, I'd like some input. If you don't feel comfortable tonight that you have had adequate time to review it -- and I think Commissioner Moe maybe has not had adequate time and you'd like to have another opportunity by your next meeting to provide me comments, you're certainly welcome to do that. I'd like to be able to pass your comments onto the City Council and, again, there is not a sense of urgency. I think they have asked me to put it on next week for them for their update and I can certainly update them that you'd like some further time for review. I don't think they'd find there is an urgency, but they'd just like to get this in a reasonable amount of time. Rohm: Thank you, Mr. Nary. Nary: You're welcome. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I, for one, would like additional time to be able to review it. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commill May 18, 2006 Page 32 of 47 Zaremba: Oh, I think that's in order. I would like to make a comment to Mr. Nary. I think the ordinance is in order and I think it's something that we need. I think also, though, it's easier said than done. There are occasions when -- when you will have someone from the audience voice themselves as being a spokesman for a larger body and even get concurrence from others in the audience and, then, they get right up and speak anyway and it's pretty hard to validate until they are done speaking whether or not they are covering any other point of fact and it does become a little cumbersome, but I applaud the effort for sure. Newton-Huckabay: Well, doesn't that -- you can't -- even if you were spoken for, you can't under this get up and make another comment, can you? Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, what I tried to balance in that is -- and some of it really is just getting notice to the public. For example, if you -- like tonight is a good example, your Victory Road Alliance case. You set out at the beginning of the hearing this is all we are going to talk about. Now, of course, there wasn't anybody here, but it does put the public on notice this is the only information we are going to hear. Some people find that too challenging to be able to do it, but many people will temper their comments, if you're able to make it clear to them up front what exactly they are allowed to do. And I'm sure all of you experience when you have done that you have had people come up and say, well, I wanted to tell you about traffic, but you already said we are not listening to that, so here is the -- here is what I think about whatever else that the topic of the day is. So, sometimes giving them that notice will provide at least some temperance to their comments. What I wanted to balance was -- and I think you hit that on the head, Mr. Chairman. If a person is here and says I'm here for 30 people that are standing here and they raise their hand, the idea behind the ordinance is that you can say, okay, let me go ahead and cross you off, because this person's speaking for you. Now, at the end when they are done -- because I know as the Public Hearing flows sometimes, you might have one of those people who says, you know, that guy did talk to those things, but I heard something else and I need an opportunity to get my three minutes in. So, they still get that chance. I don't think we want to cut off people completely. But, again, most of them will -- it will allow a spokesman to take their lead for them, they will let that person be their spokesperson, and nothing else comes up that piques their need to come up and talk. didn't want to prohibit them entirely, I just felt that, of course, they sort of give up their place in line, they can wait until the end, again, if they have something else that they really feel a burning need to bring to you, I think they should still have that opportunity. So, that's what we were trying to balance in doing that. Rohm: And I think that's well thought out. I'd like to make note that Commissioner powered through the agenda. Borup: I can see that. Thank you. Before we take this any further, Borup has joined us and welcome. We Meridian Planning & Zoning Commit May 18, 2006 Page 33 of 47 Zaremba: And he's nicely dressed again. He's putting us all to shame. Newton-Huckabay: Can I ask another -- Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I wanted to ask another -- I don't really understand very well how this Consent Agenda thing works. If -- when you move something to the Consent Agenda, you can still discuss it or you just are saying, no, I -- we aren't going to discuss it, we are just going to approve it. Borup: You need to remove it from the -- Nary: Yeah. Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Newton- Huckabay, that is the intent. Newton -H uckabay: Okay. Nary: What happens a number of times -- sometimes on some of the projects there is a very small wrinkle. Usually -- and, normally, with the public you're not going to really be able to do that. If you have one or two people or more from the public, you're going to have some dissent, you're going to just hear it as a regular hearing. But occasionally you will have a wrinkle from the applicant, for example, and they want to discuss it. Now, if they -- if they are Item 12 and there is a hundred people sitting in this room and in the hallway and they think, you know, if I take ten minutes and to resolve it with the staff for a little bit, maybe I can get out of here a little sooner, they may do that. It is only for projects that are not disputed, that the Commission themselves also doesn't have any questions or concerns about. If anybody on the Commission or any member of the public or the applicant or the staff feels that needs to be discussed, then, it wouldn't go on that Consent Agenda. One thought we had in implementing that when -- if we get to that point of doing it, is that we would put notices on both your agendas, as well as the Council's agendas that we have adopted this ordinance and that all projects will be discussed or reviewed at the opening of the meeting. What has happened here, which is very common, and same thing at the Council level. If you're Item 10 and your meeting starts at 7:00, you don't think you need to be here until 8:30 and as you well know sometimes that's not necessarily the case, but many times it is. So, we would want to make sure we put people on notice to allow them the opportunity to be here. If, for example, you know -- and, again, it would be the chairman's call, but if you had a person who happened to show up a minute late, all the parties were still here, they did have an objection, it's certainly a good reason to back up and maybe put it back on for a hearing, rather than be so rigid, because what will happen is just they will end up at the City Council with this disputed issue that maybe isn't resolved, but we wanted to at least try some way to take some of the -- the less contentious issues off of your agenda, not have people sitting out here in the public on, essentially, an uncontested matter for two or three or four hours when you really want to devote -- I guess the ideal is instead of making your evening harder by getting all the contentious ones, it allows you to focus Meridian Planning & Zoning CornA May 18, 2006 Page 34 of 47 on, really, the more difficult ones and not have to have the other ones kind of interspersed in there. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. So, that can get me to the essence of my question, then. Do we have the -- for lack of a better word -- the license, if you will, to -- because sometimes I think if the agenda was just shifted around and -- for example, it almost always happens to somebody who comes in for Old Town zoning -- a rezone to Old Town, they are like No. 15 and -- you know, and here's the poor guy, he gets up here and his eyes are red and he's like I don't know why I'm here and, yeah, I would agree and we all agree and he's on his way in ten minutes. But it may be something that you have -- like you said, one's a little miscellaneous item or what have you. Do we have that? Can we move the agenda around? Nary: You certainly do. The risk, again, as is -- you know, without giving some notice to the public, you may have people who show up late, because they don't expect you to be taking that item up early. Again, we certainly could provide notice on your agendas saying all items will be reviewed at the start of the meeting and you need to be present. If there is one that appears there is not a whole lot, you certainly have the ability to amend your agenda at the outset and move Item 15 up Item 3, without -- without even doing this modified consent. You could certainly do that. Either way I think we would want to make sure that the public was on notice, so someone didn't show up late and expecting you to take up something two hours later. Newton-Huckabay: Well, I just think sometimes if -- even if it was an actual -- actual improved efficiency, we at least gave the benefit of perceived improved efficiency, but -- Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, if I may? Rohm: Absolutely. Zaremba: On that same subject, actually. The body that I'm most familiar with using a Consent Agenda to very full effect is ACHD. There the ACHD staff anticipates what they believe are going to be the easy issues and they load up the Consent Agenda with everything that could possibly go on it and, then, occasionally the Commissioners move something off of the Consent Agenda. I think that's a good way to do it. I think the thing I would question is if something is listed on our agenda as being in full Public Hearing section of our agenda, I would have trouble moving it into the Consent Agenda. I would have no trouble having it already listed in the consent and moving it out, but -- or is that an unreasonable worry? Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Zaremba, I guess it's probably more of a philosophical choice. At the ACHD level, obviously, their commissioners are comfortable that their staff can make that decision and they need to do that. That hasn't been the tradition here. You know, I guess the deference to the Commission or to the Council is really the position the staff has taken. It's your agenda, not the staffs agenda. So, is it appropriate for the staff to try to make that decision up Meridian Planning & Zoning CommisslflTf May 18, 2006 Page 35 of 47 front for you, that we think this is not contentious and we think it should be on a consent, and we don't think you have any issues with it either. Again, we haven't had that comfortable level and we could certainly discuss that with the Council as well, if they feel comfortable with that. You know, Mr. Hood may have a comment about this as well. You know, many times I think -- the staff is pretty good at figuring out which ones are probably going to have some hot buttons. Once in a great while you just never know. Even cases where you have seen nobody here on an issue and, then, all of a sudden at the Council level here is half a room full of people on something none of us foresaw that was going to be an issue. But we can certainly include that as part of the discussion with the Council, if they have comfort level with that as well, I'm certainly willing to try, you know, anything that might be helpful. Zaremba: My opinion, I would have a very good comfort level with staff making that preliminary decision. We still have the right to pull it off of the Consent Agenda if we don't agree. Borup: Staffs the one that gets the phone calls from the neighbors that are unhappy and things like that, so -- Rohm: Commissioner Moe? Moe: Well, I guess the other thing I would kind of go right along with that, I know that we have talked about trying to move up our meetings and whatnot. I guess what would wonder is if the Commission was to come in at 6:30 and, basically, verify what the Consent Agenda may look like and, then, at 7:00 o'clock you do go through the agenda to make sure that the public -- if there is opposition -- that you just go through your agenda and if they -- if someone is opposed, then, you know you can't put that on the -- you know, the Consent Agenda. You know, you take a few minutes to go through it, if one person objects, then, it can't go on, so you just go from there. Somewhat -- you know, I have seen that done in Boise, quite frankly. Borup: Boise does the other way around. It's on the Consent Agenda, then, someone - Moe: Oh, is it? Borup: -- removes it. Zaremba: They load everything on the Consent Agenda they can and it's up to somebody in the audience or a commissioner to take it off if it needs to be discussed. Rohm: I think my only comments on all of this discussion is I think that there should be some -- something written that that agenda is subject to change and even though they see that agenda posted publicly prior to the meeting, that's not to say that Item 15 couldn't be moved forward and be heard. And so -- and that could be right at the preamble to the items listed. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commis316n May 18, 2006 Page 36 of 47 Zaremba: Something like that used to appear in this small print at the bottom of the page, but I don't see it in the statement that we have at this time. It was just a short sentence like agenda item may be rearranged or something like that. That has been there at some time. Hood: Machelle maybe can -- I think the Council has something like that on their heading. Brown: I don't remember seeing a statement there. Hood: I don't remember on the Planning and Zoning Commission one, but I thought I saw something on the City Council. I have just a couple of thoughts maybe to throw out there for Bill and I haven't had a chance to look at everything and also to gauge what you would like us to do. The standard operating procedure recently, why you get some of these Old Town applications that are toward the end, you have continued items. It's always just been standard that we just -- new business is last and continued business is first. Borup: That's the way it should be. Hood: So, if you don't like that, I mean if you think -- we figure out our Consent Agenda and you feel comfortable that we can -- there is an application every now and again that will go on the Consent Agenda that we are pretty sure that not -- there is no issues with it from anyone, I think we could probably moved the agenda around a little bit to mix old business, new business, and Consent Agenda as well. So, maybe it's not -- and that's I guess where I'm going with this is if it's a small project that there is maybe one thing to discuss, would you still want that towards the beginning of the agenda and save all your tougher things toward the end? You know, get those people out the door, the ones you think will get out the door sooner or shall we kind of -- you know, I said before, too, you'd have to mix it up. You don't want to have, you know, maybe a harder one and, then, an easier one to kind of get ready for the next harder one, you know, to kind of give yourself a break from -- but I don't know. I just ask the question is -- I have the ability to now through the clerk's office, they asked me a couple days, you know, to help schedule the agenda and I try to -- I try to put the continued items -- you know, have been first, but, then, I look at the new business and say this is going to be quick and this one will take more discussion, so -- and I think -- I don't think there is anything in ordinance that requires us to have the continued items be first on the agenda. I think it's -- it's sure not fair and they were in line first and they should probably be out the door first, but at the same time it's the guy that can do it for five minutes and one thing to discuss -- Moe: On that thought, though, the thing that has bothered me about the continued hearings is -- is it's not always the case that -- the point I'm trying to make is there has been continuances because they flat just haven't done their job to get it ready to go and I don't believe they should be up front. I think they ought to have to sit the next meeting Meridian Planning & Zoning CommisslCrf May 18, 2006 Page 37 of 47 or whenever it's continued to and maybe next time when they bring something forward they will be ready. Hood: And I feel -- and I can be the judge of that, too. I mean I know when it's -- when it's something staff didn't do or something that they lacked in doing before they came the first time, so -- Moe: How do the other members feel about that? Zaremba: Yeah. If it's a small issue I don't have a problem with putting the continued in front of the others, but, yeah, if it's because they weren't cooperating -- Hood: Sometimes they just don't have ACHD comments. I mean that's a pretty easy one. You know, that's nothing to do with us or the applicants, it's a third party and think they should be -- you know, they got cued up and they waited their turn, it's just another agency was holding them up. So, I think I can -- if you don't mind an agenda that has new time, continued item, continued item, new item -- you know, I kind of -- I can sort of order it that way. It would be a little bit of a change for the clerk's office, but I think that -- Moe: I don't think that would be a problem for me. As a matter of fact, I think that's going to get the developers to understand that maybe they better make sure they are ready. Hood: An item getting continue a month, but you're going to be at the end of that agenda, too, and so that's -- Zaremba: And if that agenda goes beyond 11:00 o'clock you don't get heard that night. Hood: Yeah. Newton-Huckabay: I like that point in the ordinance, by the way, Mr. Nary. Nary: I thought most of you would. Zaremba: Codifying that is a good idea. Hood: I did want to make a couple of other just points in question, I guess, that I don't think that we have had too many projects these days that probably can be on the Consent Agenda. It seems like everyone has something that they want to discuss. However, I think if they walk in and they see, you know, a hundred people sitting here, they may eat a condition or two just to go home at 7:15. So, I think we can sure save a lot of time if we give them the ability to say, hey, are you sure you don't want to agree with this staff report and you can go home now or you're three-quarters of the way down the agenda and could be here until 11:00. 1 mean that's just my personal opinion, but have seen it happen, okay, this condition we can live with if we can go home three Meridian Planning & Zoning CommisS May 18, 2006 Page 38 of 47 hours early, you know. And that's the cost of a sidewalk sometimes they may want to talk about. I mean they are paying someone 75 bucks an hour to sit here, so I just -- that's just my two cents that I -- I don't think we will get -- you know, it will maybe be one a month that we can move on the Consent Agenda, because I do talk to a lot of folks that have a concern and they want to come and testify and this is the correct place to do it, but we do have rezones tonight that there is nothing and Old Towns and -- that could go on a Consent Agenda, so -- Borup: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, I was going to suggest that Item 8, which was the Hastings one, would have been a good one for the Consent Agenda. I mean it was already approved for office and what they are doing is really the paperwork. When it used to be use exception, now we want the real zone that would have been Consent Agenda to me. Borup: Agreed. Newton-Huckabay: Well -- and like all those vacation ones that we get sometimes, those would be Consent Agenda items I think. Rohm: That's a good idea. Borup: Mr. Chairman. Caleb, are you saying, then, still have the option of adding things to a Consent Agenda at the beginning of the meeting? Hood: Yeah. I think we will press forward with this -- with this ordinance. Borup: No. No. But is there -- I mean Commissioner Zaremba expressed a concern on proper notification to people -- if we had proper notification to people prior to coming that -- Zaremba: It's been noticed as part of the regular Public Hearing, I would be uncomfortable moving it into consent. I have no problem loading up consent and moving stuff out of it. Rohm: I support that same thought. Hood: And I guess just -- what I'm going to do there, I'm not going to load up the Consent Agenda if I talk to one neighbor. I mean if this same concern that I know that someone's going to want to -- and they may not show up, but I'm just saying if I receive a phone call and they have concerns, I'm not going to put that on the Consent Agenda, just so we don't get all confused at the beginning, not because it's not -- Borup: I think that's what we would expect. Hood: You know, if I just see -- and I guess just a question on that. If we put it on the Consent Agenda, Commissioner Zaremba, you know, has questions usually on the Meridian Planning & Zoning CommisslOPi May 18, 2006 Page 39 of 47 record asking those questions, is it, then, all right for him to call staff and say, hey, I have a point of clarification, now where is that line drawn between -- you're just going to have to help me out with that. So, I think we could save time if we could just one -on- "`'"` one talk to, hey, look, you know, you misspelled this word or what was your intent here, or whatever the concern may be individually -- do you understand what I'm saying, Bill? Is that okay to do then? Nary: You were reading my mind. Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, a couple of thoughts on that. It's certainly not a problem if any of the Commissioners have a question about a staff report to call the staff and ask them about it. That's not a problem. The only concern I'd have is on the staff end is to be sure we don't end up with at least an allegation or a belief that we having a serial meeting. So, that's the staffs -- I guess responsibility to make sure that if, you know, if Commissioner Zaremba calls Caleb and says I read the report, this looks like it was a typo or this looks like it was cut and pasted out of a different report, you know, I have a question about one minor thing, could you just explain this to me, what I would want to avoid is the staff -- the staff isn't going to call the rest of the Commission or when Commissioner Borup calls with the same thing and say, oh, yeah, well, I just got a call from somebody else about it, I don't want people to think that we would have a serial type of meeting and that is prohibited. What I was going to suggest -- and I think to follow up on Commissioner Moe's suggestion, is that might be a good discussion of having, like you said, a 6:30 work session, 7:00 o'clock meeting. At the work session it's going to be open, it's going to be public, it's going to be noticed just like a meeting. We will have -- we will have it on the record, but it will be much more of an easier opportunity to have those types of questions. Again, not for presentation of testimony, but for all of you to look at -- if the Council approval is staff can created a Consent Agenda and we will pull the things off, we would, then, put notices on the agenda that would say that. All items that are listed on the Consent Agenda will not be heard, unless a request is made by a member of the Commission, the staff, or the public, so, again, everybody knows up front that's what's going to happen. At that work session if you had a question about something, it didn't seem very clear, and you wanted the staff to sort of clarify that, so at your 7:00 o'clock meeting you wouldn't have to pull it off, they could maybe, in the interim, be able to do that. You know, you might even look -- you know, and depending on how many of the items are, you know, it may make sense and you folks can all think about that, but is a half hour enough. Most of the time it probably would be. But that might be the opportunity to say, you know, I don't have a real objection with this, I just didn't understand this. Could you just clear it up with the applicant before we get started and, then, we don't have to take it off. And, then, the staff person can report that to you, this came up in the work session, I discussed with the applicant, they have clarified this, they don't have an objection to it, we will include that in the findings or the recommendation of this, if that's in agreement with everyone and, then, we will move on. If -- again, if it's still not decided or the Commission doesn't still feel there is clarity or it needs to be held in the Public Hearing, we can always do that. So, that maybe takes a little bit of work, what Caleb's saying and what you said, Commissioner Moe, and, again, we are trying to make it more efficient and -- but not to short change the dialogue that's necessary to make sure the project works and fits into what you want it to be. Meridian Planning & Zoning Cornrn 6n May 18, 2006 Page 40 of 47 Rohm: Good comments by all. Borup: Mr. Chairman, I still had some comments on the -- Rohm: You're on. Borup: All right. Thank you. One was just probably a small matter. Page two, the bottom paragraph it -- unless I'm confused -- it says any person not complying with any of the above rules -- should that say following rules or -- because there is only one rule above that they need to be recognized by the chair. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I noted that also and my thinking is this has probably been rewritten and rearranged many times. At one time the rules probably were above, but my suggestion would be just take the words the above and change it to these, so that it reads any person not conforming to any of these rules and whether they are above or below doesn't make a difference. Borup: Good idea. Zaremba: That exact same thing happens on the next page -- or perhaps Commissioner Borup was going to point that out, too. It's the first full paragraph on the page. It says the chair shall have the authority to interpret and apply the foregoing and, again, I would change the foregoing to these. Borup: Good. Then back to the one that we were discussing, where it says the body at the beginning of this meeting determines how many hearings and I mean we have -- that is just very hard to do, because you don't know how much testimony there is going to be. Is that -- I mean is that something you feel is comfortable to do or can we add at the beginning of the meeting or other appropriate time in there would -- any problem with -- I'm not talking about -- and I guess I'm saying -- Newton-Huckabay: Where are you at? Borup: Page five under the agenda call adjournment hour. Newton-Huckabay: Oh. Okay. Borup: Once in awhile sometimes maybe we can, but to determine at 7:00 o'clock -- I mean at 9:00 o'clock it's probably a lot easier to determine how many you are going to get through. At 7:00 o'clock it may be difficult. Rohm: I have been there. Borup: Right. I mean, Mr. Nary, is that a problem to add that in there, so it can be either/or, depending how the chairman feels at the time? Meridian Planning & Zoning COMA May 18, 2006 Page 41 of 47 Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Borup, I mean we can certainly look at amending it. I think the intent was -- is to give, again, your public the notice up front. The difficult thing -- and I guess, you know, not to -- and I don't want to use our most recent meeting as an example, but, for example, if you recall in that meeting at about 12:05 we started a hearing, because we thought it wouldn't take very long and it went an half and a half. So, at that juncture we can't continue -- and the problem becomes is you can't really continue it, you know, you can't have people sit here for five hours and, then, decide, okay, we are going to continue your hearing now. So -- and it's not fair to them, it's not fair to you. I mean -- so the intent is to try and make that decision up front. I mean if the agenda really is lengthy -- again, they all work in -- hopefully, in conjunction with one another. This by itself, you're right, it may be problematic, because you may have one hearing left, it really is a five minute hearing, we really can tell whether it's a five minute hearing, and it's 11:55. 1 understand. But if all of the other things, the consent, the modified consent, the Q and A up front to determine if there are issues here, if all of those things are part of this ordinance, this part probably is not that significant anymore. You're going to be able to tell that up front, you know, for example, we do all of that sort of culling out of these -- of these types of hearings and, then, you have five of them left and two of them are Comp Plan amendments and three of them are four hundred unit housing projects with, you know, 50 neighbors each, all of you know there is no way you can get that done. It's just not going to happen. So, at that point you're at the beginning of the meeting, you can say, you know what, we are not going to hear all of these, here is what we are going to hear, here is what we are going to continue, and you can go home. And if you get done sooner than you think, good for you. Borup: It is, unless we keep getting further behind. Nary: But, again, I just -- I guess I don't want to over -emphasize, but I do want to emphasize, at least, what we are trying to make sure is that the public has the opportunity to have the input. I commend everyone for the dedication you have to power through some of these things, but we want to balance to make sure that the public also has the opportunity and if you power through it and start some hearing at 11:30 at night and half the people left -- Borup: No, I'm not saying change the 11:00 o'clock hour. Nary: No. No. No. But what I'm saying is that some of them, you know, tend to drag on and if you do that you may lose your audience and the idea of having the Public Hearing is for the public to have the opportunity. So, I think -- maybe in conjunction with all of them, we could certainly put in language that at least the group as a whole -- and there is a couple of spots in here where what we did was we said the body as a whole can make that decision by majority to allow it to continue or to alter the rules or to make it different, we can certainly put that in this section. Meridian Planning & Zoning COMA May 18, 2006 Page 42 of 47 Borup: I just think all of us know that it's almost impossible to determine how long it's going to be. I don't know if most of you do that. I think it's going to be a short meeting and it's long and vice -versa. The other question I had was the next paragraph on deliberating after 11:00 o'clock. The way that's worded it could be interpreted as saying there can be no testimony after 11:00. Was that intended to say that a new hearing after 11:00? So, I mean if somebody -- if we started at a quarter to 11:00, 11:00 o'clock comes, we shut down and send everybody home? Does that need clarifying there? Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Borup, yeah, and I think you're right. I think the intent was -- I mean if you started the hearing, we don't really expect you to stop on the dime. That doesn't make any sense either. So, I can clarify that and clean that language up I think that does make sense. You know, if you have started -- especially, because as you all know, you can sometimes start a hearing at 9:00 and still at 11:00 o'clock be listening to it. So, we will clean that up. That wasn't the intent was to just stop -- Borup: So, the intent was to not start a new hearing. Nary: Right. Not start a new hearing was really all we intended. Borup: That's all I had. Rohm: Thank you. The only further comment that I'd like to make to this is, you know, Commissioner Moe has requested to have additional time to review comments and, then, possibly add some additional thoughts maybe at our following -- our next Planning and Zoning meeting. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I do have one other thing that we probably need to discuss before we move it off to another one. In two places it refers to the applicant rebuttal. One of them is on page three and the other is on page eight. And this suggestion is that the applicant be given five minutes for rebuttal. We -- I believe we are giving ten most of the time and usually -- I see the clerk nodding her head that she sets the clock to ten and, usually, the rebuttal takes seven or eight minutes anyhow. So, I think five minutes is a little short and I would suggest that that be ten minutes both those places. Nary: Okay. I can do that. Borup: But I would agree. It depends on how much rebuttal there is. I mean sometime they only take one minute or two minutes. Zaremba: Which is fine. Borup: But other times there is a whole list of questions to be answered. Nary: And we did give -- we did give the freedom to, again, expand that, too. You're right. If you have an incredibly complex application in front of you with a whole bunch of Meridian Planning & Zoning Comm�s May 18, 2006 Page 43 of 47 people with a lot of comments, ten minutes probably isn't always going to be adequate. But, again, you would have the ability simply as the body to make that motion to allow them to have more time and that's not a big deal. But I will change the base amount to ten. That makes perfect sense to me. Newton-Huckabay: But we would have to vote if we are going to give them more than ten? And they would need to stand up here and say I think I'm going to need 20 minutes to rebut and we would vote. Nary: You would have to make a motion -- someone would have to make a motion to increase the -- because the ordinance is fixed, they'd have to do it in ten, unless this body wants to move. You don't have to do, you know, a roll call vote, you can certainly do it by voice vote, but that's -- someone of your body would have to move and second to allow it to be extended. Now, just because they say I need 20, you can say you can have 15 and that's plenty. I mean that's still your folks decision. Again, part of it is when you have these in place, especially in ordinance, most people will adjust. Now, I'm sure all of you can think of some of the folks that have been in front of you and I don't -- even if you have it in this rule they can't adjust themselves very well. But most of them will. They know what the rules are, they will see them up front, they know they have got ten minute, they will adjust accordingly. Same thing with their initial presentation. It says 15 minutes, most of them will be able to do that, so -- but, yeah, you would need the consensus of the group, the majority of the group, to be able to extend it beyond the ten. Newton-Huckabay: I like that, because I will often vote no. Hood: One quick question. I didn't have a chance to look at this before and just going on our previous discussion about me kind of guessing how to set the agenda. On page five, paragraph four, this goes back to the question of -- it's that last sentence there and it says in the first paragraph, if you continue the remaining scheduled public hearings, provided that the oldest matter should be heard first. Now, it's a should, not a shall. Does that -- does that still give the opportunity with that language for me to play around with the agenda? The way I read that it says that your continued items have to be first, because they are going to be the oldest matter on the new agenda or -- am I reading that wrong or -- Nary: With a simple key stroke we can take that out. We will just take that out. Zaremba: Where the comma is put a period. Borup: Again, it just say should. So, what you mean is it should be first unless there is other extenuating circumstances that would put someone else ahead of them. Nary: And, Members of the Commission, the intent was is that -- we have looked at it so many times, but the intent was if you do get to that hour and you have to call it, you know, for example, you gauged it incorrectly, one, the hearing took longer than you Meridian Planning & Zoning Commis May 18, 2006 Page 44 of 47 expected, so now you're passed 11:00, it says you can't extend it, you have got a couple here that are still here, you thought you would have gotten done. The intent is when those folks get extended let's move them to the front of the line in the next one. We don't have to put that in the ordinance, that certainly can be a practice, but it was to at least give those people some consideration that now this -- you know and I think you folks have all talked about it. It's one thing when the applicant themselves have caused the delay, they didn't notice it properly or they forgot to put the sign up that seems to happen a lot, that's kind of their problem. But when they sat here and they waited and, then, it just happened that it rolled over past 11:00, you know, we thought that might be necessary to at least give them that. We don't have to put it in the ordinance. I think that's why you put the softer language, but that certainly can be a practice and it doesn't have to be codified that way. Borup: But that's not what this paragraph says. It's referring to the ones that were designated at the beginning of the meeting. Nary: You're right. You're right. So, we will probably clean that up. We will just take it out. I don't think that's a -- you know, again, I don't think -- part of it probably was because that's the practice, we -- Borup: Good practice, too. Nary: But if -- I guess as we cull through all of this and get your final comments, you know, again, if you look at it as a whole, we could eliminate that one part of it. You can still do it that way. That's not a problem. It just doesn't necessarily need to be in the ordinance. I don't know that it does. Hood: I happen to put continued items back, just because we didn't get to them -- mean that's no fault of theirs, but if their item wasn't done, I'm not going to put them at the back of the agenda because I don't like them or something. I mean it's not -- it just gives the ability to maybe move a five minute presentation before and they have to wait another five, which I don't think is putting them out too much. I mean they are next in line, but I just don't -- I don't see it being a problem if it's not in the ordinance. Again, I will try to be fair and realize that they are in line, so they should be up next, so -- Zaremba: I think we should put it in the ordinance that the order of the agenda be punitive. Let's just get it out front. Newton-Huckabay: As per the mood of Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Rohm: We do have one more item of discussion, if we are done with this. Nary: I appreciate all your comments. I will be out of town June 1st and Mr. Baird will be here, so certainly bring whatever other comments you have and, then, we will take those forward to the City Council and do some re -crafting of this ordinance and see where the Council wants it to go. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commit May 18, 2006 Page 45 of 47 Rohm: I do applaud your efforts. Nary: Thank you. Rohm: Before we adjourn here tonight, though, discussion was earlier that we would have three P&Z meetings in June, the last of which would be the fifth Thursday of the month and Commissioner Zaremba has indicated that he would been here and I will be here. And Commissioner Moe and Commissioner Newton-Huckabay have both indicated that they may not be. And so I guess, Mr. Borup, we are kind of looking to you for some sort of commitment to that date. Borup: That's the 29th? Zaremba: It should be the 29th. Borup: Yeah. I had another commitment that night. I'm going to be out of town. Rohm: Oh, you will be out of town, too? Wow. Borup: I thought I mentioned that last time. Rohm: Well -- and that's why I brought it up earlier, that -- that I didn't think that the 29th was going to work. And, as a matter of fact, I had mentioned it to staff today that thought that we had -- our consensus was that we go first, second, third, but that won't work, because this facility is being used that second Thursday and so -- Borup: Is our agenda still packed up from losing the staff? Hood: That was the reason we had that fifth Thursday meeting. We thought that we could catch up a little bit on it. It's just going to push things back more. I mean if we don't have a quorum, we don't have a quorum. Those items -- at least one of them hasn't even been noticed yet, so it's not like it's a big deal to not have that meeting as far as sending it to the clerk's office and them notifying a bunch of neighbors or anything. So, we can deal with it, it's just right now we are short staffed and I can really only do two or three a hearing, so -- Moe: Caleb, you made a comment, though, that one of the hearings that was scheduled is going to be a lengthy one that's going to take more than -- possibly more than one meeting. Is that -- Hood: I mean I can't guess on what the outcome is going to be. It's just -- it's big and there is a lot of detail. Moe: Well, I guess, quite frankly, I think that would bear having a full Commission in lieu of just a quorum on that one, anyway. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commit May 18, 2006 Page 46 of 47 Hood: That's a good point. And the reason I just doubt that it will probably be continued is because we won't have ACHD's comments, I'm guessing, with the traffic study and getting their comments back, there is no way they can get -- they are out, usually, a couple of months before they get us something. And I would -- it's one of those projects that I would hesitate to fully give you recommendations on that, in fact. But I think the full Commission should be here for that hearing, so -- Nary: Mr. Chairman, I mean there is a fifth Thursday in August. So, if you're not going to hold a hearing in June, I mean I know it pushes the projects out a little bit, but it's -- certainly -- August is better than loading your hearings up, but you do have a fifth Thursday in August as an opportunity. Rohm: And I think that's in order and we will just cross that bridge when we get there. Hood: Can I get some -- I know you probably all don't have your calendars here, but can I assume, though, that we can do that fifth Thursday in August? That way we can kind of look at everything we have going on? Because we are scheduling out to August now. Not the second meeting in August as of yet, but the applications we are taking in now we are scheduling them out to August and they fill up pretty quick, so -- just a preliminary -- I'm not going to hold you all to it, I mean if you end up going on vacation or whatever, we will have to deal with it at that time, but that sounds like something that there is -- does anyone know that they absolutely cannot be here on that -- Moe: That's my birthday. Borup: All right. Good day to come. Moe: Yeah, I will be here. Borup: I can be here. I do have another meeting, so I would be late again. Moe: But, unfortunately, I will not be here the first meeting in September. Zaremba: I will not be here the first meeting in August, but I could be here the fifth Thursday. Borup: So, Caleb, how about on the first two -- the first two meetings in June, are we -- are they packed pretty good or is it going to be a meeting like tonight? Hood: We have Jenny on board now, so she's starting to review those applications. So, we have four or five new items on each agenda and, then, a couple of them have been continued. So, it's not as full as they have when we have a full staff, but they are pretty good agendas. I can't recall exactly what -- I know there is some bigger projects on a couple of them anyways, so -- Meridian Planning & Zoning CommissTrin 10 May 18, 2006 Page 47 of 47 Nary: And they will have another planner on board in June Hood: And we interview tomorrow with a potential that Anna's got a good vibe about, so -- Nary: So, by August you probably will have plenty. Moe: I'm definitely available for August. Newton-Huckabay: I appear to be available for August, too. But I have to qualify mine as tentative, as I do have some new assignments coming up that are going to potentially require travel to Florida. Hood: That's fine. And I will just -- that's rough. Borup: In August. Nice time to go to Florida. Newton-Huckabay: Well, you know what, you take what you get. Borup: And it may be 8:00 o'clock before I can get here. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we adjourn. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: 9:24. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:24 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF MI E PROCEEDINGS.) - CHAIRMAN ATTESTED:_ WI ®LD 15 Wetv�",,,,,, DATE APMED ED G. BERG -JR. -9I-h7b75ffK— isl- 1 L' May 15, 2006 CUP 06-010 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING May 118, 2006 APPLICANT Mike Robnett ITEM NO. S-A REQUEST Findings: Request for Drive Through within 300 feet of a residence for Cherry Crossing Drive Through - 1760 West Cherry Lane AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: COMMENTS See attached Minutes See Attached Findings/Staff Report 4not-e ve ..ern- oz #--0 ntacte Date: 5 (o Phone: Y" 66 Emailed: _i �� ,.�on-- hd,� St�aff�I n itials: Ak. Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting May 4, 2006 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of May 4, 2006, was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Michael Rohm. Members Present: Chairman Michael Rohm, Commissioner Keith Borup, Commissioner David Zaremba, Commissioner Newton-Huckaby, and Commissioner David Moe. Others Present: Ted Baird, Tara Green, Caleb Hood, Jennifer Veatch, 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. At this time we'd like to convene our regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission and we will begin with the roll call of Commissioners. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: Item 3: Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of April 6, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting: Rohm: Thank you. The second item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda and the first item is the Consent Agenda, which is to approve the minutes of the April 6th, 2006, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for CUP 06-010. Any comments before we make a motion? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I do, actually, have comments on both. Rohm: Okay. Zaremba: On the minutes on page one, near the top, it indicates that four of us were here and Commissioner Newton-Huckabay missed the meeting, then, about three- quarters of the way down the page she is credited for seconding a motion that I made. I would guess either Commissioner Moe or Commissioner Borup was the second on that one. Anybody want to fess up to that? Borup: Sure. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 4, 2006 Page 2 of 84 Zaremba: Okay. Let's give Commissioner Borup credit for seconding that motion. Then, on page 19, there is a large paragraph in the middle, about three lines up from the bottom, there is -- the middle of the sentence begins: Applicant will work with the buffer on Lot 9. 1 believe that should say applicant will work with staff on Lot 9 to solve the common drive and buffer problem. I would change the word buffer to staff. Those are my only comments on the minutes. I have comment in the form of a question on the Findings. That would be Exhibit B, conditions of approval, section one of planning department. I think in the motion we added a couple of things to that, one of which was that no speaker system is approved with this CUP application, although the applicant may later submit a separate one. Also added a paragraph that says that the applicant has volunteered to add trees and landscaping on both sides of the fence. And mine says there was a third one, although I don't have the minutes yet. Does anybody remember -- this is the drive-in over on the corner of Linder and Cherry. Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. The trees and the -- Zaremba: The trees and the no speaker. Newton-Huckabay: -- no speaker. No lighted sign. But that was -- Zaremba: We discussed no light, but that would come up in a sign application. Newton-Huckabay: Right. Zaremba: And we discussed some striping and some -- and a sign on the island, but I didn't make that part of the motion. Rohm: Maybe the best thing is to drop that from this Consent Agenda and, then, be able to pull the discussion from -- from the minutes. Zaremba: That would be my motion on that one, would be to have staff take this one back and check the minutes for those two or possibly three items. But I agree it's probably two and, then, put it on the next agenda. End of my comments. Rohm: Okay. Any other comments? Okay. With that, then, could we get a motion to approve the Consent Agenda as adjusted, with minutes changed as per Commissioner Zaremba's comments? Zaremba: So moved. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we approve the Consent Agenda, only including the minutes of the April 6th meeting and Item B has been dropped. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 4, 2006 Page 3 of 84 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: At this time I'd like to -- oh, before I open this, have some comments. Many of you attend these Planning and Zoning meetings infrequently and I'd like to talk just a little bit about the procedure that's used and what we do -- we will open up a hearing for a particular project and the first thing we do is we ask staff to give their comments. What they do is they talk about a project in terms of the UDC and the Comprehensive Plan. They kind of spell it out from that perspective, just as it conforms to the laws of the City of Meridian. At such time that they have completed their presentation, the applicant has 15 minutes to present the project and what they do is they present it from a sales perspective. They try and sell the project to us, based upon the value back to the city. Once those two presentations have been made, then, we take public comment and everybody has an opportunity to speak to the project and they will be heard. And that's the procedure that we use and there is some time limitations and as we move through this we will talk more about that. Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: RZ 06-001 Request for a Rezone of 5.40 acres from R-8 to L -O (Limited Office) for Sundance Subdivision No. 5 by Dave Evans Construction — northeast corner of Ustick Road and Meridian Road: Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: PP 06-014 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 12 commercial lots on 3.77 acres in a proposed L -O zone for Sundance Subdivision No. 5 by Dave Evans Construction — northeast corner of Ustick Road and Meridian Road: Item 6: Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: CUP 06-011 Request to modify the previous Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development (CUP 01-026) by adding additional office lots, changing building and parking layout and allowing potential drive through sites for Sundance Subdivision No. 5 by Dave Evans Construction — northeast corner of Ustick Road and Meridian Road: Rohm: But to start off with, I'd like to open up the continued Public Hearing from the April 20th meeting of RZ 06-001, continued Public Hearing PP 06-014, and CUP 06-011, all related to Sundance Subdivision No. 5 and begin with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. There is also a fourth application with the file numbers you just mentioned. You do not have to act on that tonight. It is a miscellaneous application to amend the development agreement that's currently in effect for this site, which leads me to the presentation of the subject project. It was approved in 2001 as part of Sundance Subdivision. There were four office lots that were platted in the R-8 district and the applicant is, essentially, cleaning that up, if you will, and proposing to rezone the area outlined in green there on the screen to an 11 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER C r MERIDIAN ,ERK Q`:- ICE In the Matter of a Conditional Use Permit Request for a Drive -Through Within 300 feet of a Residential District in the C -N Zone, by Robnett Construction. Case No(s). CUP -06-010 For the Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing Date of. April 20, 2006 A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of April 20, 2006 incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of April 20, 2006 incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of April 20, 2006 incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of April 20, 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 -06-010 -PAGE 1 of 5 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 April 20, 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 Site Plan as evidenced by having submitted the Site Plan dated January 2005 is hereby conditionally approved; 2. The site specific and standard conditions of approval are as shown in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of April 20, 2006 incorporated by reference; and, 3. At the April 20, 2006 hearing the Planning & Zoning Commission voted to add the following conditions to the staff report: No speaker system is approved with this CUP application A separate CUP application and notification of the neighbors shall be required to install a speaker system; The applicant shall provide additional landscaping on both sides of the fence adiacent to the three southern most properties adjoining 1760 W Cherry Lane to buffer sound from drive-thru traffic; ancL The Commission recommended, and the applicant agrees to provide directional signage and curb painting for drive-thru traffic 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 -06-010 - PAGE 2 of 5 i 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 'A 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 April 20, 2006 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP -06-010 - PAGE 3 of 5 9 By action of the Planning & Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the �$ day of _rY1�x� , 2006. COMMISSIONER MICHAEL ROHM (Chair) COMMISSIONER DAVID MOE COMMISSIONER WENDY NEWTON-HUCKABAY COMMISSIONER KEITH BORUP COMMISSIONER DAVID ZAREMBA VOTED ULU VOTED VOTED wa VOTED VOTED t ,per Attest: BEAL _ Tara Green, Deputy City Clerk y^rev� �'� • �`�,.� s Copy served upon Applicant, The Planning Department, Public Works Department and City Attorney. By: Dated: 2 .5 -u(p CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP -06-010 - PAGE 4 of 5 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP -06-010 - PAGE 5 of 5 � k � d vVI k � R, b Ft S `'`t�.d�, t t E h x t z CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANN&EPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEWG DATE OF APRIL 20, 2006 E c -V EID f" STAFF REPORT P & Z Commission Hearing A2006 Hearin Date: 4/20/2006 C��(e �� T MEROAN g��^ �Yi ® ^ C CI @ rrdols�RK O F�GE TO: Planning & Zoning Commission" o FROM: Joe Guenther Associate City Planner SUBJECT: Cherry Crossing Drive-Thru CUP -06-010 Conditional Use Permit for a drive-thru within 300 feet of a residential district for Robnett Construction 1. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST The applicant, Robnett Construction, has applied for Conditional Use Permit approval for a drive-thru within 300 feet of a residential district at Cherry Crossing commercial center. The site is located on the northwest corner of Linder Road and Cherry Lane. The proposed building received staff level Certificate of Zoning Compliance approval on April 21, 2005 without a drive-thru. 2. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Staff has provided a detailed analysis of the requested application below. Staff recommends approval of CUP -06-010 for Cherry Crossing drive thru as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 20, 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 -010 as presented in the Staff Report for the hearing date of April 6, 2006, and the site plan labeled SD -1, dated February 15, 2006 with the following modifications to the conditions of approval: (add any proposed modifications). Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number CUP -06- 010 as presented in the Staff Report for the hearing date of April 6, 2006, for the following reasons: (you must state specific reason(s) for the denial of the conditional use permit.) I further move to direct Legal Department Staff to prepare an appropriate findings document to be considered at the next Planning and Commission hearing on April 20, 2006. Continuance After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to continue File Number CUP -06-010 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: NW Corner of Cherry Lane and Linder Road/ 1760 W. Cherry Lane Section 2, T3N Rl W Cherry Crossing CUP -06-010 PAGE 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNAEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HAG DATE OF APRIL 20, 2006 b. Owners: Robnett Construction 1045 S. Anacona Ave Eagle, ID 83616 c. Applicant: Robnett Construction 1045 S. Anacona Ave Eagle, ID 83616 d. Representative: Mike Robnett, Robnett Construction e. Present Zoning: C -N f. Present Comprehensive Plan Designation: Commercial 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. 1. Date of CUP Site Plan (attached in Exhibit A): SD -1.0 January 2005 2. Date of Landscape Plan (attached in Exhibit A): L7.01 March 17, 2005 3. Date of Building Elevations (attached in Exhibit A): January 2005 h. Applicant's Justification Statement (from application materials): "The property had a drive thru approval in 2001 and when the site was redesigned in 2004 the applicant assumed the use would be able to continue." 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: April 3 and April 17, 2006 c. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: March 24, 2006 d. Applicant posted notice on site by: April 8, 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 1. North: Existing homes, zoned R-4 2. East: Walgreens zoned L -O 3. South: Existing commercial development, zoned C -N 4. West: Existing homes, zoned R-4 Cherry Crossing CUP -06-010 PAGE 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANN&EPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE*G DATE OF APRIL 20, 2006 d. History of Previous Actions: CZC-05-046 approved on April 21, 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. Existing landscaping 3. Flood plain: NA 4. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: No major facilities. 5. Hazards: None. 6. Proposed Zoning: C -N 7. Size of Property: 2.09 acres h. Proposed and Required Non -Residential Setbacks: per the C -G zone C -N Standard Front 20 feet Side 0 feet Rear 25 feet Max. Building Height 35 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 Cherry Lane. 7. COMMENTS MEETING On March 31, 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 fords 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): Cherry Crossing CUP -06-010 PAGE 3 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNAEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE*G DATE OF APRIL 20, 2006 • "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. Staff finds 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 -N 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 -N Neighborhood Business District: The purpose of the C -N 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 small scale convince oriented. 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 SD.01, dated January, 2005, with the following comments: Median Landscape Strip: The site has a unique drive aisle which forces traffic to cross oncoming traffic in the parking lot. Staff has little concern with the design but the Meridian Police Department noted that the median divider should be expanded to accommodate stacked traffic. 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: Cherry Crossing CUP -06-010 PAGE 4 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNAEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE*G DATE OF APRIL 20, 2006 • 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 (1001) 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 -06-010 for Cherry Crossing as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 20, 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. Cherry Crossing CUP -06-010 PAGE 5 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNAEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HAG DATE OF APRIL 20, 2006 11. EXHIBITS A. Drawings 1. CUP Site Plan (dated January 2005) 2. CUP Landscape Plan (dated March 17, 2005) 3. Building Elevations (dated January 2005) B. Conditions of Approval 1. Planning Department 2. Public Works Department 3. Fire Department 4. Police Department 5. Parks Department 6. Sanitary Service Company C. Legal Description D. Required Findings from Zoning Ordinance Cherry Crossing CUP -06-010 PAGE 6 `t z. CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNAEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HAG DATE OF APRIL 20, 2006 11. EXHIBITS A. Drawings 1. CUP Site Plan (dated January 2005) 2. CUP Landscape Plan (dated March 17, 2005) 3. Building Elevations (dated January 2005) B. Conditions of Approval 1. Planning Department 2. Public Works Department 3. Fire Department 4. Police Department 5. Parks Department 6. Sanitary Service Company C. Legal Description D. Required Findings from Zoning Ordinance Cherry Crossing CUP -06-010 PAGE 6 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNSDEPARTWNT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HAG DATE OF APRIL 20, 2006 A. Drawings 1. CUP Site Plan (dated January 2005) c Exhibit A 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNSEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE*G DATE OF APRIL 20, 2006 2. Landscape Plan (dated March 17, 2005) ir 4' it 0 0 it r pj— 9( � f 7(Y d4 t..�- b• 1�4 r 8 8 }p90 � F. �• i 0 �„ I I F g •rl �a I: 10a�a9pyp n i9aaf'}mk �m !1' ed��}� o la Co �� rl 'o D 11 m z r, t h "� sa�S�l�m 7 8 G flIfV '� m f i I,P m �n 9€2t3 il�p6 I d� a _-6iR 2 E6� i} g,a o9 n el!#EP�}6Pf�'o v 6 1111 111f i�lflffl 8dmj,j �pgge f�{1111118 lep , II•� i�5 t5'. r �I� 1 fl}' liq i A }8�y I ', CD- �� f Yl 6 �li P$�1� p } D d f 1411 -Ill f i8}p f 9a tggI°INefiF �T q � } �i I' �� 9` �Slff 1111',qfi�99j� �! IBf}6y} d g qq f� fN .Gl IZ �1 X}i3 t d f,� ;o �d'?i'k� Y; 4 � Uff p1 !i1a� �' wy p� wit �i�t 8 E r � 9 9A I } fB ► R g. I'� del a IC ;. �.n A r lire CHERRY CROSSING #2 r 4 i f MERIDIAN, IDAHO Exhibit A 3 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIOEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE*G DATE OF APRIL 20, 2006 3. Building Elevations (dated January 2005) a Rim 1IN 01 i lip OEM a Rim 1IN 01 i lip a Rim cGYEF. SHEET, V101 1T5" MAP 6 rrc 5COIT OF w0pr" RG2n. . . . . . Exhibit A 4 01 cGYEF. SHEET, V101 1T5" MAP 6 rrc 5COIT OF w0pr" RG2n. . . . . . Exhibit A 4 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIOEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE*G DATE OF APRIL 20, 2006 B. Conditions of Approval 1. PLANNING DEPARTMENTS 1.1 The Site Plan labeled as SD.01, prepared by GJZ Architecture, dated January 2005 is approved, with the conditions listed herein. 1.2 The Site and Landscape Plan labeled as L7.01, prepared by The Land Group, dated March 24, 2005 is approved with the following modifications/notes: • 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 11-313-14. 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 -06-010 are complied with, the applicant shall be required to obtain a Final Inspection for the 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. 1.9 No speaker system is approved with this CUP application A separate CUP application and notification of the neighbors shall be renuired to install a speaker system 1.10 The applicant shall provide additional landscaping on both sides of the fence adiacent to the Three southern most properties adioining 1760 W Cherry Lane to buffer sound from drive- thru traffic. 1.11 The Commission recommended- and the applicant agrees to provide directional signage and curb painting for drive-thru traffic. 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 concerns that the drive aisles are not separated enough to allow for adequate traffic movement. The design allows southbound traffic to cross in front of north bound traffic to access the drive aisle. The applicant should consider extending the median to better define the drive aisles. 5. PARKS DEPARTMENT 1. The Parks Department has no concerns related to the application. Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNISDEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEG DATE OF APRIL 20, 2006 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 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. Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNI&EPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE*G DATE OF APRII, 20, 2006 C. Legal Description EXMBTP "A" PARCEL A AS SHOWN ON RECORD OF SURVEY NO. 6742 RECORDED DECEMBER 30, 2004, AS INSTRUMENT NO. 104165054, AND BEING A PORTION OF LOT 1, BLOCK 1, OF CHERRY CROSSING SUBDIVISION NO. 2, AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT, RECORDED IN BOOK 90 OF PLATS AT PAGES 10476 AND 10477 RECORDS OF ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, LOCATED IN THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST, BOISE MERIDIAN, CITY OF MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A 5/8' INCH REBAR MARKING THE SW CORNER OF LOT 1, BLOCK 1 OF CHERRY CROSSING SUBDIMON NO, 2; THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 1; NOD02W 14' E A DISTANCE OF 547.29 FEET TO A 5/8 INCH REBAR MARKING THE NW CORNER OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE LEAVING SAID WEST LINE AND ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 1, ALSO BEING THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF W. EMERALD FALLS DRIVE, S89-33'46' E A DISTANCE OF 71.52 FEET TO A 5/8 INCH REBAR; THENCE ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 20.00 FEET, AN ARC LENGTH OF 8.77 FEET. A CENTRAL ANGLE 2500727', AND A CHORD BEARING OF S77000'03' E A DISTANCE OF 8.70 FEET TO A 5/8 INCH REBAR; THENCE ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 50.00 FEET, AN ARC LENGTH OF 43.85 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 50014'55', AND A CHORD BEARING OF S89033'46°E A DISTANCE OF 42.46 FEET TO A 5/8 INCH REBAR; THENCE ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 20.00 FEET, AN ARC LENGTH OF 8.77 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE ZS00T28', AND A CHORD BEARING OF N77052.30' E A DISTANCE OF 8.70 FEET TO A 5/8 INCH REBAR; THENCE S89033'46E A DISTANCE OF 92.13 FEET TO A 1/2 INCH REBAR; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTH LINE SWW'00' W A DISTANCE OF 335.64 FEET TO A 1/2 INCH REBAR; THENCE S 8905751'W A DISTANCE.OF 154,30 FEET TO A 5/8 INCH REBAR; THENCE S00000'00'E A DISTANCE OF 149.66 FEET TO A 5/8 INCH REBAR; THENCE S210S0'45' E, A DISTANCE OF 48.72 FEET TO A 5/8 INCH REBAR THENCE SDC%6Z W A DISTANCE OF 15.65 FEET TOA 5/8 INCH REBAR ON THE NORTH RIGHT- OF-WAY LINE OF W. CHERRY LANE; THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT -OF -WAY -LINE N89033'46°W A DISTANCE OF 90.47 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. Exhibit C CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANN&EPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HAG DATE OF APRIL 20, 2006 D. Required Findings from Zoning Ordinance 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. The Commission relies on Staffs analysis, and any oral or written public testimony provided when determining if this site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use. 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in accord with the requirements of this Title. The Commission finds that the designated Comprehensive Designation for this property is Commercial. 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 business 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 relies 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. 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 Exhibit D CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANN&EPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HAL DATE OF APRIL 20, 2006 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 office 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 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 May 15, 2006 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING May 18, 2006 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 4 REQUEST Presentation on Economic Update and Enterprise Zones by Cheryl Brown AGENCY CITY CLERK: COMMENTS 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 properly of the City of Meridian. 1e �e 9 l� a 9m 0 o o g o 0 m pic 00 464b n M 0 m 3 0 0 3 3 e� c� A of a. o m � � y N 2 C 0 O W C O y W C 03 e� 3 It • C a o 0 g o 0 0 $ $ 0 N CD 8.71 ❑ ❑ to fo n ;v O m 3 C? p O p 0 c • C a o 0 g o 0 0 $ $ 0 N CD 8.71 ❑ ❑ to fo n ;v O m 3 0 0 SIR 0 0 0 OC. 07 8p = O-T cD W O M O cc0 F Ng o� R o> C:) - oD o� C)) - • ❑ ❑ 0 0 n ;u o 3 to • 0 • YUUC t!AUV PoWpan �UVIPPOW ui S-IoXoiduzg 0 0 1 m -.00 -0O Q c� 3 c =rc 2®� >ER mcoo s m w m n m -.00 -0O Q c� c =rc O 040 =rc O s m CCAS rim 9 vmm SE m c N m a' n 30 _3. 3 C 3 -• CD 3. C O 3 CL si? • May 15, 2006 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING APPLICANT REQUEST Discussion of Procedures of Meetings Ordinance May 18, 2006 ITEM NO. 12 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: COMMENTS �f resented / >'seus-s� -)GrvtJapcf Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. e May 15, 2006 • AZ 06-009 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING May 18, 2006 APPLICANT Centennial Development, LLC ITEM NO. 5 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: Annexation and Zoning of 19.57 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Cedarcreek Subdivision - 470 West McMillan Road AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: COMMENTS See Previous Iters Packet / Minutes Date: Phone: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. x } afe x kyr F b w'�.nr EYE2ZF a Its qU . �i..7,. v :W 5'"Y ^�, S F a T !: z f x } afe x kyr F b w'�.nr EYE2ZF a Its qU . �i..7,. v :W e e May 15, 2006 PP 06-007 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING May 18, 2006 APPLICANT Centennial Development, LLC ITEM NO. 6 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: Preliminary Plat approval of 85 single family residential building lots and 12 common lots for Cedarcreek Subdivision - 470 West McMillan 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: Contacted: Emailed: See Previous Item Packet / Minutes In AZ Packet Date: Phone: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. May 15, 2006 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING May 18, 2006 owe APPLICANT South Eagle and Victory Road Property Owners Alliance ITEM NO. 7 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: Annexation and Zoning of 23.29 acres from RUT to C -C zone for South Eagle and Victory Road Property Owners Alliance - east side of Eagle Road on both the north and south sides of Victory 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: COMMENTS See Previous Item Packet / Attached Minutes INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See Attached Affidavit of Posting / See Attached Legal Descriptions Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. May 15, 2006 RZ 06-003 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING May 18, 2006 APPLICANT Monterey, LLC ITEM NO. 8 REQUEST Public Hearing — Rezone of 3.13 from R-4 (Low Density Residential) to L -O (Limited Office) for Hastings - 2300 West Everest AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: COMMENTS CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Attached Staff Report CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CIN 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 Attached Affidavit of Posting / See Attached Email from BIII Carter Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. ti� 0 0 May 15,2W6 RZ 06-004 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING May 18, 2006 APPLICANT SLC Investments, LLC ITEM NO. 9 REQUEST Public Hearing — Rezone of 5.49 acres from R-4 to R-15 (2.17 acres) and L-0 (3.32 acres) for Rushmore Subdivision - 1021 West Pine Avenue 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: See Attached Staff Report No Comment See Attached Comments See Attached Comments OTHER: See Attached Affidavit of Posting Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meefings shall become property of the City of Meridian. May 15, 2006 PP 06-021 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING May 18, 2006 APPLICANT SLC Investments, LLC ITEM NO. 10 REQUEST Public Hearing — Preliminary Plat approval of 7 building lots and 2 common lots on 5.49 acres in proposed R-15 and L -O zones for Rushmore Subdivision - 1021 West Pine 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: COMMENTS See Attached Staff Report In AZ Packet No Comment See Attached Comments In AZ Packet See Attached Comments In AZ Packet OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. e h May 15, 2006 CUP 06-014 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING May 18, 2006 APPLICANT SLC Investments, LLC ITEM NO. REQUEST Public Hearing — Conditional Use Permit for 24 multifamily dwelling units in a proposed << R-15 zone for Rushmore Subdivision - 1021 West Pine Avenue AGENCY COMMENTS �M ' CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Attached Staff Report in AZ Packet CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: R {, CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: No Comment CITY PARKS DEPT: 3 MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: See Attached Comments in AZ Packet SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: See Attached Comments in AZ Packet CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: ,r NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: r OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. -130 fi y e r �. = r,H:Ecz,t.,, yin - .a y` X ��rfa'.xq;fix - - �, 4 ,e ,: r ,� i f k 4 b }