The URL can be used to link to this page

2006 07-06• CITY OF MERIDIAN MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Thursday, July 6, 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 the best of the ability of the presenter." Roll -call Attendance: X Keith Borup X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X David Moe O David Zaremba X Michael Rohm - chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of June 15, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting: Approve 4. Continued Public Hearing from June 15, 2006: RZ 06-005 Request for a Rezone of 1.004 acres from R-4 to L -O (Limited Office District) for Meridian Professional Office by John Homan — 2835 and 2825 North Meridian Road: Recommend Approval to City Council 5. Continued Public Hearing from June 15, 2006: AZ 06-026 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 60.96 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Paramount South 60 Subdivision by Paramount Development — northeast corner of N. Linder Road and W. McMillan Road: Recommend Approval to City Council 6. Continued Public Hearing from June 15, 2006: PP 06-025 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 201 residential lots and 13 common lots on 59.81 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Paramount South 60 Subdivision by Paramount Development — northeast corner of N. Linder Road and W. McMillan Road: Recommend Approval to City Council Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — July 6, 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. 7. Continued Public Hearing from June 15, 2006: CUP 06-015 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for retail use as determined by Development Agreement for Meridian Gateway — Walgreens by White - Leasure Development —1601 S. Meridian Road: Approve 8. Public Hearing: CUP 06-018 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a daycare facility for 6-12 children for Shelley Fournier by Shelley Fournier — 2567 N. Black Bear Way: Approve 9. Public Hearing: CUP 06-017 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to move liquor license from 127 E. Idaho Avenue to 126 E. Idaho Avenue for Top Shelf, LLC by Douglas and Stephanie Beehler — 126 E. Idaho Avenue: Approve 10. Public Hearing: CUP 06-019 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct 10,072.5 square foot addition for company offices, truck, equipment and material storage facilities on 3.68 acres in a C -G zone for H & H Utility Contractors, Inc. by H & H Utility Contractors, Inc. — 225 West Franklin Road: Continue Public Hearing to July 20, 2006 1.1. Public Hearing: AZ 06-027 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 3.92 acres to an R-8 zone for Tapestry Subdivision by Raftis Tapestry, LLC — 635 and 675 South Linder Road: Recommend Approval to City Council 12. Public Hearing: PP 06-026 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 20 residential lots and 4 common lots on 3.92 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Tapestry Subdivision by Raftis Tapestry, LLC — 635 and 675 South Linder Road: Recommend Approval to City Council Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — July 6, 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. e �r k q. 6 CITY OF MERIDIAN MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING t AGENDA Thursday, July 6, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. W 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 k truthful and honest to the best of the ability of the presenter. " x Y' 1. Roll-call Attendance: Keith Borup K� Wendy Newton-Huckabay David Moe David Zar emba Mich el Rohm - chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: x A. Approve Minutes of June 15, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting: 4. Continued Public Hearing from June 15, 2006: RZ 06-005 Request for a4 J f a Rezone of 1.004 acres from R-4 to L-O (Limited Office District) for Meridian Professional Office by John Homan — 2835 and 2825 North Meridian Road: 5. Continued Public Hearing from June 15, 2006: AZ 06-026 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 60.96 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for ;# Paramount South 60 Subdivision by Paramount Development — northeast corner of N. Linder Road and W. McMillan Road: t, 6. Continued Public Hearing from June 15, 2006: PP 06-025 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 201 residential lots and 13 common lots on 59.81 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Paramount South 60 Subdivision by Paramount Development — northeast corner of N. Linder £' Road and W. McMillan Road: 9t Co in 47ap f c) L,/n,(� �� nC�l� Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — July 6, 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 i v n, a a t t ,fir a. A a s 0,k' x 4 +'. s. oil 4 } d h w. 0 t ., F r r7b€moiss s rea, r 0 • 7. Continued Public Hearing from June 15, 2006: CUP 06-015 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for retail use as determined by Development Agreement for Meridian Gateway — Walgreens by White - Leasure Development — 1601 S. Meridian Road: 11r),0 6 ^6 Lt 8. Public Hearing: CUP 06-018 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a daycare facility for 6-12 children for Shelley Fournier by Shelley Fournier — 2567 N. Black Bear Way: Apr E, D vt 9. Public Hearing: CUP 06-017 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to move liquor license from 127 E. Idaho Avenue to 126 E. Idaho Avenue for Top Shelf, LLC by Douglas and Stephanie Beehler — 126 E. Idaho Avenue: 10. Public Hearing: CUP 06-019 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct 10,072.5 square foot addition for company offices, truck, equipment and material storage facilities on 3.68 acres in a C -G zone for H & H Utility Contractors, Inc. by H & H Utility Contractors, Inc. — 225 West Franklin Road: _ 11. Public Hearing: AZ 06-027 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 3.92 acres to an R-8 zone for Tapestry Subdivision by Raftis Tapestry, LLC — 635 and 675 South Linder Road: 12. Public Hearing: PP 06-026 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 20 residential lots and 4 common lots on 3.92 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Tapestry Subdivision by Raftis Tapestry, LLC — 635 and 675 South Linder Road: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — July 6, 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. J t �n ks�v 0 • 7. Continued Public Hearing from June 15, 2006: CUP 06-015 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for retail use as determined by Development Agreement for Meridian Gateway — Walgreens by White - Leasure Development — 1601 S. Meridian Road: 11r),0 6 ^6 Lt 8. Public Hearing: CUP 06-018 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a daycare facility for 6-12 children for Shelley Fournier by Shelley Fournier — 2567 N. Black Bear Way: Apr E, D vt 9. Public Hearing: CUP 06-017 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to move liquor license from 127 E. Idaho Avenue to 126 E. Idaho Avenue for Top Shelf, LLC by Douglas and Stephanie Beehler — 126 E. Idaho Avenue: 10. Public Hearing: CUP 06-019 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct 10,072.5 square foot addition for company offices, truck, equipment and material storage facilities on 3.68 acres in a C -G zone for H & H Utility Contractors, Inc. by H & H Utility Contractors, Inc. — 225 West Franklin Road: _ 11. Public Hearing: AZ 06-027 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 3.92 acres to an R-8 zone for Tapestry Subdivision by Raftis Tapestry, LLC — 635 and 675 South Linder Road: 12. Public Hearing: PP 06-026 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 20 residential lots and 4 common lots on 3.92 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Tapestry Subdivision by Raftis Tapestry, LLC — 635 and 675 South Linder Road: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — July 6, 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. ted IM it M -, �,, 1u i$ s t; ted IM it M -, �,, P IVA - CITY OF MERIDIAN MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Thursday, July 6, 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 the best of the ability of the presenter." 1. Roll -call Attendance: Keith Borup David Moe 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: Wendy Newton-Huckabay David Zaremba Michael Rohm - chairman A. Approve Minutes of June 15, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting: 4. Continued Public Hearing from June 15, 2006: RZ 06-005 Request for a Rezone of 1.004 acres from R-4 to L -O (Limited Office District) for Meridian Professional Office by John Homan — 2835 and 2825 North Meridian Road: 5. Continued Public Hearing from June 15, 2006: AZ 06-026 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 60.96 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Paramount South 60 Subdivision by Paramount Development — northeast comer of N. Linder Road and W. McMillan Road: 6. Continued Public Hearing from June 15, 2006: PP 06-025 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 201 residential lots and 13 common lots on 59.81 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Paramount South 60 Subdivision by Paramount Development — northeast comer of N. Linder Road and W. McMillan Road: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — July 6, 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. } 7. Continued Public Hearing from June 15, 2006: CUP 06-015 Request est q for a Conditional Use Permit for retail use as determined by r Development Agreement for Meridian Gateway — Walgreens by White - Leasure Development —1601 S. Meridian Road: 8. Public Hearing: CUP 06-018 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a daycare facility for 6-12 children for Shelley Fournier by Shelley Fournier " — 2567 N. Black Bear Way: h 9. Public Hearing: CUP 06-017 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to ^ move liquor license from 127 E. Idaho Avenue to 126 E. Idaho Avenue for Top Shelf, LLC by Douglas and Stephanie Beehler — 126 E. Idaho Avenue: ` 10. Public Hearing: CUP 06-019 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct 10,072.5 square foot addition for company offices, truck, equipment and material storage facilities on 3.68 acres in a C -G zone for s H & H Utility Contractors, Inc. by H & H Utility Contractors, Inc. — 225 r West Franklin Road: 11. Public Hearing: AZ 06-027 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 3.92 acres to an R-8 zone for Tapestry Subdivision by Raftis Tapestry, LLC — �, 635 and 675 South Linder Road: �s "Fb 12. Public Hearing: PP 06-026 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 20 residential lots and 4 common lots on 3.92 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Tapestry Subdivision by Raftis Tapestry, LLC — 635 and 675 South Linder Road: t F 1 } tA F C S^ b•: tr j "$ Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — July 6, 2006 Page 2 of 2 All materials presented at public meetings shall become properly 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. > l td r u n. so n a r 4 Irl r s M F �t yj "$-i EI• N`t7 �' r ;a ¢' 4 ..39 ;a'"'.'Y•. »Fx, s; �S, ,.rrF 4 .�g zr" } 1' '} 1 � .i. S R•i, � i h .EF� - r . #ter sF+-�,`2} fr'E lt,k3`+a'$b e 1 r CITY OF MERIDIAN MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Thursday, July 6, 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 the best of the ability of the presenter' 1. Roll -call Attendance: Keith Borup it Wendy Newton-Huckabay David Moe David Zaremba Mich el Rohm - chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: A- Approve Minutes of June 15, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting: Aprrvve 4. Continued Public Hearing from June 15, 2006: RZ 06.005 Request for a Rezone of 1.004 acres from R-4 to L-0 (Limited Office District) for Meridian Professional Office by John Homan — 2835 and 2825 North Meridian Road: +�p 5. Continued Public acing from June 15, 2006: AZ 06-02Re 6 for Annexation and Zoning of 60.96 acres from RUT to R-8 oneuest for Paramount South 60 Subdivision by Paramount Development — northeast comer of N. Linder Road and W. McMillan Road: �-C 0)7711'Un rPrLW -, aA-o; j •P 6. Continued Public Hearing from June 15, 2006: PP 06.025 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 201 residential lots and 13 common lots on 59.81 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Paramount South 60 Subdivision by Paramount Development — northeast comer of N. Linder Road and W. McMillan Road: 96Coin n' 1*P10✓a-f �a ot (,,mlleri, Meridian Planning and zoning Commission Meeting Agenda –July 6. 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 Offl- at 868-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. ** TX COWION REPORT AS OF JUL OG '06 PAM. 01 vt CITY OF MERIDIAN 04 DATE TIME TO/FROM 07/06 22:30 PUBLIC WORKS MODE MIN/SEC PGS CMDt1 STATUS 05 07/06 22:32 WATER DEPT EC --S EC --S 00'43" 002 089 OK 06 07/06 22:33 2088840744 EC --S 00'43" 002 00'44" 002 089 OK 07 08 07/06 22:34 POLICE DEPT EC --S 00'42" 002 089 089 OK OK 09 07/06 22:35 8985501 07/06 22:37 2083776449 EC—S 00'42" 002 089 OK 10 07/06 22:38 3886924 EC—S 00'42" 002 089 OK 11 07/06 22:39 P–AND–Z EC --S 00'42" 002 089 OK 12 07/06 22:40 FIRE DEPT EC --S EC --S 00'42" 002 089 OK 13 07/06 22:42 208 888 2682 EC --S 00'42" 002 089 OK 14 07/06 22:43 208 387 6393 EC --S 00'43" 002 089 OK 15 07/06 22:44 ADA CTY DEVELMT EC --S 00'43" 002 089 OK 16 07/06 22:45 20ee885052 00'42" 002 089 OK 17 07/06 22:47 LAKEVIEW mLFCOU EC --S G3 --S 00'43" 002 o89 OK 18 07/06 22:49 IDAHO ATHLETIC C 01'22" 002 089 OK 19 07/06 22:50 ID PRESS TRIBUNE EC --S EC --S 00'44" 002 089 OK 20 07/06 22:52 2088e6701 00'42" 002 089 OK 21 07/06 23:00-3810160 EC --S 00'42" 002 089 OK EC --S 01'09" 002 089 OK CITY OF MERIDIAN MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Thursday, July 6, 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 the best of the ability of the presenter' 1. Roll -call Attendance: Keith Borup it Wendy Newton-Huckabay David Moe David Zaremba Mich el Rohm - chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: A- Approve Minutes of June 15, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting: Aprrvve 4. Continued Public Hearing from June 15, 2006: RZ 06.005 Request for a Rezone of 1.004 acres from R-4 to L-0 (Limited Office District) for Meridian Professional Office by John Homan — 2835 and 2825 North Meridian Road: +�p 5. Continued Public acing from June 15, 2006: AZ 06-02Re 6 for Annexation and Zoning of 60.96 acres from RUT to R-8 oneuest for Paramount South 60 Subdivision by Paramount Development — northeast comer of N. Linder Road and W. McMillan Road: �-C 0)7711'Un rPrLW -, aA-o; j •P 6. Continued Public Hearing from June 15, 2006: PP 06.025 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 201 residential lots and 13 common lots on 59.81 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Paramount South 60 Subdivision by Paramount Development — northeast comer of N. Linder Road and W. McMillan Road: 96Coin n' 1*P10✓a-f �a ot (,,mlleri, Meridian Planning and zoning Commission Meeting Agenda –July 6. 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 Offl- at 868-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. vt x 4 r.. 0 July 31, 2006 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING APPLICANT e August 3, 2006 ITEM NO. 3-A REQUEST Approve Minutes of July 6, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Emailed: COMMENTS 0 f"T)/+ Date: Phone: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. t 5 W � ' tt 4 3 6 1:4 s t i� „ '2y F " :A- 0 July 31, 2006 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING APPLICANT e August 3, 2006 ITEM NO. 3-A REQUEST Approve Minutes of July 6, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Emailed: COMMENTS 0 f"T)/+ Date: Phone: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Yi W � ' tt 4 3 6 1:4 s t tj s „ '2y y 70, �n 4 �. ti �Y'FfSE ie eF Yi W � ' 4 3 t, s t tj s R&+ iyy J•Xk M'! Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 6, 2006 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of July 6, 2006, was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Michael Rohm. Members Present: Michael Rohm, Keith Borup, Wendy Newton-Huckabay, and David Moe. Members Absent: David Zaremba. Others Present: Bill Nary, Machelle Hill, (Craig) Caleb Hood, Mike Cole, Jenny Veatch, Justin Lucas, Amanda Hess and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll -Call Attendance: Roll -call X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Keith Borup X David Moe - Vice Chairman O David Zaremba X , Michael Rohm - Chairman Rohm: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. At this time I'd like to call to order the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for the date of July the 6th, 2006, and begin with roll call. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: Rohm: Okay. To start off I'd like to begin with the Consent Agenda. I guess we should adopt the agenda first. Is there anybody that has anything to say about the agenda before we adopt it? Concerns? Hearing none. Item 3: Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of June 15, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting: Rohm: The Consent Agenda is approval of the minutes of June 15th, 2006. Any corrections or additions? Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Moe: I have none. Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve the meeting minutes of June 15th, 2006. Newton-Huckabay: Second. 40 r Y«w ; f s; fo ; I Y 54 Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting* July 6, 2006 Page 2 of 52 Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to approve the minutes of June 15th, 2006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: Okay. Okay. Before we start the balance of our meeting, for those of you that don't attend at these meetings very often, the procedure that we generally go through is we will open up a project and we will ask the staff to give their staff report and that presentation, basically, presents the project in terms of the Comprehensive Plan and Ordinance. They are neither for nor against projects, they just speak to a project based upon its adherence to the laws of the city. Once the staff has made their presentation, then, the applicant has an opportunity to come forward and speak and at that time they are basically trying to sell their project to the Commission based upon the merits as they see them. Once those two presentations have been completed, then, the podium will be open to the public. Each person that has something to say about any project is given an opportunity to come forward and speak at that time. If, in fact, there is an individual that is speaking for a larger group, like say a property owners association, that individual will be given additional time, with the assumption that he or she is speaking for a larger group as a whole. Once all these testimonies have been taken, the applicant, then, has an opportunity to come back and rebut anything that was given in testimony. And that's pretty much the procedure that we go through and, basically, the only way that we can take testimony is at this podium and it has to be as part of public record and you need to give your name and address before you start speaking. Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from June 15, 2006: RZ 06-005 Request for a Rezone of 1.004 acres from R-4 to L -O (Limited Office District) for Meridian Professional Office by John Homan — 2835 and 2825 North Meridian Road: Rohm: With that being said, we will start by opening up the Continued Public Hearing from June 15th, 2006, of RZ 06-005 for the Meridian Professional Office and begin with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. Meridian Professional Office rezone was on a previous agenda and the applicant did not post the site for that one and that's why it has been continued to this hearing date. So, I will give you the full blown staff report here. It is a -- not a very large project, but I will give you some of the details here. It is comprised of three lots within Salisbury Subdivision, which is a residential subdivision. These three lots are located on the west side of Meridian Road. One of the lots is a common lot in the subdivision. We did request that they actually include that common lot landscape buffer lot within the rezone request, so that we could get the zoning designation to go to the center of Meridian Road. It's kind of just a clean- up thing, if you will. Nothing will happen with that common lot, but it makes it so you don't have a strip of L -O surround by R-4 everywhere. So, there is a conceptual site plan that the applicant has submitted with the rezone request showing four office buildings. This is approximately a thousand feet south of Ustick Road. As you can see Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting* July 6, 2006 Page 3 of 52 from the map here, everything is pretty much yellow around them, which are residential zones. I'll go to an aerial here and you can see that there are homes surrounding the property. In fact, there are two existing homes there today that will be removed and replaced with those four -- potentially four office buildings. Here is that conceptual site plan that I was talking about. Currently there is an access to Meridian Road for those homes that are there today. They are going to be constructing a new access off of -- I forget the name of this street -- Sedgewick Drive for the office units to use. They will keep a portion of that existing driveway for emergency access only. Again, this is just a rezone and these are conceptual layouts, but it does look like this is a pretty feasible layout for the site. Staff has included in the staff report some development agreement provisions that limit things such as hours of operation, size of buildings, uses that can go in there. And I guess while I'm talking about uses, Commissioner Zaremba did contact me this afternoon and state that he did have one concern with this project and that would be in the development agreement -- and he thinks this is something -- generally when we see these applications that are using the Comprehensive Plan Amendment that was done in 2004, 1 think it's 04-454, that allows these parcels that are less than three acres and on arterials to apply for office zoning. He'd like to see that we just flat out limit those to office uses and not allow any ancillary commercial uses, which is stated in that Comp Plan Amendment and I think that's what the intent is is to not have those be commercial uses, per se, or retail uses, but they are limited to office -type uses, because they are generally surrounded by residential and there are some site constraints with having them be used as residences and it makes sense in a lot of instances to have them have offices on those lots. So, anyways, just to pass those comments along from Commissioner, he had some concerns there. And there is a provision in the development agreement that staff is proposing, it's the fifth bullet point down that says the following shall be the only uses on this property. It says principally permitted uses within the L -O zone. So, they wouldn't be allowed to apply for conditionally allowed uses in the zone, but only principally permitted uses. And, again, he wanted to limit that even further and say no ancillary commercial uses. I think that that's an -- and I touched on it briefly, but the reason that they are able to ask for this rezone -- and I probably should have started with that -- is the Comprehensive Plan and it is designated medium density on the Comprehensive Plan. They are not asking for an office zone, but with that resolution that does allow parcels with frontage on arterials to ask for that office zone. Staff thinks this is a -- can be an appropriate place for some higher intense use if it fits in well with the neighborhood and the landscape buffers and those provisions that are in the development agreement are complied with by the applicant. So, with that I think I will stand for any questions that you may have. Rohm: Thank you, Caleb. Any questions of Caleb at this time? Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Rohm: Would the applicant like to come forward, please? VanOcker: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Amber VanOcker, LKV Architects, representing the applicant. Caleb done a good job of outlining the Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting July 6, 2006 Page 4 of 52 project and we agree with the development agreement and the requirements for that. It's the intent of the owner to completely focus upon office -type uses, medical uses. Their intent has -- has never been focused towards any sort of commercial use. The four buildings are relatively small in size, roughly around 3,000 square feet, so you're looking at a single office use, potentially two in one building, but a pretty small, low intense use. We have gone through the staff report and have looked at all the recommendations of landscaping and agree with those. We had our neighborhood meeting and the neighbors were concerned about our west property line and our south property line and we have agreed to go ahead and use a masonry fence, rather than just a standard cedar fence and we will work with them on the design of that to help screen even a little bit further beyond that 20 foot landscape buffer, which is required. So, we are here requesting approval and I will stand for any questions. Rohm: I guess my only question would be would you be agreeable to the masonry fence being in the development agreement? VanOcker: Sure. We have agreed to it, so it's on record and if you would like us to include that, we can do so. Rohm: Okay. Does anybody have any other questions? Moe: I have no questions. Borup: Just a quick one, just to make sure I understood. You were in agreement to limit it to strictly office use, rather than anything in an L -O zone? VanOcker: The recommendation of the development agreement, as far as the staff has recommended, we are fine with that. And if I understood him correctly, it was basically limiting to office -type uses, no commercial. Borup: But Commissioner Zaremba was wanting to go beyond that, wasn't he? Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Borup, I don't want to put too many words in his mouth, I guess. His concern was to limit uses on this site to what the resolution states and the resolution doesn't state uses, it just says -- Borup: L -O zone. Hood: -- you may apply for the L -O zone and no ancillary commercial uses shall be allowed. So, it doesn't list uses that you get with that, but there are use some uses that are principally permitted with the L -O zone -- Borup: And I assume those would be okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting July 6, 2006 Page 5 of 52 Hood: The way it's written now, yes. I think what he has a concern with is that those shouldn't be allowed. So, the way staffs written it is a little bit more lenient and may allow some uses that are more intense, I guess, than just -- Borup: And I just reviewed those. I didn't see anything that concerned me on some of the other uses. Things like, you know, a church and a school -- you know, educational facilities and parks and -- I don't think you're going to put a park there. Hood: Yeah. It's not our most intense zoning designation, that's for sure. There are some day cares and some things like that which may be -- Borup: Well, that may be one. The day care may be the one. I don't know. Rohm: Maybe to ask the question, would you be willing to also exclude day care? VanOcker: Mr. Chairman, I think we can -- that's fine. They have no intention of really going to that level with this. I think our parking -- we would probably get into a problem with day care use anyhow. So, we would be fine with that. We can put that in the development agreement. Borup: So, are you -- Commissioner -- or, Mr. Chairman, then, you're thinking everything that's allowed, except for day care? Mr. Rohm: That's kind of what my thought was. Borup: That does open up kind of some other stuff, but -- but, like you say, your site's probably not big enough, you're not going to have an educational facility or some of those things. VanOcker: Right. Yeah. And if you want us to include those larger uses, we can. think the site is going to determine that those uses aren't appropriate anyhow, but if it would make you feel more comfortable, we can throw, you know, the educational uses in there also. Borup: Well, that's already included. That's what I'm saying. VanOcker: Throw them out. Borup: That's -- oh, throw them out? VanOcker: With the development agreement saying we will not do those. Borup: Oh. I don't have any concern about that. We just think it's -- most of the time it's easier to keep things simpler and go with what the ordinance already says, rather than trying to get a lot of different rules that's hard to enforce. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting July 6, 2006 Page 6 of 52 VanOcker: Right. Borup: That's all I had. VanOcker: Thank you. Rohm: At this time it's open to public testimony. There has been nobody that has signed up to testify in this hearing, but if anyone would like to come forward and speak, now is the time. Seeing none, thank you. Any discussion before we close this hearing? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I'm inclined to disagree with Commissioner Zaremba. I think we should go straight ordinance on this. I don't think that limiting it really -- one I agree, it's not big enough for a day care. Two, the next most intense use would be an education facility, which would be something like a Huntington Learning Center or something like that, and I can't -- even at that point I can't imagine it being large enough for that, but -- Rohm: Well, I tend to agree with you that when we wrote the ordinances that that was the intent is to come up with something that would work within -- as it's written. So, I'm not opposed to leaving it just as it was proposed. Newton-Huckabay: Yeah, I -- Borup: I agree. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I would also agree. I think the staff report pretty well outlines it and I don't know that we really need to delve into changing it too much at all. I think this -- quite frankly, I think this project is a good one for the neighborhood. We've had a couple other things come before us in this area that weren't real agreeable. I think this does a real good job to start taking care of this area, so -- Newton-Huckabay: I agree. Rohm: I do think that we should add the fact that the applicant has agreed to the masonry fence. I think to add that to the development agreement would be in good order. Other than that, I think the staff report as written seems to cover all bases. Hood: And Mr. Chair, I was just going to say real quick, that is, actually, already included. It's the ninth bullet point in the proposed development agreement. Rohm: Got it. It's there. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I just have one comment on that. Did -- the masonry fence is just on the north and south of the property, not in the rear of this property? Hood: No. The south and west. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting.0 9 July 6, 2006 Page 7 of 52 Newton-Huckabay: South and west. Hood: That's adjacent to the residential uses. You have Meridian Road to the east -- Newton-Huckabay: Right. Hood: -- and to the north is the other street Sedgewick Drive. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Does that create any kind of blind and sight problems that way? I mean -- or for police or -- Rohm: We did have an agency comments meeting. It was brought up, I believe, that they are proposing to fence it and put pretty dense landscaping in there, because that's what the ordinance requires, and I don't remember -- the police department's usually the one that comments on that and I don't see any comments from them. So, I don't think it should. Borup: There would have been a fence there either way, so the visual aspect would be the same. It's just change -- Newton-Huckabay: I was just concerned about creating a pocket area where you can't really see down in where kids can gather and do the kind of things that -- Rohm: That kids do. Newton-Huckabay: -- that kids do that end up on the news. But I -- this isn't an extremely large -- an extremely large area to look at, so I'm okay, if everybody else is satisfied. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I move that we close the Public Hearing on RZ 06-005. Borup: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on RZ 06-005. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. 3 � f s t .� .t 1 Yf x §' 3 � f Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting July 6, 2006 Page 8 of 52 Moe: I move we recommend approval to City Council of file number RZ 06-005, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 15th, 2006, continued to the July 6th, 2006, hearing, with no changes. Borup: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending approval of RZ 06-005. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. Thanks very much. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from June 15, 2006: AZ 06-026 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 60.96 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Paramount South 60 Subdivision by Paramount Development — northeast corner of N. Linder Road and W. McMillan Road: Item 6: Continued Public Hearing from June 15, 2006: PP 06-025 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 201 residential lots and 13 common lots on 59.81 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Paramount South 60 Subdivision by Paramount Development — northeast corner of N. Linder Road and W. McMillan Road: Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the continued Public Hearing from June 15th, 2006, of AZ 06-026 and PP 06-025. Both of these related to Paramount South 60 Subdivision and begin with the staff report. Veatch: Thank you, Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission. We are discussing Paramount South 60 this evening, which is located north of McMillan Road and east of North Linder. Right here. The applicant is requesting both annexation and preliminary approval. This is currently a rural zone and they are asking for an R-8 zone for 200 single family lots and 11 common lots. Let's see here. As you can tell, around the surrounding area we do have currently other R-8 developments. We also have some down here. This here is a very large rural parcel, though, that stands alone. Another R- 8 here. And, then, we do have some other rural parcels here. This piece is also owned by Paramount, as well as some of these pieces here. So, they have a contiguous flow of land through this that is developing. And currently this right here -- excuse me for my shakiness. That has already developed. This is part future development from Paramount and, then, as well as this will also be developing under Paramount. Let's see here. Initially -- initially we had requested a variance and, then, it was determined that that is no longer necessary, so that has been refunded to the applicant. And here is your aerial view of the area. We have a number of stubs here. This will take us back up to Paramount Six and connect with that subdivision. This connects over to the eastern future phase of Paramount. I have one here and one here. Let's see. And as far as any major things, staff is generally opposed -- excuse me -- generally supportive Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting* July 6, 2006 Page 9 of 52 of the proposed development. There are some conditions with ACHD and with different agencies regarding some of the cul-de-sacs. We have condition that there be no parking around the inside of the cul-de-sacs there, so that there is a proper turning radius for emergency vehicles. All of this -- it's hard to tell, but there is detached sidewalks, so there will be a lot of landscaping in the area around the development, as well as a park here where they have proposed a tot lot. It's pretty straight forward, like said. It does fit into the area with the R-8 development. This is an area that's transitioning rapidly from rural to R-8. And I will stand for any further questions. Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of staff? Would the applicant like to come forward, please. Walker: Chairman, Commissioners, Jay Walker, representing Brighton Corporation. I think this is a completion of a mile -by -mile square and allows for further development of that -- of that area. I did have one item to address with the Planning and Zoning Department and I thought -- I didn't catch your name. Veatch: Jenny. Walker: Jenny. I thought Jenny did a wonderful job. There was a correction. The stub out of Lafton Drive to the east is, actually, to Cedar Creek Subdivision, I think being developed by Corey Barton. So, that is one change. And we did -- you can't tell from this landscape plan. There are some changes since this landscape plan and I do have that revised where -- if you go back one screen. You can see that we have made some modifications, including a stub road to the west to the commercial area. Now, as stated in the staff report, there were some concerns about cut-throughs. Very limited visibility of the new high school, the Rocky Mountain High School that's going in directly to the north of this development, and we were concerned with cut-throughs, thus, we staggered that stub street to the east, not allowing a straight cut through to bypass the McMillan -Linder intersection. That was our major concern and part of a traffic calming effort. We also eliminated, through staff input, the elongated -- what do you want to call that, Mike? Cole: Cul -de -park? Walker: Cul -de -park. Yeah. Maybe that's what we should call it. And did some other things that would make this a better little subdivision for people to live in. Now, I did have one change to that staff report, Mike, that -- on page six of the staff report -- or page eight, actually, under fencing, it says that we are proposing to construct six foot solid fencing along the entire perimeter of the site. Actually, up where the high school is developing, they will be placing a chain link fence, we will not be putting a cedar privacy fence parallel to that chain link fence. The high school will install that fence. And you can see it at the -- at the extent of phase six previously developed and that will be the termination point of the chain link fence. Anything to the east of the phase six, that stub street that connects to Fox Run Way to the north, then, we will continue the cedar fence around the rest of the subdivision and, then, at the northwest corner we will continue Meridian Planning &Zoning Meetings July 6, 2006 Page 10 of 52 south with the cedar fence, privacy fence, as well. If that makes sense. So, if we could make that change, both in the condition of approval, as well as on that fencing - paragraph. Veatch: Jay, we had discussed that earlier today in one of our meetings and that had been noted that that needed to be modified, that usually adjacent to a school we prefer the open fencing. Thank you. Walker: Okay. That was the only -- otherwise, I think we have addressed previously with staff comments and our wanting to be compliant with everything stated in the staff �M} report. And I would open it up to any questions that you have. = Rohm: Thank you, Jay. Any questions of the applicant? h Newton-Huckabay: Not right now. Rohm: Okay. 4= Walker: Thank you. Rohm: And, again, we do not have anybody signed up to speak to this application, but y at this time the floor is open. Anybody that would like to come forward and speak may , do so at this time. Okay. Thank you. I think this is a pretty straight forward addition to - x - a very well thought out subdivision and it appears as if they are just moving forward g.with what's been developing and it looks like have done a good job. Newton-Huckabay: I have a couple of comments. First, what is a cul-de-park? Borup: Michael just invited a new word. F Newton-Huckabay: So, I don't need to remember that? a, Hood: If I may, they are showing up more and more. t Newton-Huckabay: Okay. That would be great. Hood: So, it's the park in the middle of a cul-de-sac. So, they had a big park -- this is actually forty by about 200. So, it's a pretty good size open space. Sometimes they also -- developers will also design in some parking within those, so it's a -- it really is a -- parking in the cul-de-sac. fc Newton-Huckabay: It sounds like an oversized island type thing. :.. Hood: It is. Yeah. It's an island. There is some smaller ones here. This is one of the larger ones that I have ever seen with this layout. V �i ;y 'bl2 -d+t >L i J t q a ` >4�.4, Ne' . er at {chi. 9„t, f :.:p '%+ x ` T a✓ W ' {^yv t •.'r'4 '} t, [y; 1 7 rr Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting July 6, 2006 Page 11 of 52 Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Hood: But it looks like they have changed that design now to make it more look like a standard cul-de-sac. Newton-Huckabay: Great. Okay. Can you go back that shows the -- the one that has Cedar Creek next -- Cedar Creek. One more. Anybody got a -- I was concerned when Cedar Creek came through we had this little outparcel right here and one of the statements that was made by the city at the time is that when this comes through, if we stub here, then, developing this outparcel to look like everything around it would be fairly simple. So, I was kind of disappointed not to see a stub here to connect up with this street, because that is not a very large piece of land, if I remember correctly, but staff at the time, of course, thought that two parcels could go there and two could go there and it would flow fairly seamlessly, so I was kind of hoping to see that and I wanted the other Commissioners' opinion on that. Borup: From a traffic standpoint I think there is a concern on the raceway through that. I mean, you know, the through traffic with that long of a -- that long of a road. Newton-Huckabay: I would concur that that has potential to -- Cole: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Mr. Cole. Cole: Commissioners, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, I was here at the meeting for Cedar Creek as well. I think what the final analysis was that to develop that small piece they could have -- they can do it in a small cul-de-sac or T-type alley -- not alley, but hammerhead block, but if you -- if you were to stub to that parcel from Paramount South 60 as well, you have created -- they are having to build a street clear through that and they wouldn't have enough land above the street to actually get any build -able lots and I think it would, actually, be an encumbrance upon that property to have to -- Newton-Huckabay: So, there wasn't -- it was determined there wasn't enough land north of where it would go? Cole: That's -- as I remember the conversation that's how it went. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Fair enough. Borup: The only other question I had was -- and I missed that at the beginning of Mr. Walker's presentation, but I thought he said there was a -- was there a mistake on the staff report on one of the stub streets and which direction it was? Rohm: Just where it went to, not into another -- Meridian Planning $ Zoning Meeting* July 6, 2006 Page 12 of 52 9 Borup: I mean is the staff report correct or do we need to correct that? Veatch: Yes, it is. Borup: It is correct? Veatch: It is. Yes. Borup: Okay. All right. Thank you. That was all I had. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the public hearings on AZ 06-026 and PP 06- 025. Newton-Huckabay: Second Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearings on AZ 06-026 and PP 06-025. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe: I did not write down the -- Borup: I did. Moe: -- fencing and such, so I assume you have -- you can make the motion or whatever or -- as per -- Veatch: That would be -- that was the site specific condition of 1.1.5. Borup: Yeah. I have got that down. Moe: Do you? Borup: You want me to do it? Moe: Please. Borup: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Borup. Borup: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 06-026 and PP 06-025 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 6th, with the following modification: Under Exhibit B, 1.1.5, to add after the phrase -- after the wording: To provide a six foot tall Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting July 6, 2006 Page 13 of 52 solid fence around the perimeter of the development, except adjacent to the future high school property. Would that cover that? Rohm: I think it does. Borup: Okay. And just insert that except adjacent to the future high school property in that sentence. End of motion. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 06-026 and PP 06-025, with inclusion of the staff report with a minor modification. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 7: Continued Public Hearing from June 15, 2006: CUP 06-015 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for retail use as determined by Development Agreement for Meridian Gateway — Walgreens by White - Leasure Development —1601 S. Meridian Road: Rohm: At this time I'd like to open -- or reopen the continued Public Hearing from June 15th, 2006, of CUP 06-015 for Meridian Gateway - Walgreens and begin with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. Before I begin the staff report for this project, I failed to, before the last one, I wanted to introduce you to a couple of staff members that we have. You may have seen Justin Lucas here a couple meetings ago -- or last meeting, I guess, a couple weeks ago. I didn't introduce him, then, but this is Justin, he's coming to us from California, and he started about three weeks ago now I think, something like that. About three weeks ago. And, then, this is Amanda Hess and she was working up in Latah County and she's been here about a couple weeks now, too. So, I just wanted to introduce you real quick to them and you will be seeing some staff reports from them here real quick, so -- Newton-Huckabay: Welcome. Rohm: Yes. Welcome. Moe: Good to have you. Rohm: And I'm sure Caleb was very glad to have the help. Hood: And the Public Hearing that we are having now is for a Conditional Use Permit for a 14,820 square foot retail pharmacy with a drive-thru. The site is located on the southwest corner of Overland and Meridian Road and it's currently zoned C -G. Now, Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting• July 6, 2006 Page 14 of 52 pharmacies, retail, even drive-thrus are principally permitted in the C -G zone generally. However, the development agreement in effect for this site does require all uses to obtain Conditional Use Permit approval and that's why this item is before you. The applicant has also submitted a design review application, because it's on the corner of an entryway corridor of Meridian. State Highway 69 is designated an entryway corridor and there is also a design review application associated with this. This item, too, has been continued from a previous hearing. The applicant has posted proper notice on this site now and I just want to touch on a couple of things I guess real quick, some history, maybe. Just a couple few weeks ago the City Council actually approved a right -in, right -out access to this site from Meridian Road. It does not look like either of the two access points that are shown on the submitted site plan -- and that's one of the reasons that the submitted site plan was not approved, because it showed the originally requested access points. So, the 500 feet puts it approximately right here on the site and that would be a right -in, right -out only, and a condition of that would be that the access point goes straight through to the property to the west, so they can use it when it redevelops and that it, really, should serve as a private lane and not really as a circuitous way to that property, but, really, to provide a real drive lane, a drive aisle, out through the road, so we can get a couple of users that can get to that access point. So, just a little bit of history there. There are some conditions in the staff report regarding landscape buffers, land use buffers, maintenance of the large area that's not being developed at this time and there is a substantial portion of the property that is for future development, so staff had some concerns about that, just turning the weeds or junk vehicles back there or whatnot. So, there is a condition in there that they need at least to keep those down and have it be somewhat attractive until it develops. So, there is an existing development agreement, as I mentioned earlier, that this site is subject to, in addition to the conditions of approval listed in the staff report. There were some minor - - I consider minor changes, additions, just UDC -type clean-up things regarding parking islands and those types of things on the end of rows to prevent people from driving across those parking stalls and to really define the parking areas a little bit better. A couple of them to call out, I guess, more specifically regarding the landscaping, is the UDC does require a 25 foot wide land use buffer between commercially zoned property and residential zoned properties. I probably should have called that out a little bit better on the aerial view. You can see there is an existing residential subdivision here. However, this site is quite a bit lower than that subdivision. I didn't measure it, but it probably falls six, seven, eight feet, maybe, something like that. It's a pretty steep slope right at the fence line to these homes. There is some analysis in the staff report. I think I will just leave it at that for now. The drive-thru design, we really don't have any concerns with it. It appears to meet all of our requirements for a drive-thru facility. There is a requirement for a certificate of zoning compliance. The architectural character submitted also complies with the UDC and our design review standards. So, I kind of glossed over some of the conditions. Again, I don't believe any of them are too - - they are just UDC -type clean-up things and I will stand for any questions you may have. Rohm: Thank you, Caleb. Any questions of staff? Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting• July 6, 2006 Page 15 of 52 1191 Moe: Yes, I do. Caleb, I was just kind of going through the plan little bit. I was just kind of curious on the site plan, they are noting that the -- the sidewalks and whatnot will be taken care of by ACHD on both the Overland and also on Meridian Road. Even though you have noted that the attached concrete sidewalks would be by ACRD, I would anticipate ending on Meridian, would that not be ITD's responsibility there? Hood: Yeah. Mr. Chair, Commissioner Moe, I think when ACHD will do a project -- and I think this section of Overland Road is actually scheduled in their five year work program for widening and they follow the radius around, so they don't just stop it, they will, actually, finish the intersection. They will not continue down -- all the way down Meridian Road, they will just, basically, do that radius, so you can get the crosswalk in and those types of things, so it will -- Moe: So, basically, the curb, gutter, sidewalk, for this project won't happen until ACHD or Meridian Road are developed out. Hood: Generally, when ACHD has a project in its five year work plan, what they require the applicant to do is road trust for what those fees will be, so they can lump all those, pull the money together, and hire someone to do the work all at once, rather than piecemealing it in. Moe: Thank you. Rohm: Anymore questions of staff? At this time would the applicant like to come forward, please? Huber: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Jeff Huber, I reside at -- my address is 416 South 8th Street, Boise Idaho. I represent the applicant. Caleb, could you put up the site plan that was approved by the City Council? We are in agreement with the staff report, with the exception of three items that I'd like your consideration of and I'd like to discuss those. If we can get that other site plan up. I guess I could discuss one of them while he's doing that right now. One of the requirements in the staff report is that we provide a 25 -foot landscape buffer adjacent to the residential here and we have no problem doing that, but we'd like to do that at the time that we bring in these other uses here. Our intention with the pharmacy is to build the landscaping around the perimeter that fronts on the roads at this time. This particular area here is all going to remain vacant until we come back to you for another Conditional Use Permit and at that time it will be one or the other of these pads and at that time we would like to be required to put that landscaping in then when we build further down. It's quite a large site. It's almost nine acres. And we are only going to be building up in this portion at this time and down at this entryway here, this drive aisle coming in. So, there is another 200 to 300 feet here before we get to the residential area. So, I would request that the requirement for 25 feet of landscaping adjacent to the residential to the south be deferred until we come in with another Conditional Use Permit for the development of the property south of the drugstore. There is that ten -- six to eight, ten feet of grade difference here. I think I'd like to have a landscape Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting* July 6, 2006 Page 16 of 52 0 architect take a long look at it, we really haven't studied that issue yet, and see what we can do there that would be creative. They are a lot higher than us. Maybe we could come up with something that really was acceptable to the neighborhood and present to them before we bring it to you. The other item is the City Council approved this right -in, right -out at this location and for a very good reason. We anticipate a full build out to generate about 6,000 cars a day coming to this center and most of this is pass -by traffic and in our traffic study it shows that the majority of this traffic was traveling south on Meridian Road in the evening going home. To force all the traffic into this one full access over here would backup traffic out and block these lanes and create a real traffic nightmare there. So, this entryway was well needed and it was very wise of the Council to approve it. I think it's really going to help the circulation. You're coming off of an intersection here, traffic is starting to move at 35 miles an hour in here, and goes to about 45 here and, then, it goes to about 55 past here. So, we have got this right -in, right -out and we are agreeing to stub a road over to this west property line here. It's going to take out some of our shops that we have planned here, but that's all right. We are going to -- we are planning to do a tapered decel lane right into here to get the traffic in here and that's going to cut into the 35 -foot landscape requirement and we would request that this decel lane be included in that 35 feet. We have got -- we have 25 feet of landscaping along Overland. We have got 35 feet here all the way down to this point, then, it goes back to 35 feet here. It will be about 24 feet in this location where the decel lane is. And we would request that we be allowed to include that decel lane in that -- in that 35 feet requirement. I don't think any of the public traveling south on Meridian Road is going to notice the difference between the landscaping here and the landscaping there. I think it's going to be quite adequate. So, that's the second item would request your consideration of. The third item is a requirement for a five foot separation between the trash enclosure and the building and the pharmacy actually has an enclosed trash compactor. So, it's attached to the buildings. So, I -- there is not going to be any trash enclosure, so to speak, separated by five feet from the building. It's all attached to the building. I would just request that that requirement be modified that the -- and noted that the pharmacy has a trash compactor built into the back of the building. And I would stand for any questions. Borup: Your comment on future landscaping to the south. When -- so are you saying that would be when any future development is beyond the Walgreens? Huber: With our next Conditional Use Permit. Borup: Okay. Huber: We would like to address that at that time. And that will be when we come in for either this pad or this pad. I think we are going to come in for both of these at the same time and so that whole area will be addressed at that time. With this application we are still -- we are planning to build all of the landscaping, all the way down on the perimeter fronting on the street. Borup: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting July 6, 2006 Page 17 of 52 Borup: That's all I had. Rohm: I think my question would be of staff to respond to the applicant's request for the deceleration lane to be utilizing a portion of the landscape buffer. Is that something that the city generally would consider or would you like to speak to that, Caleb? Hood: Mr. Chair, sure. Members of the Commission. It is something that we can evaluate. Anything in the landscape ordinance is up for -- with alternative compliance is eligible to be evaluated in certain instances. This one's a little bit different in that the applicant got a variance to have the right -in, right -out, and now that variance is causing this hardship of not being able to provide the full 35 feet. So, from my perspective -- I'm not saying that we couldn't approve something, but we wouldn't have this problem if there weren't that access there and the access wouldn't be there if there were full compliance with the UDC. Now, I'm not going to go back and, you know, talk about the access too much, but that's kind of the history. So, I think it is -- sure, it is something that we can evaluate and if there is some additional landscaping that can be placed within that 24 or 25 feet, whatever it is, so it makes it maybe denser than what would otherwise be required and still meet the intent of that 35 feet, sure, I think that works, if we can get a few extra trees in that area, because it doesn't -- what doesn't make sense is to have the buffer come over into the parking lot, so you have a 35 -foot wide landscape buffer, but it's not lineal the same way, so -- Huber: If it comes like this, then, it will bounce out into the -- Rohm: Well, I think that we're all aware of how busy that intersection gets at rush hour traffic and anything that can be done to minimize the impact of the traffic coming into your development would be appreciated. Huber: Sure. Rohm: That just seems logical. Huber: Yeah. And the decel lane will minimize that. Borup: Sir? So, is that what you had in mind, the alternative compliance? Are you familiar with that? Huber: I'm not familiar with that. Borup: Basically -- I mean correct me. I think, basically, by allowing a reduced buffer of -- by increasing -- by increasing the vegetation landscaping would allow a reduced buffer. Huber: Sure. That's fine with us. Yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting* July 6, 2006 Page 18 of 52 Rohm: Technically, what we do is we just ask you to work with staff after it's gone through the approval process and between you folks and staff come up with the appropriate adjustments to the vegetation within that -- Huber: That would be great, so that we don't have to have another hearing -- Borup: Yes. Huber: -- and I know you're very busy. Rohm: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: What percentage of your traffic do you estimate to be coming south? Huber: About -- I think it's about 58 percent comes -- Borup: Almost 60 percent of your -- Huber: -- coming this way. Right. And we have one full access approved here, which, in the future, could be a right -in, right -out only. And we have one right -in, right -out here. This is -- you know, typically people don't shop in the morning, they shop in the evening, and this is the going home side of the road, going home corner, and there is, as you know, a lot of traffic headed to Kuna, all the subdivisions that are being proposed south of here. So, we expect a lot of the traffic to be coming here and accessing in through here. This is not a regional shopping center or a community shopping center, it's just a -- it's just a neighborhood shopping center, which is going to provide some much needed services on this side of the freeway that people today have to go across the freeway to get to. So, it's going to relieve traffic congestion going across the freeway. Newton-Huckabay: Right. Rohm: Is this parking area going to be developed as part of the Walgreens? Huber: As part of the Walgreens we will develop this drive aisle. We may put a base coat down here and, then, come back in in the future and top coat it and stripe it. Rohm: Okay. So, you won't be -- Huber: Because this parking, really, services this -- Rohm: Well, typically, there is cross -access agreements between lot to lot. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting July 6, 2006 Page 19 of 52 Huber: Yes. Rohm: And what my concern was is when people turn in off of Meridian Road to get back here, that there -- they are not driving through just graveled -- Huber: Oh, no. This will all be paved. Hr Rohm: Okay. Huber: No. This will all be paved. r Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Huber: Yeah. �N Moe: But the road from your access point will -- to the west will be put in under this project; correct? Huber: Right here? +2E Moe: Yes. Huber: Not at this time. It will be -- it will be when this -- when we in come with this. Moe: One other question as far as -- LL Huber: I mean if the -- if this develops before this does, which I find highly unlikely, Y ,r. obviously, we would build this over to here. Moe: Okay. And just one other question. As far as the homes to the south, there right now is a -- they do have a fence that separates -- Borup: Yes, they do have a fence. Moe: Okay. Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd just like to ask staff about his comments on the trash compactor. Do you have any thoughts on that, Caleb? Y t,: Hood: My only thoughts are, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, is I wish I would have known that before and I could have maybe talked to Joe Silva and see what his -- think it's a pretty general comment that he has for commercial projects and they are usually detached from the building. So, I don't know if he has a special comment or a condition for when your trash compactor or a cardboard compactor is actually attached s A '''` k P •: 4ti'4 a `y.;'' t I a " i l 'l t a.sg` x5p , a x F. 1 ` 4 s t 9 RA c 3x Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting* July 6, 2006 Page 20 of 52 0 to part of the building or not. So, I really don't know there. It's never come up before and I don't know what -- Huber: I think that's quite typical with your Home Depots and your Wincos, they have trash compactors attached to the building. So, I'm quite certain they have been approved before. Rohm: Yeah. I'm not sure how the balance of the Commission feels, but I think that's another one of those issues that once they have had an opportunity to run that by Joe Silva and his group, they will be able to provide the feedback -- Huber: Sure. Rohm: -- that would keep you in compliance with the intent of the ordinance. But that's just my thought. I don't know how the balance of the Commission feels. Moe: I would anticipate we would just put something on that condition that stated that if a compactor is not used, they'd have to go to a five foot, and at that point they would check with Joe Silva to verify if that's okay or not. Rohm: Okay. All right. Any other questions of this applicant? Okay. Thank you. Huber: Thank you. Rohm: And we do not have anybody else that has signed up to speak to this application, but if anyone would like to come forward now is the time. We are just breezing right through this. We are going to get done early tonight. Hood: Oh, you had to say that. Rohm: Discussion? Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. Now you just jinxed us. Rohm: I take that back. I didn't say that. We will be here until probably -- okay, any comment? Moe: Mr. Chairman, as far as the applicant's request in regards to the 35 foot where the deceleration lane, is, I have no problem working with them to, basically, do some -- Borup: Alternative compliance. Moe: -- some alternative compliance and get that squared away. I would also agree as far as requiring them to put the landscaping in on the south end rightnow, that would require irrigation and everything else, and that's just -- it would be destroyed when they develop the rest of the property per se, so with the residents on the south already Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting July 6, 2006 Page 21 of 52 having a fence that separates that property, I think that we can hold off until the rest of the project was developed out and, again, on the trash compactor, again, I'd just make a note that if a compactor is not used, then, they would be required to have a five separation. Borup: I agree with all that. Makes sense. Rohm: That would have been great in a motion. Borup: Yeah. Newton-Huckabay: So moved. Rohm: Could we get a motion to close the Public Hearing, please. Moe: Mr. Chairman, motion to close the Public Hearing on CUP 06-015. Borup: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on CUP 06-015. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe: Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number CUP 06-015 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 6th, 2006, with the following modifications: Under the condition of approval, under planning department, on Exhibit B, item 1.2, 1 would just make note that the -- under the requires a 35 foot wide landscape buffer along the entryway corridor, I'd like to make note that we will have the applicant provide an alternative compliance to allow for a deceleration within the 35 foot buffer. Under the third bullet point, noting the 25 foot wide land use buffer between the south property residential, we will waive that condition until the rest of the property is developed. And under item 3.9 where we maintain a separation of five foot from the building for the dumpster enclosure at the basic location if the compactor is not used that requirement would be required. End of motion. Hood: Mr. Chair, before -- just a couple points of clarification. The applicant in their testimony stated that they'd like you to delay the construction of that southerly landscape buffer until the next CUP. Just a little bit of semantics here, but your language was until the rest of the property develops. Now, that could be interpreted to be the last CUP. So, just -- is it the next CUP? The third? Borup: Next. Hood: The last? Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting July 6, 2006 Page 22 of 52 Moe: I would like to amend my motion to the next CUP. Hood: And, then, another question on the first bullet point. You said provide alternative compliance to staff. Do you want them to submit an application 'or are you actually approving an alternative compliance at this time to have them have their turn lane and the landscaping as proposed? Moe: No. I want them to bring the alternative landscaping to you for approval. Hood: But -- Rohm: We won't have to hear it again. Hood: It's staff level. Moe: A staff level approval at that point, yes. That was the end of my motion. Borup: Second. Rohm: Good. It's been moved and seconded to approve CUP 06-015, Conditional Use Permit for Meridian Gateway - Walgreens, to include the staff report with the aforementioned modification. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 8: Public Hearing: CUP 06-018 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a daycare facility for 6-12 children for Shelley Fournier by Shelley Fournier — 2567 N. Black Bear Way: Rohm: All right. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on CUP 06-018, a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a day care facility for six to 12 children for Shelley Fournier by Shelley Fournier, at 2567 North Black Bear Way, And begin with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. I am presenting this staff report for Kristy Vigil, who wrote this one. She usually does more of our administrative - type applications, but she pitched in here and helped me out with this one. As you mentioned, this is a Conditional Use Permit for a group child care facility. That means that you can have up to 12 kids out of the existing home and even more than that first Public Hearing item, this site is right in the middle of a residential subdivision. It is currently zoned R-8 and part of the Track Subdivision No. 3. Just to orient you a little bit more, this is Ustick and this is Locust Grove. So, kind of -- about a quarter mile south and approximately a quarter mile to the west as well. As mentioned, there is an existing home and she is proposing to provide a play area -- let me see if I can get the Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting July 6, 2006 Page 23 of 52 0 site plan put up here on our screen. We didn't scan it into our presentation this evening. I do have a hard copy here. Kind of shows you how it's laid out. I will get that put up and, then, I just want to let you know we did have a letter from one neighbor in Opposition and that's the only contact I believe we have had with property owners out there. That's the only thing I see in the file, an been anothr phone call to our office, but that's the only thing son rrecord th tere mayave I see. Staff is recommending approval with the conditions listed in the staff report and I will stand for any questions you may have. Rohm: Thank you, Caleb. Any question of staff? Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Caleb, what are the parking requirements for this type of facility, as far as how many employees do they have for 12? Hood: There is two things -- Mr. Chair, Commissioner Moe, the UDC does not have any requirements for parking for day care specifically or a minimum of employees. Now, the state may have some supervisory requirements for day cares. I'm unaware of any requirements that the state may have. Thea applicant, ' about that and could probablyhelppp I m sure, knows a little bit more require any employees. And, thenparking tish required for a commere. As far as the ercial again, 9 we don't use. e took our parking standards here with the UDC and, really, there is two things. If you'rella single family home you need a 20 -by -20 garage at least and a 20 -by -20 pad. If you're commercial, it's one for every 500 square feet of area. So, the parking seems to be sufficient and I hope that answers your question. We really don't have any standards for day cares, I guess, is what I'm trying to say. Moe: We have had day cares in the past, some have been on residential, some commercial, and going through this report I was just getting a little bit confused as far as where the parking was, but you did fine. Thank you. Rohm: Any other questions of staff? Okay. At this time would the applicant like to come forward, please. Fournier: Good evening. My name is Shelley Fournier. I live at 2567 North Black Bear Way in Meridian. I'm asking for approval for the Conditional Use Permit for a group child care. It is required up to 12 children, but I don't intend on having 12 children. expect to have about eight. I have been doing home day care in my home for about two and a half years now with no complaints from neighbors or any concerns about traffic or anything like that. Planning and Zoning has already approved me for an accessory use permit, so I'm just kind of upgrading from there. So, do you have any questions? Moe: Mr. Chairman? Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting* July 6, 2006 Page 24 of 52 Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I note that you didn't send any -- you have no problems with any of the conditions of approval? Fournier: No. None whatsoever. Moe: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: Probably having not given testimony before the Commission many times in the past, just a recommendation to you. As people come forward and, speak, you might want to take some notes, because it will be your option to respond to any concerns that anybody might bring up in testimony and you will be the last to be given an opportunity to speak. So, I just throw that out for your benefit and if you don't have anything else, then, we will see where this goes after we take additional testimony. Fournier: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Would Jessica Fastabend like to come forward, please? Fastabend: Commissioners, I'm Jessica Fastabend. I live at 1101 North Shreveport Avenue. I am the AMI or Association Management, Incorporated, neighborhood manager for Hunter Point, also known as Track Subdivision. I represent the association and the board of directors. I also represent a handful of people who are here at this time. Would you like them to stand? Rohm: Yeah. Could I get a show of hands, please. Okay. Have any of you signed up to speak? Fastabend: They signed under me. Rohm: Okay. And she's speaking for you? Okay. From the audience a gentleman said that she is speaking for him, so you get ten minutes. Fastabend: Okay. I won't need that long, but thank you. Okay. We would like it known at this time that using property within the subdivision for anything other than residential use is in violation of the property's restrictions and conditions set forth for the subdivision. Rohm: Is that the CC&Rs? Fastabend: The CC&Rs. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting* • July 6, 2006 Page 26 of 52 Rohm: And, again, this Commission cannot speak to your CC&Rs and if you have got conditions within your subdivision, that precludes someone from doing anything, that's beyond this Commission's scope. And so I appreciate the comment, but I think that that would be something that you would take up internally. Fastabend: Okay. Rohm: But thanks for your testimony. Fastabend: Not a problem. Thank you. Borup: Mr. Chairman? Ma'am? I did have one other question and that was based on your comment -- you seemed to indicate -- I mean you indicated 12 you weren't in favor of and the applicant mentioned that she's only looking at eight. You seemed to indicate that maybe eight wouldn't be as big a problem, as big a concern for you. Fastabend: I cannot answer for the board of directors on that. Iwas told that her current number of children -- Borup: That 12 was not acceptable. Fastabend: -- that she currently has is already acceptable, because it has, obviously, not been a concern until she petitioned for more. Borup: Okay. Fastabend: So, basically, any more than what she currently has is what they are against. Borup: All right. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. The next one I believe is Lisa somebody. From the audience she says that she's been spoken for. This next one -- Wenden Nye. And you have been spoken for? Okay. And from the audience he says he's been spoken for as well. Kevin Parker. And Kevin Parker from the audience says he's been spoken for as well. Okay. Is there anybody else that would like to testify before this Commission? Seeing none, discussion? Oh, would the applicant like to come back up and address the concerns. Fournier: I just wanted to state that I did talk with Jessica about the -- with AMI about the CC&Rs. I am complying with what request she had. I'm supposed to write a letter to the board of directors to inform them of my intentions. That will be done by Monday. The traffic I understand is a concern, but over the past two and a half years I have had no complaints whatsoever. I have got three families. I only intend on taking one more family, which would be four families driving up and down our street. You know, I don't have 12 children with 12 parents. So, the numbers are actually less. I have one parent Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting. July 6, 2006 Page 27 of 52 O -- you know, parents have more than one child, so traffic is actually less than, you know, 12 numbers. That's about it. Rohm: Would you have any objection if we were to limit it to less than the 12 or -- Fournier: No, I have no problem with that. I don't -- Rohm: You had mentioned eight was the number that -- kind of your quote, unquote, target. Fournier: Right. Rohm: Is that something that would work for you? Fournier: That would be fine. That would be fine. I have no intention of being a facility day care, I want personal in-home day care for a few children to supplement my income. Rohm: Okay. Moe: How many do you do now -- have now? Fournier: I have six. I have -- Moe: Oh, you have six that you take care of now? Fournier: Yeah. And, then, I just want -- Moe: And you anticipate possible two more. Fournier: Two more children. One family. Moe: Right. Rohm: Thank you. Newton- H ucka bay: Mr. Chair. Mrs. Fournier, do any of these families live in your neighborhood? Do you serve families in your neighborhood? Fournier: I don't at this time. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Rohm: Thank you. Discussion? L., .. .r t ., s t: fix.r•5' Y.,� ).A ' T t ht yt � q- t C y � i 's ig � � Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting July 6, 2006 Page 28 of 52 40 Borup: Probably just the one that maybe had -- makes some difference to me is that currently the testimony was that it was not a problem, that the three families was not a concern, and so she is talking about adding one more is all. Rohm: Yeah. I think that the majority of the concern was that going from six to 12 would be doubling the size of the day care, whereas by limiting it --'and her application asked to come in -- Borup: Six to 12. Rohm: -- six to 12. But that doesn't mean we can't modify the conditions of approval. So, it seems that if there is only one additional family, then, they are all -- it appears that they are all in support of being able to move forward and give her an opportunity to grow a little bit, without having significant impact on the subdivision. That's the way it appears, but -- that's my impression. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Probably more a question for Caleb. I don't really want to get in the habit of limiting conditional use permits for day cares in residential areas. Have we been doing that in other residences? I don't remember having one come through for this specific subdivision. I remember having one come -- several come through for like Sundance to the north -- or guess it would be to the northwest, but -- Borup: We haven't when it's been up to six. I can't remember -- Newton-Huckabay: I just don't want to start getting contradictory and inconsistent with what we have done in the past, I guess, because -- it's similar to how I feel about setting hours of business. Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, I guess to that point -- and I'm trying to think of ones that you may have limited to less than what would be allowed and none are jumping to mind right away. It certainly is within your purview if you wanted to do that. It's almost similar to the L -O zone stuff, now we have to track, okay, she's got nine now and was approved for eight -- you know, I would prefer just as staff, you know, that -- to let her have 12 and she says she's onl ot four kids there that she could have that she doesn't oon end to have. g to haveeigh It's just easier Well, she's for us, I guess, to enforce those things or not have to worry about it as much or even a ten or something like that. But it's certainly within your -- to limit it. I mean I don't think it sets a precedent either, because these are a case by case and each one is different and you can -- you know, I think it's appropriate to limit it in some cases, too, and the next person can't say, well, you did this for them, we want the same. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting* July 6, 2006 Page 29 of 52 40 Borup: I have never felt that this is something the staff needs to worry about enforcing. The neighbors will normally take care of that if it's being abused. They are the ones there that see what's going on and, then, you know, there will be a report to the city and, then, the staff would get involved, but -- that's the way it happens anyway, isn't it? Hood: And that's what I'm -- I guess that's what I'm meaning, is over regulation sometimes comes back to bite us and it does come back to -- Borup: Well, then, they would -- yeah. Hood: I mean either way there could be 13 kids there, if you have 12, too, and we are in the same situation. But it's just -- either way I think -- in this instance I think we will be fine. There may be some other ones that -- Rohm: Well, it's always been my impression that a Conditional Use Permit is just that, it's upon conditions, and if, in fact, the neighborhood is in support of allowing eight, but would prefer not to allow 12, and the applicant is in concurrence with that, it doesn't seem to be outside of anybody's concern to make that a condition of approval and, like Commissioner Borup has mentioned, if, in fact, they exceed eight, then, I'm pretty sure the neighborhood will bring it to the city's attention and there won't be any, quote, unquote, police action required by the city, because it will be done for them. And so it seems to me that to make a motion to approve a Conditional use Permit for the number requested, as opposed to the number allowed, would work for me. Nary: Mr. Chair, just to maybe address Commissioner Newton-Huckabay's concern. On Cougar Creek just north of this location acares, , You have two different day cares in that area and in both of those da residential home, and on both of those occasions youdid limitt living the number acility, one was s dust n exact rational -- cased on Newton-Huckabay: Did we? Okay. Nary: -- that you just stated and it is -- I think as Mr. Hood stated, it is really a case-by- case basis in each neighborhood of what's appropriate. besides that with the state and such for havi g a crta n number erere hildren,guirebut I th ntk the experience has been -- I think as Commissioner Borup stated, that certainly if there is an abuse going on usually contacts are made and we become aware of it and, then, the code enforcement people can take a look at that. But it has not -- it has not been uncommon to set the limit less than 12. You have done that before. You have also done the other where you have said rather than dealing with that enforcement, to allow that. But it hasn't been uncommon to set some lower limitations, so -- Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Well, that specifically was m question setting limits, then, that's fine, I have no problem with it. So,eight t iss if we have been Rohm: All right. Could we get a motion to close the Public Hearing, please? Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting July 6, 2006 Page 30 of 52 Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move we close CUP 06-018. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on CUP 06- 018. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Borup: We haven't voted yet, but that's okay. Moe: It's not usual that we have so many open seats, so we don't want you to leave yet. Borup: Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number CUP 06-018 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 6, 2006, with a submitted site plan and the following modification of -- under 1.1, that the applicant shall be allowed to care for up to eight children per day. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded -- Borup: Only I didn't finish. I'm sorry. Moe: Sorry. Borup: I further move to direct staff to prepare appropriate Findings documents to be considered at the next Planning and Zoning Commission hearing on July 20th. Moe: I'll second that. Rohm: Okay. Good. It's been moved and seconded to approve CUP 06-018, including the staff report, with the aforementioned modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 9: Public Hearing: CUP 06-017 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to move liquor license from 127 E. Idaho Avenue to 126 E� Idaho Avenue for Top Shelf, LLC by Douglas and Stephanie Beehler !— 126 E. Idaho Avenue: Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on CUP 06-017, request for a Conditional Use Permit to move a liquor license from 127 East Idaho Avenue to 126 Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting July 6, 2006 Page 31 of 52 East Idaho Avenue for Top Shelf, LLC, by Doug and Stephanie Beehler, 126 East Idaho Avenue. And I'd like to begin with the staff report. Veatch: Thank you, Commissioner -- Chairman Rohm, Commissioners. That is correct, Top Shelf, LLC, would like to take their liquor license from across the street, 127, over to 126 East Idaho. Before I go over the staff report, I'd like to say that this was reviewed as a drinking establishment, although it does not fit that definition per se. They do hold a liquor license, but they are not intending to use it in the traditional manner that it would normally be used in say for an adult drinking establishment, but we reviewed it under the UDC as such. Now, they are going to be working in conjunction with the Phoenix Catering Company at 126 East Idaho as kind of the catering arm, the liquor catering arm for the Phoenix Catering Company. So, if we look at those together, then, there may be -- I'll get into the conditions as to which we might be able to constitute them more as almost a restaurant working in conjunction with each other. In the area here of Old Town, most of this is commercial uses around the area. We do have the Christian Science Reading Room, which is right next, door. And, again, under the definitions of Idaho statutes and such, it is a religious organization and Top Shelf has been in contact with Christian Science Reading Room and communicates with them and with us that they would limit their hours of operation, they would be available by appointment only and not serve on any days of worship. By law they have to serve one drink on the premise per month, I think it is. And I can let the applicant speak to that. But, basically, we at this time didn't feel comfortable approving the CUP, because we had reviewed it as a drinking establishment and, as such, it's not supposed to be within 300 feet of a religious organization. Under Idaho statutes there is some flexibility that a governing body can determine that it could come within 300 feet. But with our UDC code we kind of have stated we have taken that wiggle room out a little bit with the UDC and just said if it's within 300 feet you can't do it. With our conditions of approval, if it were to be approved, we would have the applicant go with their proposed limited hours -- limited days, by appointment only, and we would also like to condition that it move with the person, rather than the property, so that if the Phoenix Catering Company moved at any time that, that a drinking establishment or such would not be able to come in, which it wouldn't be able to, but, basically, if they worked in conjunction with each other and we could condition that perhaps at the time that Top Shelf, LLC, has to serve a drink once a month, if they also had the Phoenix Catering Company serve food at that same exact time, then, they might be considered kind of a closet restaurant, if you will. We ha seen closet liquor licenses and this might be our first closet restave urant. But as such I'm going to let you discuss it and if you have any questions I'll stand and -- Rohm: I can't wait until the applicant comes up. Thank you. Any questions of staff? Moe: Mr. Chairman, man, am I confused. Okay. I want to get this straight here. We have a catering company and we also have this liquor license that they now want to join -- Top Shelf wants to go in with the catering business to have their liquor license for them? n - Meridian Planning &Zoning Meeting July 6, 2006 Page 32 of 52 Veatch: I don't think that they so much themselves will be going into the catering business, as they will be lending their liquor license to the catering �.: company. Moe: Okay. Okay. I'm with you so far. You lost me when you talked about them having to serve a drink once a month, they are not going to be doing any serving out this building where the catering office is, 9 of are they? Borup: Once a month. F Veatch: To be able to keep the liquor license by law once a month on the re mise they have to sell a drink. And that's why it's a little nebulous,normally, yes, if you are a catering company with a liquor license, you're, basicaecasub'e t to u client and that's usually served off the ybut premise where ever the client is, to be able to to retain the license there, I guess, you have to serve it on the premise. Rohm: Boy, that's going to be a short party. Veatch: Which I'll let her -- I'll let the applicant define ' that more, because I may k x Y -- Moe: Okay. Well, we will get through the hearing and, then, we will go from there. Veatch: Okay. f Rohm: Let's see. I know I had another question. You had ed mentioned Hothat the UDC does not allow for a liquor license within 300 feet of a Christian facility * w Veatch: It doesn't allow a drinking establishment. Rohm: A drinking establishment. Veatch: Right. Which by holding the liquor license, by definition -- the don't re under the definition, but -- Y ally fit Rohm: Well, isn't the current location within 300 feet as well? Hood: Yes, it is. But they were there before the Christian Science Readin R that case they can stay there. If g oon In a new drinking establishment were to co feet, that would not be allowed. 300 me within Rohm: Okay. All right. Got you. I'm with you. Thank Any you. otheruestio q ns. Borup: Even though it's not new. Moe: I'll hold it until later, probably. � k ¢, 7 i 0 Rt r k ri" a, _ x=e x4T•r:3 y "fid -ym' >.a,.• mff2°-r,.(;f s M r } Ear4,err sa a. r .yi'Y tt, f"ta`2S 'S,:k*i ,a„ ?. N.• }: ;Et ,a M Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting* July 6, 2006 Page 33 of 52 Rohm: All right. Let's see. At this time would the applicant like to come forward, please? Beehler: My name is Stephanie Beehler. I'm known as Stevie. And my address is 556 West Knob Hill Court in Eagle, Idaho. 83616. I'd like to thank staff for their help with this and all the work they have done to help us kind of get through this. I think I can add to the clarification, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, and help you see this a little more clearly. The state statute, as I understand them, and as they have been communicated to me by ISLD, specifically state that a drink must be able to be served on premises. Those are the words. A drink on premises. It does not state anywhere that I could find or ISLD could show me that it was once a month, once a year, once a millennium -- a drink must be able to be served on premises and that is what they will be looking for. Borup: So you have a bottle and a glass there. Beehler: You got it. Currently we are housed in a facility at the 127 Club. I think it will help you to give you a little bit of a history. The previous owner Mohamud Al Hani had agreed to have our establishment there and we were going to operate as a fully fledged upscale Top Shelf bar, having only Top Shelf liquors in the facility, a small facility, inside the 127 that is how we were approved. But in the -- during the -- once we were approved during this process Mr. Al Hani sold the 127 to the current owners, who were kind enough to accept the terms of our lease of the space and at the current time our lease has run out, they have been kind enough to allow us to continue to rent on a month-to-month basis, so that we would not lose our liquor license and would still meet the ISLD requirements and -- but they have found a more profitable use for that square footage and are anxious to have us move along. What we have been doing with this liquor license is acting as the catering arm for quite awhile, I think almost a year now, for the -- with the catering arm, Top Shelf is the liquor catering arm for Phoenix Catering Company. And I think we best -- we serve an excellent use in our Meridian community by being that liquor catering arm, because what it allows Phoenix Catering Company to do is be able to acquire contracts that without a full service liquor catering arm, different people -- you know, contractors, weddings, whatever, would go outside the community and those dollars would go outside the community to catering in Caldwell or Boise or Kuna or where ever. So, we do serve the best interest of the Meridian community. We have had our neighborhood meeting. We did have a visit from the Christian Science Reading Room and they were perfectly comfortable after our neighborhood meeting with us being located next to them. They understand that our primary use is to act as a catering arm for Phoenix Catering Company for liquor and that in order to fulfill our state requirements and hold our license there, that we must be able to serve a drink on premises. I offered to attend their board meetings. I offered to go to any meetings they would like, put any -- you know, put in writing that we would not open on Wednesdays or Sundays, those are their days of worship. They did not require any of that. After the meeting and I stopped by several times, they are fine with it, they are not here, and there have been no other inquiries from them or any of the other neighbors. Smoky Mountain was located within 300 feet. While it does have an eating establishment in it, it had -- served liquor, wine and beer, in the actual statute, as I read it, that was Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting July 6, 2006 Page 34 of 52 submitted with our paperwork, that, you know, you had to have -- be within 300 feet. You have a new establishment there, 43 Degrees, 49 Degrees, I don't know, it's a new eating establishment there and it's my understanding it's their intention to also have beer and wine and liquor. So, I think that tying us as staff has suggested, you know, such that the location itself is never -- you know, is not automatically approved as an establishment, but that Top Shelf in that location is approved, is absolutely fine with us and acceptable. You should know that the owners of the location, which are not Top Shelf, would not approve of anyone leasing that facility to own -- to open a full fledge bar and they would not -- they would discontinue the lease. Do you have any questions? Moe: Just want to make sure I'm -- Top Shelf has their own liquor license beyond what the 127 Club has, then? Beehler: Yes, sir. Moe: Okay. Beehler: Yes, sir. Moe: I just want to make sure I'm -- Beehler: A separate facility inside and a separate liquor license. Separate building, actually, inside the structure. Moe: Okay. That's -- Rohm: Any other questions of this applicant? Borup: No. I think I understand it. Rohm: Okay. Stevie, thank you. Beehler: Thank you. Rohm: We have three other people that have signed up to speak to this and -- and they are certainly welcome to come forward, but I -- I'm not sure that it's necessary. If it's all right, maybe we will just continue -- okay. All right. I guess I will throw out is there anybody that would like to speak to this that's in opposition to this application? Okay. There are three other people that have signed up and they all waved off that testimony given by the applicant is substantially -- they are in concurrence with that testimony. So, I think that that concludes the outside testimony. Veatch: Commissioner Rohm, I might ask -- I'm familiar with the ladies from the 127, but I was wondering if there were any representatives from the Phoenix Catering Company and if there were to be a condition to have both a drink and food available on Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting Is July 6, 2006 Page 35 of 52 the site together to make more of that restaurant use, I just wasn't comfortable making a condition without being able to also have that input from Phoenix Catering. But I guess if there was a representative here -- and I'll let you discuss and decide whether you would like to have anyone speak to that or -- Rohm: Well, as long as there is someone here from Phoenix Catering, would you mind coming forward and we will just conclude this discussion. Borup: So, you're thinking they need a bottle, a class, and a box of crackers? Loveall: My name is Mary Beth Loveall. I'm with Phoenix Catering Company and I reside at 7355 South Eagle Road in Meridian. And to answer that question, I think you said it best, I think if we have a bottle and a glass and we have some crackers or -- as long as we are not in violation with Central District Health and -- because we are not approved to service food to patrons on the property, but we can certainly eat a sandwich there ourselves, and so that would be my only -- you know, as long as we are not in violation. Rohm: Yeah. I think, basically, it's just in an effort to sandwich the catering business with the liquor license, so you can go out and -- Loveall: Have the one drink and have a meal. Rohm: Thank you. Loveall: Yes. Rohm: Are you okay with that, Jenny? Veatch: Yes. Thank you. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Appreciate you coming up here. Okay. Any discussion before we close this Public Hearing? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: This is the first application of this nature that I have seen on the Commission -- Borup: Me, too. Newton-Huckabay: So, it's the first one the Commission has ever had in its history. Borup: Not quite. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting* July 6, 2006 Page 36 of 52 Newton-Huckabay: I would just like the city attorney to -- I have been fortunate enough to read his quotes on the subject in the newspaper. Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, you're right, this is a fairly unique application. In the time period I have been here I have become versed in these closet bars and now we have this closet somewhat restaurant. The concern we have -- and I guess the analysis that we use in trying to bring the advice that we could provide you from the staff, as Ms. Veatch stated, our city Unified Development Code prohibits drinking establishments adjacent -- or within 300 feet of a religious center. State law allows the discretion to waive that requirement, but our UDC does not. Because this is a bar or it could be a bar with a liquor license, that's the reason that staffs analysis was that originally that you couldn't approve it. But myself and the staff believe that your authority does extend -- if you believe that combining these two businesses together, with the ability to serve food, with the ability to serve a drink, makes it not a drinking establishment, but can be considered as an eating establishment instead, then, you have the authority to grant that, conditioned upon those requirements as staff stated, that if they serve alcohol they must serve food on the premise. I am concerned that the testimony from Phoenix Catering is that they don't have any authority to serve food on the premise, makes it a little bit difficult to make that leap if there is no way that they can serve food on their premise to another person. I agree the state statute is unclear as to when you have to serve. It says you have to have the ability to serve. And so once you have an established seasoned license, you don't necessarily have to serve on the premise all the time, you have to have the ability to serve it. But that's an issue for the Alcohol Beverage and Control people to deal with. My only concern would be your find -- would need to make a finding that they will be required to serve food at any time they serve alcohol. Now, if that requires Phoenix Catering to get a different permission from Central District Health, that's the requirement they may have to meet to satisfy that location. 43 Degrees North doesn't have an issue, because that's a -- because that use runs with the land. What the concern was was bringing a new use to a new facility on that block, that's why the recommendation was is that the use run with the applicant and that they not be establishing another location for a liquor establishment on that block, but for this applicant in this particular scenario with this other particular vender, with Phoenix Catering being a part of that. The other ones - - the conditional uses run with the land. Those continue to go on. Just because the license changes doesn't change the uses. So, those aren't really an issue before you. All it really is is a concern of that serving of food. If that's a condition you feel that is the only way to meet the requirement to allow this establishment next to that, then, the responsibility of those venders to comply with that requirement if they have to serve liquor there. If, as they are stating, they only have to have the ability to serve it and that's an Alcohol Beverage and Control issue, then, that's not a problem for the city. Does that make sense? Rohm: It makes perfect sense to me. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting* July 6, 2006 Page 37 of 52 Newton-Huckabay: For the most part. So, m be hold this license to sell liquor, have the geography to attachrit togs thatswhat, - order to Nary: You have to -- for a liquor license, you have to be able to establish the premise where the liquor could be sold or consumed. Top Shelf can do that. With the prior situation with the closet bar, we did pass an ordinance about a year ago that required they establish the premise even within another premise, because we didn't have anything in ordinance at that time, and Top Shelf did that and we had a couple of other issues, as you may have read in the paper about. So, this one, they can establish that premise to satisfy the police requirement and to satisfy Alcohol, Beverage and Control. They probably know better than all of us on what their serving requirements are. If they are not required to actually serve it on the premise, then, it's not a for the city. If they are required to and, again, the only way to make that fit is thatblem they must serve food when they do it, then, that's a responsibility they have to be able to maintain that use on that premise and that's up to them. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Rohm: Thank you, Mr. Nary. Borup: And I may not -- what I took away from your statement, health department, was probably preparing food, not necessarily where they get into the regulations on the preparing, having the everything else. And so there is a difference between preparing You go next door and buy a pizza and go over and serve it. Newton-Huckabay: I think that the -- Borup: Oh, I may not be right. Rohm: Well, I think that we -- not approved by the serving food. That's Proper plumbing and and serving. I mean Borup: But I don't have any concern about -- yeah, I don't have any concern about any of this. This is unique and they are doing all the work off premise anyway and it looks like serving a good -- Moe: Mr. Chairman, I guess where I'm confused is is this issue with the food. Basically, then, the conditions of the approval, you know, it's noted that Top Shelf would not operate on Wednesday and Sundays and, as I understand it, that's when the religious facility is occupied, so, therefore, when they are not operating on those days, would it not just -- I don't see a concern here, I mean as far as being a problem the way it is. Newton-Huckabay: It's still less than 300 feet away, even if it's empty. Nary: Mr. Chair? Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I guess the -- what the staff was wanting to avoid -- and it's within your purview, is establishing therec=d t Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting July 6, 2006 Page 38 of 52 allowing a liquor establishment in the new location and within the 300 foot limitation. Trying to fashion it as we have recommended doesn't created that precedent. And it does -- it creates a situation, I guess for lack of a better way of explaining it, if somebody else wants to come in and establish a similar circumstance and come before you with the similar circumstance, I don't know the city has a huge concern. I don't see that happening. We took the same approach when I wrote the ordinance regarding the closet bars, is that if we could fashion a method that the city felt was a precedent that we could live with and, then, it was fine. And I think that's what we were trying to recommend here. Rohm: Well, I think the second thing that is important to note is this application goes with the applicant, not with the location, and so if, in fact, they move t services, which would include both the food service and the liquor I cense,h tlgoesering with the applicant. So, I don't see this as being a huge issue. Nary: Mr. Chairman, could I just add one more point? Rohm: Absolutely. Nary: If it is the decision of the Commission to grant that, I would only recommend that you include in your discussion or in your motion -- when we have done that , as the earlier hearing stated, day cares are specifically called out in the UDC that run with the applicant and not with the land. We have -- on limited occasions the Commission or the Council has granted a CUP only to the applicant for that location for that specific purpose, because they felt it was unique to the application, to the location, to the applicant itself. So, if you -- if it is the move of the Commission to grant that, I would recommend you include that as part of your motion that your reason for granting that specific limitation is because of the unique character of the liquor licenses, the location, what's being sought, where the location is, those types of things, so that it's clear in the record that was what you intended. Rohm: Thank you, Mr. Nary. Let's see. How about a motion to close the Public Hearing. Newton-Huckabay: So moved. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing CUP 06-017, related to a request for Conditional Use Permit to move a liquor license from 127 East Idaho to 126 East Idaho Avenue for Top Shelf, LLC. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: Can't wait to hear the motion. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting* July 6, 2006 Page 39 of 52 Borup: Yeah. Do we need any discussion? It sounds like we are all in favor of it, it just needs to be worded that it satisfies the city's concerns. Newton-Huckabay: I will be happy to make the motion if we can do a little wordsmithing that our decision is to grant the CUP to the applicant and the -- and the business -- is that -- what was the terminology there? Rohm: The applicant and Top Shelf -- Newton-Huckabay: Oh, and Top Shelf. And our reasoning for granting approval this -- one, taking into consideration the unique character of liquor licenses and the unique nature of the business, is that what you -- Nary: Unique nature of the business, as well as the location. And also the consent of the -- the religious establishment that's within the 300 foot limitation. Newton-Huckabay: Do I just call it generically as a religious establishment? Borup: Christian Science Reading Room. Moe: Sounds good. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Jenny? Veatch: Yes. Newton- H ucka bay: Do you have any comments to add to this before I make my motion or is that going to -- Veatch: Chairman, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, my only question would be since it sounds like at this point that there is still some question as to whether -- does a drink really need to be served on the premise or just have the ability to serve it and, then, would they need to serve that food. Basically, I guess, my only thing that I feel comfortable perhaps conditioning is that the CUP is to run with Top Shelf and, then, you know, maybe we can get together with the applicant and find out through Central District Health and through the liquor licensing board if there needs to be -- if the drink actually needs to be served on the premise and if such then we would need to also condition to have some sort of food served there. I don't know if money has to change hands for that or -- Nary: I think to make it easier from an enforcement standpoint for staff is that if you -- if the condition is that it must meet all state requirements for serving of alcohol and that if they serve alcohol on the premise they must serve food along with that, then, again, it puts the burden on both Phoenix Catering and Top Shelf to comply with that, which is perfectly fine, they have to comply with that anyway. And, then, you don't have to come Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting* July 6, 2006 Page 40 of 52 back to decide if -- how the serving is done. The state regulates how serving is done, so they just need to comply with those requirements and if your concern is, again, that to get it out of being a drinking establishment, which doesn't give you authority to grant this CU, but that if it's an eating establishment, then, the requirement is that food needs to be served, then, you don't -- then, the staff doesn't have to come back and try to fashion hours of operation, money transactions, those type of things. Rohm: And I think that just the -- if drinks are to be served, as opposed to saying when, because, then, that kind of leaves it hope open to not serving drinks, I guess. Nary: Right. Veatch: Or is it unique enough to stand on its own, just to have the condition that it move with Top Shelf and we don't have to deal with the whole food issue anyway. I don't know. That's one thing that -- Rohm: I don't know, Mr. Nary's comments lead me to believe that the two kind of are tied and as long as we just -- our motion doesn't specifically tell them how to meet the -- the law of restaurants and liquor establishments, j ust comply. Are you with me on that, Commissioner Newton Huckabay? they do, they must Newton-Huckabay: I'm just going to take a stab at this and if we need to addendum my statements, then, we will do so as I go through my motions. Is that okay? If you don't think it's the nature and the spirit of what we are trying to say? Moe: That's a great idea. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, 1 move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number CUP 06-017, as presented in the staff report for the -- Nary: You're actually approving. Newton-Huckabay: Well, that's what I thought. Nary: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: I recommend approval. Okay. I'm going to start over. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number CUP 06-017 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 6th, 2006, and the site plans labeled the Phoenix Catering Company, one of one, dated revised January 22nd, 2005, with the following modifications to the conditions of approval. So, one, that the CUP will run with the applicant Top Shelf, LLC; that the applicant will comply with the condition to be able to serve alcohol and food at the location. Borup: Just comply with the state regulations. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting July 6, 2006 Page 41 of 52 Newton-Huckabay: Comply with state regulations regarding the ability to serve alcohol and food. And we are basing -- our decision on the -- based on the unique character of liquor licenses and this particular business and the location, which is within 300 feet of a religious establishment, of which that religious establishment has agreed to these conditions. Okay. I further move to direct staff to prepare an appropriate Findings document to be considered at the next planning and commission hearing on July 20th, 2006. Moe: Second. Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve CUP 06-017, to include the staff comments and amendments to that by the applicant -- by the motion itself. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. Thank you for coming in. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: We are going to take a short break about -- Borup: About now. Rohm: -- about now, about 12 minutes. 9:15 we will reconvene. (Recess.) Item 10: Public Hearing: CUP 06-019 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct 10,072.5 square foot addition for company offices, truck, equipment and material storage facilities on 3.68 acres in a C -G zone for H & H Utility Contractors, Inc. by H & H Utility Contractors, Inc. — 225 West Franklin Road: Rohm: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, we are now going to reconvene the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for July 6, 2006. And the next item on our agenda is a Public Hearing for CUP 06-019, for H&H Utilities Contractors and at this time I would entertain a motion to continue this hearing to the next regularly scheduled meeting of July 20th, 2006, because it was improperly noticed and -- Moe: So moved. Rohm: So moved. Hood: Mr. Chair, just a point of clarification. It was improperly posted. The city clerk sent out notices -- Rohm: Improperly posted. Excuse me. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting • July 6, 2006 Page 42 of 52 Hood: And so the applicant needs to post the site. Rohm: Yeah. I apologize. Improperly posted. Is there a second? Borup: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we continue Public Hearing CUP 06-019 to the regularly scheduled meeting of July 20th, 2006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed the same sign. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 11: Public Hearing: AZ 06-027 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 3.92 acres to an R-8 zone for Tapestry Subdivision by Raftis Tapestry, LLC — 635 and 675 South Linder Road: Item 12: Public Hearing: PP 06-026 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 20 residential lots and 4 common lots on 3.92 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Tapestry Subdivision by Raftis Tapestry, LLC — 635 and 675 South Linder Road: Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the last hearing for this evening. It's Public Hearing AZ 06-027 and Public Hearing PP 06-026, both related to Tapestry Subdivision and begin with the staff report. Veatch: Thank you, Chairman Rohm, Commissioners. Before I begin I just want to say that in the staff report, in the section where it says history of previous actions, it was pointed out to me that this subdivision had come in in the past, I guess it was seen last year, and at the time it was denied and, I'm sorry, I did not know that, so -- I'm going to let Caleb -- last year what was reviewed by the city and eventually denied by the City Hood: Just to follow that up a little bit, since I was here. It was not my project, but this Council and also this body recommended denial of was the southern three-quarters or four-fifths of the property that's before you tonight, they have acquired that strip north of -- which was a big point of contention and in talking with Commissioner Zaremba again, this is the other item that he wanted me to kind of express some of his concerns about this item -- or the two reasons that he felt that it was denied last time and he still thinks that those two items still exist on this site and one of them is that there is limited access for emergency vehicles. The only way you can get into this site is from Franklin Road, heading south on Linder, and he doesn't believe that it's -- the timing is appropriate for any new development in this area until the bridge across the -- I think it's the Nine Mile -- maybe the Ten Mile -- happens, which still hasn't and I know we are working with the property owner here, I believe, to get that bridge so emergency vehicles do have two ways in and out of this area. His other concern was access to the site generally and not Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting* i July 6, 2006 Page 43 of 52 allowing an access point to the site from Linder Road. When the overpass gets constructed in the future, it will be fairly close to the base of that and he just doesn't feel it's appropriate to have an access point there. So, I did just want to express those concerns. He asked me to express those for him this evening, so I'll stand for any questions, but I believe I covered his concerns with this project. Veatch: Okay. So, we do have Tapestry Subdivision. The application has brought tapestry and they are proposing 3.92 acres be annexed and zoned from R-1 to R-8. And that would be for 20 single family residential building lots and four common lots. You will see, however, though the number of residential building lots has changed per the staff report, we have some conditions and we -- this is the most revised site plan that we have been given where they have noted some of those changes. So, they have already begun changes from our comments. So, some of the things that are on this property -- there were two existing buildings here and here. The existing building on this side will be removed and the existing building down here, which currently takes its driveway access from Linder, they have proposed to have it take access from the proposed Bayou Street. So, they will be moving that and taking access off of Linder Road. As well, the house encroaches slightly the street buffer, the required 25 foot street buffer, since Linder is an arterial. They are keeping the 25 foot buffer and, then, angling it in just where it is around the house there and I'm actually going to ask Matt to smooth that just a little bit like it was before, as far as not creating kind of a blind spot there in the corner with a 90 degree angle. I had originally asked for that. In any case, to do this they are seeking alternative compliance and they have provided additional buffer width here. I think there is almost 76 additional feet that becomes a common lot, if you will, or an extra wide buffer. Then, there used to be more of a cul-de-sac with a stub at this end and we have some lots taking access from the common driveway. There was concern with both the turning radius in the common driveway and, then, also we had about a hundred foot radius here for the cul-de-sac that was just open paving and so the applicant has redesigned this as a hammerhead here and this will be stubbed down and so we do need to continue with that curb improvement all the way through, so that it stubs to the property there. I'm in the process -- one of the conditions had been to see whether -- with the Peregrine Elementary School whether the school district would like a pedestrian pathway. There is a sidewalk on the outside here that goes to the school and it just seems the natural connectivity would go through here to the school. But I'm going to leave that up to communication between the applicant and recommending approval of this. Let's see. We did look at the the school district as to whether that will come in or not. Let's see. We are Previous history of area and, as Caleb mentioned, there had been concern about access to the area. Let me just check my notes here. I think some of those concerns may have been called out in the ACHD report. In any case, I will stand for questions while I'm looking for this and, then, I can always bring it up. Thank you. Rohm: Jenny, you don't happen to have the previous plat that was presented at the last time this same parcel was brought before the Commission, do you? Veatch: I do not. I don't know if -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting® July 6, 2006 Page 44 of 52 Borup: One of the design problems in that was the lots were very shallow. Rohm: I couldn't remember what it was, but I knew it was a significant concern by members of this Commission and I couldn't remember what in the heck it was that was different from this application from the previous, so I just -- Borup: I think it was that extra -- extra property that they said is included in on this now. However many feet that was, I don't -- Rohm: All right. Thank you. Any additional questions of staff? Okay. At this time would the applicant like to come forward, please? Schultz: Good evening, Chairman and Commissioners. My name is Matt Schultz at 2127 South Alaska in Meridian, with RMR Consulting and I am representing the applicant Raftis Tapestry, LLC, on this site. I just want to make a few points of clarification that our development entity is in no way related to the previous development entity that was denied. The property just never got transacted and it went back to the original owners and they have, in turn, sold it to my clients and we knew from day one that getting the extra -- it's actually about 65 feet. It's a one acre -- long, narrow one acre lot. The whole -- from there down to Waltman is a series of one acre lots done several decades ago and the primary property that was previously submitted was three of those lots. Three acres. Three narrow lots. And, then, there was this one strip that was excluded and what it led to was having just really shallow lots. That's all I know. I wasn't involved in it, but I know they were very shallow lots and that caused some concerns. So, what we have here is, actually, an assemblage of two parcels, two owners, which does make it a standard R-8 subdivision, which the previous one was not. We have lot depths -- we have enough room to put a standard 50 foot right of way and, then, 114 foot deep lots on the north and 100 foot deep lots on the south, which, to me, feels good. You're not going below the one hundred feet, which is when you start to fill like you're getting pinched. We are at a hundred on the south. With all the excess room on the north where we were abutting some existing Meridian very large R-4 lots, there is two lots north of us that were done under the R-4 zone at some point in the past. What we have is on Monday we had a staff report, we knew staff was concerned about our turnaround, we didn't understand how severe that concern was until they said they want to continue it and work with us, we said, hey, I think we can fix this very quickly and we did. We did lose one lot, so we are at 19 lots, including the one existing house. We thought the house was of a value that's worth keeping. And what it provides for is -- if we can flip to the site plan, please. And what it provides for is a good view breakup as well and a good traffic calming measure as well, with a little curve in it. I want to make a point about access. We have taken two driveway accesses and combined those into one. So, we felt that we have improved the Linder access situation with our site plan and we definitely -- even though the driveway currently goes out to Linder from the existing garage, we -- there is room to flip it around the back. It's a detached garage. There is room to put that access out to our internal road, instead of directly out to Linder. There is -- there was a need from staff to provide interconnectivity Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting July 6, 2006 Page 45 of 52 to the south with a future stub street. The reason we -- the right of way goes all the way and stubs to the property line. The curve curves just in case that property doesn't develop for 10, 15 years, so people can walk around and if that ever did develop, it's all within the right of way, that curb gets removed, the road gets extended and so it's a little deceiving what it looks like. We have allowed for that road to be extended, but in working with ACHD on other projects, they like this design, because it allows for something that looks finished until that project does decide to develop to the south. It could be a long time, it could be next year, who knows. And, then, there was the issue about pedestrian interconnectivity to the east -- or, excuse me, to the west, Peregrine Elementary. I have been in communication with Wendell and voice messages -- we kind of haven't been able to connect quite yet. We -- our site plan allows for it. I mean it's a very easy connection. It's just ten feet away probably another ten feet to the pathway they have back there. If they willllrallllow it, we will build it. If they don't want it -- in the past they have not wanted rear access to elementary schools. They want to control their access to the front. They don't like unsavory characters hanging out in the back and, you know -- but he may in this case, since there is already a pathway there. It's a very logical place to put one. We just need to ask the school district as to their -- what they would like to do. It's an R-8 sub. It's master planned for medium density, so it does conform. There was some access issues mentioned by the Commissioner who is not here. There is some regional issues about, hey, there is only one access down Linder. We heard about another bridge being planned. I know the Ten Mile interchange properties will probably pull Waltman over from Ten Mile here in the near future to Waltman to Main, it's a quarter mile north of the freeway and that's going to probably go west to Ten Mile. So, I don't know if 19 lots breaks us down there right now with the existing situation where we have however many lots coming down Linder. I don't know if this project breaks that. I'm saying it doesn't. And as far as distance from the overpass, this thing is probably 1,600 feet -- it's over a quarter mile north of 1-84. 1 don't see there being any conflict whatsoever with any overpass and what that would be as far as -- if it was an interchange, even then I would probably say no, but it's an overpass, improvement conflicts, p I don't know if there will be any p especially being over a quarter a mile away from 1-84. So, I notice Commissioner Moe is looking at an older site plan. We have revised that one. That was what was in your packet. We hope we have made the revisions in a timely manner such that you could act on this tonight, that we can move forward tonight, hopefully, with a recommendation for approval. We have felt that we have taken the steps necessary to overcome maybe some of the disadvantages the previous site had. With acquiring the additional piece of property, it really makes it a real subdivision, instead of something where you try to -- have to provide variances or R-15 or whatever they had to do to try to get what they were doing. But I guess with that I will stand for any questions and ask for your approval. Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of this applicant? Newton-Huckabay: Not at the moment. Rohm: John Arizabal. Would you like to come forward, please? Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting* July 6, 2006 Page 46 of 52 Arizabal: My name is John Arizabal and I live on the back lot of Joshua Lane, 1700 Joshua Lane in Meridian. So, I'm to the north of this small acre lot that sold. I had a couple of concerns. One of them was the number lots and the impact on increased traffic on Linder Road now, along with what was a finalization of privacy fence down that -- it's got to be six hundred feet there, roughly. J know we had spoke in the past of possible vinyl fencing, but I don't -- I haven't heard anything definite on what type of fencing, landscaping provisions, or so forth. I have lived there for five years. I don't know what the width of the lots are now, but I certainly, from my opinion, don't want narrow lots. I realize they are deeper now, but I don't want to look out my back door to two story homes forever and ever down that entire stretch of the lane. That's about all I have to say at this point. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Arizabal, are you the -- so, your property is on the south side of Joshua Lane, the first or second one? Arizabal: I'm in the back. Newton-Huckabay: You're in the back. Okay. Arizabal: Just a little over an acre. Actually, that lane -- the Joshua Lane is mismarked. It should be the upper blue line there, that's the private lane that runs next to that narrow acre. Borup: But you're right here. Arizabal: Yeah. That's mine. But the entrance actually parallels that narrow acre, not where it's shown up there. That's probably a canal access, the Kennedy Lateral. Rohm: So, Joshua Lane is along here? Arizabal: Correct. Rohm: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to testify before this hearing? Would you like to come back up? Schultz: Yes. Chairman and Commissioners. If I can respond to the gentleman's concerns. We are proposing six foot vinyl fence the whole entire length of our north boundary. Currently -- I haven't measured it, but there is probably at least five feet, if not more, between our property line and the lane that has some -- or some kind of rock landscaping. It actually goes onto our property. It kind of splits between the two. Going to put a fence in. We would repair any landscaping that was damaged and there will be a small buffer there between the lane and our -- and out six foot vinyl fence is what we are proposing for the full length on all sides, except for the school side, which has an existing five or six foot chain link fence right now. But as far as the lot width, there is only two parcels along 600 feet, it's kind of hard to match that with any kind of zoning Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting 0 July 6, 2006 Page 47 of 52 within a city. As far as single store versus two story, we were planning on having our builders to have the ability to put two stories. We thought the 114 feet -- I'd rather have a deeper lot than a wider lot. You know, be further away than have it just wider and closer. So, we do believe the depth is a more advantage to any kind of thought of extra width on those lots in terms of the separation from the actual structure -- from structure to structure would be greater with our depth of lots, with normal setbacks. So, I will stand for any additional questions. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Hood: Mr. Chair? Borup: Just one question, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hood, why don't you go ahead. Hood: I was just curious, Matt. Do you know -- is that Joshua Lane, is it an easement and does your property have any interest in that lane? Schultz: We have none whatsoever. It was done as a two lot subdivision, I believe, with an easement granted across the one lot to the other in the back and that easement does not go on our property. It's solely contained on the property to the north. It is not part of that one acre strip that we acquired whatsoever. So, they don't share any access at all. Borup: I had a question on the -- you said 19 lots? That includes the lot with the existing house? Schultz: Yes. Borup: So that -- I think it's Lot 2, the other lot, is an open space lot? Schultz: There is two -- there is technically four lots. There is a buffer lot in front of the existing house. Borup: Oh, there we go. Okay. The landscaping plan answers my question. Schultz: Right. There you go. And staff wanted me to -- we have kind of gone full circle on the -- the designs of the fence in front of the house. We are going to -- I believe it's alternative compliance or -- I can't remember the proper term. And we will angle that, so it's not an abrupt right angle, but we do need to jog out the fence around the existing home and, then, we are offsetting with that 75 feet, in addition to 25 feet of landscaping. So, I think it's a hundred feet of landscaping total on the north side. Where the current existing house is it's going to go away. It's an older home that doesn't really have any value to keep and it would be a substandard lot if we did keep it anyways. So, it will be improved with open space and landscaping. Borup: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting* July 6, 2006 Page 48 of 52 Schultz: Thanks. Cole: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Mr. Cole. Cole: I have one question for the applicant, if I may. Rohm: Absolutely. n Cole: On your site plan, the ditch along the bottom says retain, protect -- it says tc leave open. It looks like from the site plan that a part of it actually lies on your property, which would require it to be tiled by our ordinance. Do you know the end user, the owner of that, did he want it left open on your site? Schultz: I don't believe it is. I mean it says retain and protect and my engineer puts those terms on there and that just means leave it alone and don't fill in. From what I can tell there might be an answer to one portion that's maybe technically on our side, but the majority of it is -- or all of it, in my opinion, is on the other property owner to the south site. It dissipates after you get -- you can kind of see the lines disappear. It kind of goes to nothing and I think he's the end user and he gravity irrigates out of it. Cole: You're not familiar if it's a drain ditch or a delivery ditch or -- Schultz: It's a delivery and we are tiling it from our north property line to our south property line along Linder. We are tiling it there. But as far as east -west, it appears to me to be entirely on his site. There might -- from the topography shots it may look like there is a -- you know, like I said, a few inches on ours, but I believe it's all on his site and we are tiling it all the way down to our southeast corner. Cole: Thanks. Rohm: Okay. Any discussion? Borup: A couple items, maybe. And one just informational. I don't know if this is accurate. I'm looking at the site plan from the previous subdivision and it appears to me that was 21 lots in that one, so this is two less lots with an acre more property. Rohm: If memory serves me well, the primary objection last time was the fact that it didn't have the width to have the number of lots and it just seems like they were just awfully small and this appears to address that major concern and it look like a pretty good development to me. Borup: The other comment that I would have is I believe -- and even though it's a different applicant, so it doesn't really matter, but I think the comment from what I Meridian Planning & Zoning Meetingr July 6, 2006 Is Page 49 of 52 remember from the Commission was if they had that other property, then, it would be a doable deal. Rohm: And I remember it that way as well. I drive through that intersection quite frequently to the north, the Linder and Franklin Road, and I can -- as I seen in the past, there is significant more traffic coming from the west and from the north and east than there ever is coming from the south headed north into that intersection. So, maybe yours will provide more balance. I don't know. But it doesn't appear as if there is a significant amount of traffic from that south entrance to that intersection. So, I don't think it will be too bad. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Caleb, can you go back to the aerial shot? I would have liked to -- I'm just kind of looking at this whole piece of property here and I really would have liked to have seen some kind of stub with the possibility to go to the north. In the future, if any of this decides to redevelop into the more urban density that you see all around it, we are going to be able to connect from here and we -- I mean I think if we don't connect here, we are losing the potential of being able to connect, you know, bring it all the way down through this -- this piece of property, which, if Waltman, at some point, does continue over here to the west, I just think we are doing a disservice to this area if we don't provide some ability in the future to have some alternative to Linder to get down through this area. This is a fairly large piece of land here and I would just like to see the option for that, because we could potentially run into the same kind of problems we have with this up here if we don't, because we are limited here on what we can do. So, I -- as I -- Director Canning is known for saying that sometimes development is forever. We are -- that's my comment on that. Veatch: Chairman Rohm, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, I actually spoke with Anna regarding a north access and I'm having a hard time recollecting her reasoning, but I know that she said that -- I believe it's because there are R-4 parcels located above and because they are such large parcels and they have a private lane there, it didn't make sense to stub up top to the north there through -- through their property. Schultz: Can I address that issue real quick, as far as my thoughts on that? Rohm: Sure. Schultz: Thank you. The property to the north is zoned in the City of Meridian. It's not a -- you know, a county to be developed in the future. I mean it was brought into the city of Meridian and it was developed to R-4 and, yes, it may be a little bigger than R-4 lots than you would see, but, you know, I guess -- and maybe to your point, maybe, it was a bad decision on their part not to put any access to us when they came in and, you know, I don't believe we are continuing that, because there is the Kennedy Lateral there to the north of them. They are supposedly happy where they live on their R-4 Meridian lots right now. That could change in the future, but if they did they would have to come in with -- or not come in. And the property to the south we are providing interconnectivity to, so they don't have to take access off of Linder and just from 4, z Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting* July 6, 2006 Page 50 of 52 Waltman. So, I believe we have addressed all those concerns. If that property to the north was just vacant county land, I think it would be a different issue. It is in the City of Meridian, zoned R-4, you know, and approved by the city, as it says today. So, I don't know if that helps or not, but just our thoughts as we were looking at the regional connection issues ourselves. Rohm: Any additional discussion? If not, then, I'd certainly -- Borup: Yeah. What's going on with that right there? Is that really a county subdivision? Just mislabeled? Hood: Don't look at that. Borup: Okay. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I'd like to close the public hearings on AZ 06-027 and PP 06-026. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-027 and PP 06-026. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe: Question for staff, Mr. Chairman. I understand the applicant has submitted new site plans. Veatch: That is correct. Moe: That we do not have? Veatch: That is correct. Borup: Isn't that what was on the screen, though? Veatch: Yes. Yes, it was. And we received electronically those versions on the 5th. Moe: So, they were in our packet. Veatch: That's your current revised. Moe: Yeah. Okay. That's fine. NAN Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting 18 July 6, 2006 Page 51 of 52 Borup: If you -- you're thinking there is concern because we didn't have the site plan. Moe: No. I'm just trying to verify where we are at. Borup: But it looks like to me that all this -- there doesn't need to be any modification of any staff recommendations, because it says -- on the most part already complied with the comments on the redesign. Veatch: That is correct. Moe: And that's all I wanted to verify there, so -- Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 06-027 and PP 06-026, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 6th, 2006. End of motion. Borup: Second Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 06-067 and PP 06-026, to include all staff comments for the hearing date of July 6th, 2006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Newton-Huckabay: Aye. Rohm: Motion carried with one dissenting vote. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: One last motion. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we adjourn. Newton- H ucka bay: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:51 P.M. V Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting July 6, 2006 Page 52 of 52 (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED MICHAEL ROHM - CHAIRMAN ATTESTED: 9 69, (3 LO DATE APPROVED ,\\\\`SIIIII 51111////JJp/ ,OF ,- WC I, G. BERG JFL '//J/llllla il1111 \\`a 3 4. i A t: a ,p ,=iy,Xk l H" # ,.;part y 77 �k4 ry 44, July 3, 2006 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING APPLICANT July 6, 2006 s ITEM NO. 3-A REQUEST Approve Minutes of June 15, 2006 Planning and Zoning Commission Meetinq AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: Arp r-C)'LAt 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. 4_0 M, RVR 77, �N s eQ F;. K �I cU�N �r fN 'afu'�r`*.W C? t �FJ^'6. !� July 3, 2006 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING APPLICANT July 6, 2006 s ITEM NO. 3-A REQUEST Approve Minutes of June 15, 2006 Planning and Zoning Commission Meetinq AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: Arp r-C)'LAt 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. 4_0 M, RVR 77, s eQ �i° 3CL �FJ^'6. !� rp+Y"ft� k A 4 �.. Kry+i`, 40!1 y A ty rxu�„ 11, s July 3, 2006 e RZ 06-005 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING July 6, 2006 APPLICANT John Homan ITEM NO. 4 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from June 15, 2006 — Request for a Rezone of 1.004 acres from R-4 to L -O zones (Limited Office District) for Meridian Professional Office — 2835 and 2825 North Meridian Road I AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT. SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: COMMENTS See previous Item Packet / Minutes See attached Staff Report OTHER: See attached Affidavit of Posting Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. },s ,F 4� Fl- � k � { i' r � d ih K` .,,, > S '.{, xiP+R., y.:k .� ir';}` Y a '3A .. .. t W .', a, /N tm'ie ,^� y 3Y tt� '" Ht�f�',� ✓,�X� V2¢ k � $ t k "'ie. ,:,�. 0 July 3, 2006 AZ 06-026 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING July 6, 2006 APPLICANT Paramount Development ITEM NO. 5 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from June 15, 2006 — Request for Annexation and Zoning of 60.96 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Paramount South 60 Subdivision -- nec of North Linder Road and 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: COMMENTS See Previous Item Packet / Minutes See attached Staff Report OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. r� r $ u 4- y 01, ' t'. m 2 1., ,r c F c� 0 July 3, 2006 AZ 06-026 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING July 6, 2006 APPLICANT Paramount Development ITEM NO. 5 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from June 15, 2006 — Request for Annexation and Zoning of 60.96 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Paramount South 60 Subdivision -- nec of North Linder Road and 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: COMMENTS See Previous Item Packet / Minutes See attached Staff Report OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. r� r $ u y ' t'. 2 ,r c F c� j 4 a. l �° S:iTij k'kd'( t4 x,;Y;.ie Wt f II , s s July 3, 2006 PP 06-025 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING July 6, 2006 APPLICANT Paramount Development ITEM NO. 6 REQUEST Continued Hearing from June 15, 2006 — Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 201 residential lots and 13 common lots on 59.81 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Paramount South 60 Subdivision -- northeast corner of North Linder Road & W. McMillan AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: See Previous Item Packet / Minutes CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See attached Staff Report CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: M1 CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: +' IDAHO POWER: # INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: :.' Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. -: �� } •� i �' x.,ai i# ��•. � tl 1r�.1-°� '�y t , Y.� "#i §3j T` �' �1a{�, `u`%lvg�a F i Y+ak9'Sp' fw j 5 y NfK.RN*, .NNa qy Sat +" fi i YiL ✓°5;+. ,.A l �: JA a. .' '7 ..e.3 wY`i �xE �' N.. wi ... 'kt Y, f a� r � s July 3, 2006 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8, ZONING MEETING July 6, 2006 CUP 06-015 APPLICANT White -Leasure Development ITEM NO. % REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from June 15, 2006 -- Request for retail use as determine by Development Agreement for Meridian Gateway - Walgreens - 1601 South Meridian Road AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: COMMENTS See Previous Item Packet / Minutes See attached Staff Report OTHER: See attched Affidavit of Posting Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Y j 'b � fit" rh2, _ v�a�uk�Tk 4$f �,, • f .Ei -4 .1 ,q i.. i. Oil iq • July 3, 2006 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8, ZONING MEETING s CUP 06-018 July 6, 2006 APPLICANT Shelley Fournier ITEM NO. 8 REQUEST Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit for a daycare facility for 6-12 children for Shelley Fournier by Shelley Fournier - 2567 N. Black Bear Way 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 / Comments See attached Comments No Comments No Comments See attached Comments See attached Comments OTHER: See attached Affidavit of Posting / Comments from Sally Ponath Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. s x" July 3, 2006 CUP 06-017 x MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING July 6, 2006 APPLICANT Douglas and Stephanie Beehler ITEM NO. 9 x. REQUEST Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit W to move liquor license from m 127 E. Idaho Avenue to 126 E. Idaho Avenue for To Shelf LL - P C 126 E. Idaho Avenue AGENCY COMMENTS 3 CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: ' CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See attached Staff Comments CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT. CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: No Comments CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: r ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: See attached Comments CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: " I OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: f� Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the city of Meridian. a yki k r }p II rd A 4 4-,r5t^i'2 3 s July 3, 2006 CUP 06-019 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING July 6, 2006 APPLICANT H&H Utility Contractors, Inc. ITEM NO. 10 REQUEST Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit to construct 10,072.5 square foot addition for company offices, truck, equipment and material storage facilities on 3.68 acres in a C -G zone for H&H Utility Contractors - 225 W. Franklin Road AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: COMMENTS See attached Staff Report No Comments See attached Comments OTHER: See attached Affidavit of Posting Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. July 3, 2006 AZ 06-027 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING July 6, 2006 APPLICANT Raffis Tapestry, LLC ITEM NO. REQUEST Public Hearing - Annexation and Zoning of 3.92 acres to an R-8 zone for Tapestry Subdivision - 635 & 675 S. Linder Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: No Comments See attached Comments OTHER: Affidavit of Posting Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the city of Meridian. L � y July 3, 2006 AZ 06-027 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING July 6, 2006 APPLICANT Raffis Tapestry, LLC ITEM NO. REQUEST Public Hearing - Annexation and Zoning of 3.92 acres to an R-8 zone for Tapestry Subdivision - 635 & 675 S. Linder Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: No Comments See attached Comments OTHER: Affidavit of Posting Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the city of Meridian. In s July 3, 2006 O PP 06-026 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING July 6, 2006 APPLICANT Rallis Tapestry, LLC ITEM NO. 12 REQUEST Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat approval of 20 residential lots and 4 common lots on 3.92 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Tapestry Subdivision - 635 & 675 S. Linder 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 No Comments See attached Comments Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. A,sx7 s4 r '' d; , r ge! Ms�'2'��a�#�r��}-''.l y day F a ,g;_ Sr t.k- S