Loading...
2006 08-310 MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING �i^jv�jlYl SPECIAL MEETING 11)AH0 1 AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, August 31, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. `Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony, all presentations before the Mayor and City Council are expected to be truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter." 1. Roll -call Attendance: _X Keith Borup _X Wendy Newton-Huckabay _X David Moe O David Zaremba _O Michael Rohm - chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of August 3, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting: Approve as Amended B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 06-023 Request for Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a 14,315 square foot multi -tenant retail building with one drive thru window for Grandview Marketplace, Retail Building #1 by W.H. Moore — NWC of Overland Road and Eagle Road: Approve C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 06-025 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a 24,835 square foot Retail Building on 1.76 acres in the C -G zone for Centre Pointe Retail 1 by W.H. Moore Company - 3445 N. Eagle Road: Approve D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 06-026 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a 13,653 square foot Retail Building on 2.03 acres in the C -G zone for Centre Pointe Retail "B" by W.H. Moore Company — 3445 N. Eagle Road (Lot 10, Block 2, Centre Point Subdivision): Approve Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda —August 31, 2006 Page 1 of 3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. 0 4. Continued Public Hearing from July 20, 2006: AZ 06-032 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 29.31 acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for Trilogy Subdivision by Conger Management Group — south side of Chinden Boulevard and east of Black Cat Road: Continue Public Hearing to October 5, 2006 5. Continued Public Hearing from July 20, 2006: PP 06-032 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 148 single-family lots and 14 common / other lots including 2 private street lots on 28.17 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Trilogy Subdivision by Conger Management Group — south side of Chinden Boulevard and east of Black Cat Road: Continue Public Hearing to October 5, 2006 6. Continued Public Hearing from August 3, 2006: AZ 06-030 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 8.03 acres to an R-8 zone for Northborough Subdivision by Gemstar Development, LLC — north side of Ustick Road and east of Linder Road: Recommend Approval to City Council 7. Continued Public Hearing from August 3, 2006: PP 06-030 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 35 residential lots and 4 common lots on 8.03 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Northborough Subdivision by Gemstar Development, LLC — north side of Ustick Road and east of Linder Road: Recommend Approval to City Council 8. Public Hearing: AZ 06-041 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 8.95 acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for Harpe Subdivision by Larry C. Harpe — 4715 N. Locust Grove Road: Continue Public Hearing to October 5, 2006 9. Public Hearing: PP 06-042 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 24 residential lots and 3 common lots on 8.95 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Harpe Subdivision by Larry C. Harpe — 4715 N. Locust Grove Road: Continue Public Hearing to October 5, 2006 10. Public Hearing: CUP 06-024 Request for Conditional Use Permit for the construction of an 11,029 square foot multi -tenant retail building for Grandview Marketplace, Retail Building #2 by W.H. Moore Company — NWC of Overland Road and Eagle Road: Application Withdrawn 11. Public Hearing: PP 06-037 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for six single-family residential building lots and one common lot on 1.96 acres within the R-4 zone for Moose Creek Subdivision by Moose Creek Construction — 4275 N. Jones Creek Lane: Continue Public Hearing to October 5, 2006 12. Public Hearing: AZ 06-035 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 12.06 acres to C -C (1.50 acres) and R-40 (10.56 acres) zones for Regency at Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — August 31, 2006 Page 2 of 3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. River Valley by The Regency at River Valley, LLC — east of Eagle Road and north of Fairview Avenue: Recommend Approval to City Council 13. Public Hearing: CUP 06-022 Request for a Conditional Use Permit approval to construct a multi -family development consisting of 204 multi- family dwelling units on 12.06 acres in a proposed R-40 zone for Regency at River Valley by The Regency at River Valley, LLC — east of Eagle Road and north of Fairview Avenue: Recommend Approval to City Council Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — August 31, 2006 Page 3 of 3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. a r,rease 4V0S , CITY OF �Ylv�l�yl IDAHO h FC meq m T YruE� O MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, August 31, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. "Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony, all presentations before the Mayor and City Council are expected to be truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter. " 1. Roll -call Attendance: Keith Borup Wendy Newton-Huckabay David Moe David Zaremba Michael Rohm - chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of August 3, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting: B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 06-023 Request for Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a 14,315 square foot multi -tenant retail building with one drive thru window for Grandview Marketplace, Retail Building #1 by W.H. Moore — NWC of Overland Road and Eagle Road: C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 06-025 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a 24,835 square foot Retail Building on 1.76 acres in the C -G zone for Centre Pointe Retail 1 by W.H. Moore Company - 3445 N. Eagle Road: D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 06-026 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a 13,653 square foot Retail Building on 2.03 acres in the C -G zone for Centre Pointe Retail "B" by W.H. Moore Company — 3445 N. Eagle Road (Lot 10, Block 2, Centre Point Subdivision): Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — August 31, 2006 Page 1 of 3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. AOKI 1 10 x � n 4 a F "Y�"R •4.iby SS y 41+ i&� v'+� t Iq . � l g 11. Public Hearing: PP 06-037 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for six single-family residential building lots and one common lot on 1.96 acres within the R-4 zone for Moose Creek Subdivision by Moose Creek Construction — 4275 N. Jones Creek Lane: 12. Public Hearing: AZ 06-035 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 12.06 acres to C -C (1.50 acres) and R-40 (10.56 acres) zones for Regency at River Valley by The Regency at River Valley, LLC — east of Eagle Road and north of Fairview Avenue: 13. Public Hearing: CUP 06-022 Request for a Conditional Use Permit approval to construct a multi -family development consisting of 204 multi- family dwelling units on 12.06 acres in a proposed R-40 zone for Regency Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — August 31, 2006 Page 2 of 3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. e e 4. Continued Public Hearing from July 20, 2006: AZ 06-032 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 29.31 acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for Trilogy Subdivision by Conger Management Group — south side of Chinden Boulevard and east of Black Cat Road: 5. Continued Public Hearing from July 20, 2006: PP 06-032 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 148 single-family lots and 14 common / other i 1 i lots including 2 private street lots on 28.17 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Trilogy Subdivision by Conger Management Group — south side of 4 Chinden Boulevard and east of Black Cat Road: 6. Continued Public Hearing from August 3, 2006: AZ 06-030 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 8.03 acres to an R-8 zone for Northborough Subdivision by Gemstar Development, LLC — north side of Ustick Road and east of Linder Road: 7. Continued Public Hearing from August 3, 2006: PP 06-030 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 35 residential lots and 4 common lots on 8.03 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Northborough Subdivision by iEZ`*'�t.t. Gemstar Development, LLC — north side of Ustick Road and east of Linder Road: 8. Public Hearing: AZ 06-041 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 8.95 acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for Harpe Subdivision by Lary C. Harpe — 4715 N. Locust Grove Road: 9. Public Hearing: PP 06-042 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 24 residential lots and 3 common lots on 8.95 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Harpe Subdivision by Larry C. Harpe — 4715 N. Locust Grove Road: 10. Public Hearing: CUP 06-024 Request for Conditional Use Permit for the construction of an 11,029 square foot multi -tenant retail building for Grandview Marketplace, Retail Building #2 by W.H. Moore Company — NWC of Overland Road and Eagle Road: 11. Public Hearing: PP 06-037 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for six single-family residential building lots and one common lot on 1.96 acres within the R-4 zone for Moose Creek Subdivision by Moose Creek Construction — 4275 N. Jones Creek Lane: 12. Public Hearing: AZ 06-035 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 12.06 acres to C -C (1.50 acres) and R-40 (10.56 acres) zones for Regency at River Valley by The Regency at River Valley, LLC — east of Eagle Road and north of Fairview Avenue: 13. Public Hearing: CUP 06-022 Request for a Conditional Use Permit approval to construct a multi -family development consisting of 204 multi- family dwelling units on 12.06 acres in a proposed R-40 zone for Regency Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — August 31, 2006 Page 2 of 3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. i 1 i 4 iEZ`*'�t.t. .1 F � s o at River Valley by The Regency at River Valley, LLC — east of Eagle Road and north of Fairview Avenue: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — August 31, 2006 Page 3 of 3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. bh li N J 4 d t 4i U Y k rh i5 a.� f� " „ s o at River Valley by The Regency at River Valley, LLC — east of Eagle Road and north of Fairview Avenue: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — August 31, 2006 Page 3 of 3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. N 4 d t 4i U Y k rh i5 a.� sok TX CONFIAN REPORT ** AS OF AUG 28 '06 & PAGE.01 CITY OF MERIDIAN C>1 IDAHO r v MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, August 31, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. "Although the City of Meridian no longer requiressworn testimony, all presentations before the Mayor and City Council are expected to be truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter." 1. Roll -call Attendance: Keith Borup Wendy Newton-Huckabay David Moe David Zaremba Michael Rohm - chairman 2• Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: A- Approve Minutes of August 3, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting: B• Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 06-023 Request for Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a 14,315 square foot multi -tenant retail building with one drive thru window for Grandview Marketplace, Retail Building #1 by W.H. Moore — NWC of Overland Road and Eagle Road: C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 06-025 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a 24,835 square foot Retail Building on 1.76 acnes in the C -G zone for Centre Pointe Retail 1 by W.H. Moore Company - 3445 N. Eagle Road: DATE TIME TO/FROM MODE MIN/SEC PGS CMD# STATUS 01 0828 17:11 3886924 EC—S 00'54" 003 095 OK 02 08/28 17:12 P -AND -Z EC—S 00'55" 003 095 OK 03 08/28 17:14 FIRE DEPT EC—S 00'55" 003 095 OK 04 08/28 17:16 208 888 2682 EC—S 00'56" 003 095 OK 05 0828 17:17 208 387 6393 EC—S 00'55" 003 095 OK 06 0828 17:18 ADA CTY DEUELMT EC—S 00'56" 003 095 OK 07 08/28 1720 208 5052 EC—S 00'56" 003 095 OK e8 08/28 1722 IDAHO ATHLETIC C EC—S 00'56" 003 095 OK 09 08/28 17:23 ID PRESS TRIBUNE EC—S 00'55" 003 095 OK 10 0828 1725 2088886701 EC—S 00'55" 003 095 OK C>1 IDAHO r v MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, August 31, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. "Although the City of Meridian no longer requiressworn testimony, all presentations before the Mayor and City Council are expected to be truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter." 1. Roll -call Attendance: Keith Borup Wendy Newton-Huckabay David Moe David Zaremba Michael Rohm - chairman 2• Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: A- Approve Minutes of August 3, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting: B• Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 06-023 Request for Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a 14,315 square foot multi -tenant retail building with one drive thru window for Grandview Marketplace, Retail Building #1 by W.H. Moore — NWC of Overland Road and Eagle Road: C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 06-025 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a 24,835 square foot Retail Building on 1.76 acnes in the C -G zone for Centre Pointe Retail 1 by W.H. Moore Company - 3445 N. Eagle Road: "�t D• Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 0"26 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a 13,653 squarefoot Retail Building on 2.03 acres in the C -G zone for Centre Pointe Retail "B" by W.N. Moore Company — 3445 N. Eagle Road (Lot 10, Block 2, Centre Point Subdivision): h Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission , Meeting Agenda - August 31, 2006 Page 1 of 3 Presented at pubic meetings shall become • Property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring acwmmodanon for disebilitles related to documents andior hearing, Please oomact the City Clerks Office at 888-4433 s at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. k 3 jg /f YkPS Sy c' }1�i"$ ✓ x5+ i� . '4i„� (;'�J t .'w 4�T �'� ,S' :. ..} 'A h Wks• �,7 r# �� .j.� .. 1 } } d a _ ; rat t ,.s r4 Cr -s' i. , `4 5; iZr '. Si h},..ei �,-u '�.: yr -Syy� •rM1 }.. �$'�, A 1 d 4 `�4 b "�t ** TX CONFISOON REPORT NWc AS OF AUG 28 '0611 PAGE.01 CITY OF MERIDIAN r � f QST QOS'r i�j/ fl�jeou ,R, 1, � crrr or C_"f MAHro r v MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, August 31, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. Although the City of Meridian no longer requires swom testimony, all presentations before the Mayor and City Council are expected to be truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter,, 1. Roll -call Attendance: Keith Borup Wendy Newton-Huckabay David Moe David Zaremba Michael Rohm - chairman 2• Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of August 3, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting: B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 06-023 Request for Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a 1.04,315 square foot multi -tenant retail building with one drive thru window for Grandview Marketplace, Retail Building #1 by W.H. Moore — NWC of Overland Road and Eagle Road: C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 06-026 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a 24,835 square foot Retail Building on 1.76 acres in the C -G zone for Centre Pointe Retail 1 by W.H. Moore Company - 3445 N. Eagle Road: D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 06-026 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a 13,653 square foot Retail Building on 2.03 acres in the C -G zone for Centre Pointe Retail "B" by W.H. Moore Company — 3445 N. Eagle Road (Lot 10, Block 2, Centre Point Subdivision): Meridien Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda—August 31, 2006 Page 1 of 3 All matsrials Presented at public meetings shag become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disebgities related to documents andior hearing, Please contact the City Clerk's office at 88&4439 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. A2{ �R f 1 R ,ir4 DATE TIME TO/FROM MODE MIN/SEC PGS CMDA STATUS 24 08/28 1658 3810160 EC --S 01'33" 003 095 OK 25 08/28 1700 PUBLIC WORKS EC --S 00'56" 003 095 OK 26 08/28 17:01 8848723 EC --S 00'56" 003 095 OK 27 08/28 17:02 WATER DEPT EC --S 00156" 003 095 OK 28 08/28 1704 2088640744 EC --S 00'57" 003 095 OK 29 08/28 17:05 POLICE DEPT EC --S 00'55" 003 095 OK 30 08/26 1707 8985501 EC --S 00'55" 003 095 OK 31 08/28 1708 LIBRARY EC --S 00'56" 003 095 OK 32 08/28 17:10 IDAHO STATESMAN EC—S 00'55" 003 095 OK r � f QST QOS'r i�j/ fl�jeou ,R, 1, � crrr or C_"f MAHro r v MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, August 31, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. Although the City of Meridian no longer requires swom testimony, all presentations before the Mayor and City Council are expected to be truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter,, 1. Roll -call Attendance: Keith Borup Wendy Newton-Huckabay David Moe David Zaremba Michael Rohm - chairman 2• Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of August 3, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting: B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 06-023 Request for Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a 1.04,315 square foot multi -tenant retail building with one drive thru window for Grandview Marketplace, Retail Building #1 by W.H. Moore — NWC of Overland Road and Eagle Road: C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 06-026 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a 24,835 square foot Retail Building on 1.76 acres in the C -G zone for Centre Pointe Retail 1 by W.H. Moore Company - 3445 N. Eagle Road: D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 06-026 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a 13,653 square foot Retail Building on 2.03 acres in the C -G zone for Centre Pointe Retail "B" by W.H. Moore Company — 3445 N. Eagle Road (Lot 10, Block 2, Centre Point Subdivision): Meridien Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda—August 31, 2006 Page 1 of 3 All matsrials Presented at public meetings shag become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disebgities related to documents andior hearing, Please contact the City Clerk's office at 88&4439 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. A2{ �R f 1 R ,ir4 } a ,a j+r (Q� } .n n � t n aa 3 ..-£..,y `x.31 �� S r AG: 'tP, 411" 'Q[ ?1111111 1>0 MISS OR Isk 0110 sk vy"AIIN sh dion! a vigil tl,�;ttt;01$4014;1 x Y it 1 We' its Allogy 1 ovilliton-� WO"', 10 Also 11711 V, a i CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING SPECIAL MEETING ,onHo AGENDA �y' TREASURE V nU='Y '903 City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, August 31, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. "Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony, all presentations before the Mayor and City Council are expected to be truthful and honest to best of the ability of the " , presenter. 1. Roll -call Attendance: Keith Borup Wendy Newton-Huckabay David Moe Cho:4r David Zaremba ® Michael Rohm - chairman s7 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of August 3, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting; Approya OSS MY e -d B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 06-023 Request for Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a 14,315 square foot multi -tenant retail building with one drive thru window for Grandview Marketplace, Retail Building #1 by W.H. Moore — NWC of Overland Road and Eagle Road: . 1 "# C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 06-025 Request O for Conditional Use Permit for a 24,835 square foot Retail Building x on 1.76 acres in the C -G zone for Centre Pointe Retail 1 by W.H. Moore Company - 3445 N. Eagle Road: pr®er f- - D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 06-026 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a 13,653 square foot Retail Building on 2.03 acres in the C -G zone for Centre Pointe Retail "B" by g W.H. Moore Company p y — 3445 N. Eagle Road (Lot 10, Block 2, Centre Point Subdivision): Af r®v& Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — August 31, 2006 Page 1 of 3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888.14433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. w "" iy1 a.} p h, 4 �h +S3 ¢ igr k � X ,kq'�yaby F'YS€n^ x T�yB`� 'l.�t� Ydt� i 4.� � +.i.� }' y � �" �✓ $k� ^ {Y- h4MYb ,. ;k 5t F s F L S 4. Continued PuTlic Hearin N g from July 20, 2006: 06-032 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 29.31 acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for Trilogy Subdivision by Conger Management Group — south side of }° Chinden Boulevard and east of Black Cat Road: rdO4A r) Ue PA R io 5,zoo (P y ' 5. Continued Public Hearing from July 20, 2006: PP 06-032 Request for PreliminaryPlat approval of 148 single-family lots and 14 common /other lots including 2 private street lots on 28.17 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Trilogy Subdivision by Conger Management Group — south side of Chinden Boulevard and east of Black Cat Road: $® 5, 2®as 6. Continued Public Hearing from August 3, 2006: AZ 06-030 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 8.03 acres to an R-8 zone for Northborough Subdivision by Gemstar Development, LLC — north side of Ustick Road and east of Linder Road: �COnnYr)erg Approe o Zub`lnicC�earing 7. Continue from August 3, 2006: PP 06-030 Request 9 q for Preliminary Plat approval of 35 residential lots and 4 common lots on 8.03 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Northborough Subdivision by Gemstar Development, LLC — north side of Ustick Road and east of Linder Road: kWO M O -Ad Ap-x 0Vo-d Ll�I1C� 8. Public Hearing: AZ 06-041 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 8.95 acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for Harpe Subdivision by Larry C. Harpe — 4715 N. Locust Grove Road: 001�in ac ��- � t✓� S, ZOO ;< 9. Public Hearing: PP 06-042 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 24 residential lots and 3 common lots on 8.95 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Harpe Subdivision by Larry C. Harpe — 4715 N. Locust Grove Road: 10. Public Hearing: CUP 06-024 Request for Conditional Use Permit for the construction of an 11,029 square foot multi -tenant retail building for Grandview Marketplace, Retail Building #2 by W.H. Moore Company — NWC of Overland Road and Eagle Road: W li-- dM LO App% i CaAf� 11. Public Hearing: PP 06-037 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for six single-family residential building lots and one common lot on 1.96 acres within the R-4 zone for Moose Creek Subdivision by Moose Creek Construction — 4275 N. Jones Creek Lane:(°U�1-hr,C (� N 1.6 12. Public Hearing: AZ 06-035 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 12.06 acres to C -C (1.50 acres) and R-40 (10.56 acres) zones for Regency at 211 r River Valley by The Regency at River Valley, LLC — east of Ea le Road and north of Fairview Avenue: Ot00%Yj nCj-)6 �� L 13. Public Hearing: CUP 06-022 Request for a Conditional Use Permit approval to construct a multi -family development consisting of 204 multi- family dwelling units on 12.06 acres in a proposed R-40 zone for Regency Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — August 31, 2006 Page 2 of 3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. ry, tie Y v � t 'v , n r) t N e F at River Vallelby The Regency at River Valley,'CLC — east of Eagle Road and north of Fairview Avenue: CatWf (1Me-n(A Af-7 -re \,,CLk fo C, C-1 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — August 31, 2006 Page 3 of 3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. 3g':R l Y { ,.d x' i TL. t.y t341k: i; "� 1 ., .,e ,.. D. g{ ua .,`3'� � } ',� � k"' *'� d;s 3 5 "5 evi•� :^'Y k im`yt i. }3,ikl ''iC.SAi-MX y+,P...: ,falx -n j s f Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting August 31, 2006 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of August 31, 2006, was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Vice -Chairman David Moe. Members Present: David Moe, Keith Borup and Wendy Newton-Huckabay. Members Absent: Michael Rohm and David Zaremba. Others Present: Ted Baird, Tara Green, (Craig) Caleb Hood, Bruce Freckleton, Jenny Veatch, Justin Lucas, Amanda Hess, Sonya Watters 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 O Michael Rohm - Chairman Moe: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the special meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for August 31st, 2006. I'd like to have roll call, please. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: Moe: Thank you very much. At this time I'd like to have the adoption of the agenda, but there are a few items on the agenda that will be, for those in the audience, that we will be changing. Items 4 and 5, which will be the request for annexation and zoning, 29.31 acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for Trilogy Subdivision, as well as PP 06-032, request for preliminary plat approval, of the same subdivision will not be heard tonight. They will be continued to the regularly scheduled meeting of October the 5th, 2006. Then, on Item No. 10, which is CUP 06-024, which is a request for preliminary approval -- excuse me -- request for Conditional Use Permit for the Grandview Marketplace Retail Building No. 2, the applicant has requested that to be withdrawn, therefore, we will not hear that. When that comes up in the meeting we will withdraw that. And other than that we will go forward with the agenda as noted. Could I get a motion to accept the agenda as amended? Newton-Huckabay: So moved. Borup: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded that we adopt the agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. U- it S A•.. : .,. gi 3 € : _. x. . _ .e,_ ,w..a a. RE? �?','� R.�.� �ft &3. •'.s?: S , U- Meridian Planning & Zoning Special pting August 31, 2006 Page 2 of 59 Item 3: Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of August 3, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting: B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 06-023 Request for Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a 14,315 square foot multi -tenant retail building with one drive thru window for Grandview Marketplace, Retail Building #1 by W.H. Moore — NWC of Overland Road and Eagle Road: C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 06-025 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a 24,835 square foot Retail Building on 1.76 acres in the C -G zone for Centre Pointe Retail 1 by W.H. Moore Company - 3445 N. Eagle Road: D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 06-026 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a 13,653 square foot Retail Building on 2.03 acres in the C -G zone for Centre Pointe Retail "B" by W.H. Moore Company — 3445 N. Eagle Road (Lot 10, Block 2, Centre Point Subdivision): Moe: The next item on the agenda will be the Consent Agenda and that would be the meeting minutes of the August 3rd, 2006, Planning and Zoning meeting and B would be the Facts and Findings, Conclusions of Law of CUP 06-023, the Facts and Findings and Conclusions of Law of CUP 06-025, and the Facts and Findings and Conclusions of Law for CUP 06-026. Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move we accept the Consent Agenda. Moe: Well, I do have one change to make on the meeting minutes. Very minor. That would be on page 32 it's noted that Commissioner Newton-Huckabay had been speaking, Mr. Erickson I do believe, and, then, on 32 we are noting that the speaker would be de Weerd. I would assume that would have been Newton-Huckabay still. That would be the only change. So, therefore, could I -- Newton-Huckabay: I must have been looking particularly intelligent. Moe: As I was reading I went -- I don't remember her being there, so it had to have been you. Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move we accept the Consent Agenda with the changes noted. Newton-Huckabay: Second. a } rite ���A4 �•. �. iab f'i �' 4`� k '5' ��i•( f ry ;#� "h- ».d ,'{, x ,3Ag b y p k t d Y� vi Meridian Planning & Zoning Specialting August 31, 2006 Page 3 of 59 Moe: Thank you very much. It's been moved and seconded to adopt the Consent Agenda as amended. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from July 20, 2006: AZ 06-032 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 29.31 acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for Trilogy Subdivision by Conger Management Group — south side of Chinden Boulevard and east of Black Cat Road: Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from July 20, 2006: PP 06-032 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 148 single-family lots and 14 common / other lots including 2 private street lots on 28.17 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Trilogy Subdivision by Conger Management Group — south side of Chinden Boulevard and east of Black Cat Road: Moe: The next item would be the continue Public Hearing on AZ 06-032, request for the annexation and zoning of Trilogy Subdivision and PP 06-032, request for preliminary plat approval for Trilogy Subdivision, to have these hearings continued to the regularly scheduled P&Z meeting of October 5th, 2006. Could I get a motion to accept that change for a continuance? Newton-Huckabay: So moved. Borup: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to continue the Public Hearing for AZ 06-032 for annexation and zoning for Trilogy Subdivision and the Public Hearing for PP 06-032, request for preliminary plat for Trilogy Subdivision to the regularly scheduled meeting for P&Z of October 5th, 2006. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Moe: Before I get to the next hearing, some of you who haven't been before, I just want to kind of go through the format that we will be going through this evening. We will open the next hearing up at which time the Planning and Zoning staff will give their report on the project. Basically, that will be an overview of the project, after which the applicant will, then, be allowed to come forward and discuss the project's merits and whatnot with the Commission. After which there will be rebuttal basically from anyone in the audience. There are sign-up sheets in the back if you haven't signed. We will go through those, at which time after that if there is still someone that wants to speak, you will be afforded that time. After that the applicant will be able to come back up and give rebuttal to any testimony that is heard and, hopefully, answer the questions that the t, to 7# hA kSk M xb#6*a k, # &. 4 , "f g L } Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Ong August 31, 2006 Page 4 of 59 folks in the audience talked about, at which time, then, the Commission will review all that information and make decisions at that point. That was the long and short of that. Item 6: Continued Public Hearing from August 3, 2006: AZ 06-030 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 8.03 acres to an R-8 zone for Northborough Subdivision by Gemstar Development, LLC — north side of Ustick Road and east of Linder Road: Item 7: Continued Public Hearing from August 3, 2006: PP 06-030 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 35 residential lots and 4 common lots on 8.03 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Northborough Subdivision by Gemstar Development, LLC — north side of Ustick Road and east of Linder Road: Moe: So, therefore, I now would like to continue -- open the continued Public Hearing on AZ 06-030, request for annexation and zoning of 8.03 acres to an R-8 zone for Northborough Subdivision by Gemstar Development and also the Public Hearing for PP 06-030, request for preliminary plat approval for the Northborough Subdivision and hear the staff report, please. Veatch: Thank you, Commissioner Moe, Commissioners. Tonight Gemstar Development, LLC, is seeking annexation and preliminary plat approval for 8.3 acres from RUT to R-8 zone. This property is located off of Ustick and Linder. Linder being here and Ustick here. The annexation and preliminary plat for this will require the vacating of a private lane, Momma lane. Here is an aerial view of that. The preliminary plat -- this is, actually, north, but it's on its side, is for 35 single family residential building lots and four common lots in the proposed R-8 zone. You have been provided with a revised preliminary plat by the applicant. We have met recently with the applicant after the report came out and they have made some changes. The primary changes being that in -- in the block along the common lot, Block 8 was removed and they are now providing more open space in that area along the drainage basin. So, there used to be a residential lot right here. That's been removed to provide more usable open space. They will also be providing a tot lot there. They have also taken the property line for Lot 5 and smoothed that out. There were some right angles in there and there were some security concerns that blind spots were being created in the open space area and so for visibility they are going to smooth that out and kind of eliminate those. They have also widened some of the more usable open spaces here in Lot 1 and -- in Block 1 and Lot 1 of Block 2. So, those are due to some of staffs comments, creating more usable space, taking out the Block 8 -- or, excuse me, Lot 8. The only thing that staff has an issue with -- and all of this meets the UDC requirements for the R-8 zone. This is a difficult lot to design with, it's an odd shaped lot, and they have tried to provide many points of access to different things that will be developing or may develop in the near future. They have Southwick Way over here that they will also be developing. This is going to align with their main access road here. We have a rural parcel up here. We also have rural parcels below. Excuse me. Down here. And, then, we also have an existing home in this section that used to take its access through Llama Lane. They will now be Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting is August 31, 2006 Page 5 of 59 using the subdivision public streets to access their home. And this -- we have already had preapplication with this gentleman and he may develop into quarter acre lots. The one thing that staff takes issue with -- and, like I said, even though this meets the UDC requirements, is the block length here. There is no minimum requirement on block lengths and we definitely discourage long block lengths, but I actually went out to the Settlement Bridge Subdivision off of Locust Grove and McMillan and this is also an R-8 zoned subdivision with a very short block. This one actually has four lots on it, whereas in the Northborough they are proposing six here. It's hard to see. One. Two. Three. Four. Five. Six. Even within the Settlement Bridge lot design the length is slightly longer than the Northborough and the width is just a little bit shorter here, but yet when I stood on this corner and took a picture back, you basically -- these are kind of townhome types, but this is one corner and, then, to the other side you can see the post down here, hopefully. That's the end of the block. So, it is a very short block and with the pavement it just makes for quite a lot of pavement out there, I guess, in the main concern and that perhaps there might be another way of designing the site, so that there would be less pavement in such a small subdivision. So, that was one thing that we wanted to look at. And I know that the applicant has tried to compromise and make some other adjustments. So, with that I will stand for any questions. Moe: Any questions from the Commission? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, is this the best picture we are going to have? I mean not this particular -- but can the screen get any brighter? Veatch: Most of the problem is with the bulb. Borup: The city is out of money and can't buy a light bulb. Veatch: I know that the applicant has also brought a large color rendition of the site. Borup: Mr. Chairman, the only thing I -- and I think you probably answered it, but the existing house to the north of the property, that was not -- that outparcel was not created when this -- when this property was -- Veatch: Originally they had come in with a preliminary plat that would include this piece here, but due to some difficulties they have split it apart, so it was actually just this piece. Borup: So, until just recently it was one parcel? Veatch: No. I'm sorry. This owner was just going to come in as part of the annexation and rezone for the preliminary plat. I think the applicant can maybe confirm that. Borup: Okay. I will ask him about that. Meridian Planning & Zoning Specialfting August 31, 2006 Page 6 of 59 Veatch: But he owns this piece back here, as well as this triangular piece that abuts up to the school to the north. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Veatch: Uh-huh. Moe: Any other questions? Would the applicant like to come forward? Nickel: Good evening, Chairman and Commissioners. Shawn Nickel, 148 North 2nd Street in Eagle, representing Gemstar Development. To clarify, I did hand staff over a more recent revision than the one actually in front of you, with a couple very minor changes. I can just go over these real fast and staff already indicated that. Borup: The one we have is dated the 29th. Nickel: Yeah. The new one was actually sent in today. Borup: Okay. Nickel: I will just hold up the color version here. You probably can't see it. Just to indicate what those new changes were from the revision you have, these two lots on the north boundary were increased in size to provide more of a transition to that outparcel to the north and the other change was -- I think that would be the only change. Oh. That's right. And, then, that to avoid creating an open space that has hiding places in it, we revised that lot line right here so there is no -- there used to be a corner, kind of a hiding spot right there, so that's at staffs request, so you can see the open space now, visible as you turn the corner right here and you can see all way down through it and that's per the request of the police department. They want to make sure there is no hiding places in the open space. The plat that you have does show the addition of the tot lot and the deletion of that Lot 8 that staff spoke of to provide some more usable open space within the development. In designing this project -- and it's our understanding that staffs not real overwhelmed with the design, but considering everything that we have to work with, including the odd shape of the property, the drainage ditch and the easement lining up with the Southwick Subdivision to the south, there is big cell tower right here on this parcel to the east and so we have to locate a stub street for future access to the eastern parcel and access to the western parcel and to provide a future stub to the north, that really made it quite a task to try to get frontage and access to all the lots. I think we have done a good job. This is a -- it is a rather small block, but it does -- it doesn't go against any requirements of the code, as staff has indicated. We think it actually kind of adds to the development. There is six lots, you have three lots on each -- on each side and I think it does provide with the ability for neighbors to get out and see each other and walk around the block without having to go too far of a walk and it promotes more togetherness in a subdivision. It's not -- I don't think it's anything that really should -- really should be a concern in such a small development and having only one block like this I think -- I think we have done the best job we could. The developer has to look at Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Iting a August 31, 2006 Page 7 of 59 four other designs and just didn't -- it just worked out with all the other issues we have with the surrounding properties. To answer Commissioner Borup's question, there is actually two stand-alone parcels to the north owned by a separate property owner, so those were not -- that parcel was not created as a result of this subdivision. I don't really have anything else, with the exception of staffs comments on the design, we are in favor of the conditions of approval. I believe we added to the quality of the project by providing some usable open space, in addition to what's already proposed along the drainage ditch. We will fence that off, of course, to provide a safety issue and that's a nice pocket park there now. And I will stand for any questions you may have. Moe: Questions from the Commission? Borup: Just one. The two lots on the north you say were increased in size, so was that extra space -- did come out of the drainage lots or some other lot? Nickel: No. We had two open space lots here and here. Borup: And those come out of that? Nickel: And those were decreased by -- Borup: That's what I assume. Nickel: Yeah. If you look at -- I have pointed on the vicinity map on our plat, that shows the configuration of those two lots to the north. It's kind of hard to see on the screen, but you can see -- Borup: It looks like there is three parcels. Nickel: At one point we did -- or the developer did have one of those parcels tied up and we originally submitted with that -- with that parcel, so our road -- we actually went a little bit further to the north and we had a couple of additional lots. That deal kind of fell through and those property owners backed out and we just went forward with the one piece that we have. Moe: Thank you. Nickel: Thank you. Moe: Okay. We have a couple of people that signed up to speak. Les Vogel. Vogel: Yes. My name is Lester Vogel. My wife and I live to the west. 3610 North Linder Road. And I'm concerned -- where is the street coming into our property? I can't see it. And if that person to the north develops will there be another street come into our property? That's what I'm concerned about. Also the irrigation department -- I talked with Mike Shepherd, the engineer, and he -- we came to kind of an agreement W, f gfA 11 :J o-5 3. d t x E �?yj �+sYc=^ .•�:� r ^i � s <i.� �4 41 Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting August 31, 2006 Page 8 of 59 and he's supposed to have it designed to where it would work. Right now we are on a rotation with the water in several parcels and I guess he's going to put a diversion and pull his out and the rest us will do with what's left. Has that been brought to your attention? Moe: Mr. Vogel, in regard to irrigation, however you're getting water now -- Vogel: Yeah. Moe: -- it is required that you still get that water the same, even after this development is in place. Vogel: Well, it won't be quite the same, because we won't be on a rotation. There will be a diversion in the main ditch and he assured me they would do it right and I met with him out there on the property. And the fence -- and we are going to need a fence in there at all times, even if they put another fence up, because we have got livestock in there all the time and who is the -- who does the inspection work on this? Is it the city? Moe: Yes, it will. Vogel: Okay. And I have talked with Shawn at Gemstar Development and he said that fence would be taken care of. Also, the elevation of the dirt along the fence line, they said they would try to keep high enough so our irrigation water wouldn't drift over into theirs and we'd like to develop the -- welcome the developer as a good neighbor and a development. We have no problems with that. Is there any questions? Moe: Commissioners? Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Moe: Thank you very much. Next on the list would be Betty Vogel. B. Vogel: I'm Betty Vogel. I'm Les's wife. We live just west of the property and I think he covered pretty much what we were concerned about, but I do have one more thing, along with the fence, what recourse do you have when they are constructing and things go over the fence, when people live there and you throw things over the fence. I know this happens, because friends of ours have had it. What do you do? Who do you contact? Moe: Well, basically, I would anticipate code enforcement or the city would have to go out and take a look at that and, basically, I would anticipate that they could shut down the construction until things are cleaned up. B. Vogel: No, I don't really think the construction is much called for as it is when you get houses in there. But -- and I know wind can cause havoc with construction. They are usually pretty good. But I guess that's probably all along with the fence, we wanted to E q Meridian Planning & Zoning Specialting O August 31, 2006 Page 9 of 59 be sure, because we usually have livestock in there and when the school, which is just north of us, put their -- well, they did put their fence in, they asked us to take our downs, so they could put theirs in. We took ours down and it was almost four weeks before they put one up. And we had to contain livestock or -- sometimes they ran onto the school yard. And this is not -- so, the fence is another big item. Borup: Madam, just a question on your fence. B. Vogel: Yes. Borup: Is it a barbed wire fence that's on there now? B. Vogel: No. It's a hog wire with a hot wire on top. Borup: Okay. And is that -- did the -- I was just curious why you had to move it for the school? Was it a property line situation? B. Vogel: They wanted to put a chain link fence. Borup: But they couldn't put theirs up and leave yours in? B. Vogel: They could have, but they asked us to take it down. I presume ours didn't look good enough for them. I'm not sure. And, then, if I could really sound off, we took ours down, which went to Linder Road. Well, of course, the school widened the road, didn't go that far, and they left a blank spot and we still had to fit -- Borup: You had to put your fence back up. Well, they are showing on the plans a cedar fence going in, but I -- I don't know if you have talked with the developer about whether your fence would need to come down or do you still leave both fences there. And it may not be bad to have both of them there. I don't know. B. Vogel: Thank you. Moe: Thank you very much. That was all that was signed up. Is there anyone else that would like to speak on this? Would the applicant like to come back up? Nickel: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, again, Shawn Nickel. And we have spoken with Mr. Vogel several times and just so he knows that the -- the stub street to his property has not changed location substantially from the neighborhood meetings when we showed him that location. We will continue to work with Mr. Vogel on both -- regarding the irrigation and with the fencing. We will make sure that there is no gaps either in time, nor in the actual construction of the fence, so no livestock will be harmed and we - - like I say, I have talked to him several times and he's a good person to work with, so think we will have no problem meeting his approval for those. And, again, with the irrigation we will make sure that Mr. Shepherd from Bailey Engineering works with him and confirms that he will not lose any water at anytime and continue with his irrigation. Meridian Planning& Zoning Special Meetin 9 P 9 August 31, 2006 Page 10 of 59 Borup: But he had indicated that the timing may be different. Is that -- Nickel: I'm not aware of that. Borup: I assume that the water is going to be diverted for -- to go to a pump station for the subdivision or -- Nickel: Yeah. We will have to work that out with -- we will get with Mr. Vogel out on the site and kind of explain how it's going to work and, you know, make sure he's aware of everything. Borup: And I assume that -- do you know whether the fencing -- whether the new fencing can go up and theirs can stay in place to -- Nickel: I don't -- I can't recall what kind of fence Mr. Vogel has. Borup: It's a -- they said it was a hog wire. Nickel: It's the intent of the developer to actually put the fence up up front -- Borup: Right. Nickel: -- as opposed to waiting for the builders it put it up, so -- Borup: Right. That's what the plans indicate. Nickel: Yeah. So, we will get that up and make sure there is no problems with it. Borup: And I realize that it doesn't strictly have anything to do with the other question as far as stub streets, if the parcels to the north are developed, but it doesn't look to me like there may be any need for any other stub streets. Nickel: Mr. Chairman. Probably not, because he does own all of this property right here. So, one stub street is probably going to be sufficient to meet ACHD and the city's interconnectivity requirement. Borup: Okay. Nickel: So, to answer his question, there probably will not be a second stub street. Borup: But this is not the meeting to decide that. Thank you. That's all I have. Moe: The only thing I would ask -- a question in regards to the building pad elevations and such to where it concerns the irrigation and whatnot at the property line. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting August 31, 2006 Page 11 of 59 Nickel: Yes, sir. Borup: I think you're going to want that for a subdivision. Nickel: For a lot of reasons, yeah. Newton-Huckabay: I don't think your microphone is working. Moe: Time out. Nickel: Were there any further questions for me, Mr. Chairman? Moe: Are there any other questions? Borup: I have none. Moe: I have none also. Thank you very much. Nickel: Thank you all very much. Moe: Well, Commissioners, what do you think? Borup: The only comment I would have is I agree with this -- what the staff said on design, but I also feel that on these in -fill subdivisions you're restricted by -- by what you got to work with. I don't know that a lot different can be done. The other -- and there is probably not -- it's not going to be high traffic through there either, so I -- Newton-Huckabay: Well -- Mr. Chair? Moe: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: Now these houses will just -- all six of them will face the road; right? Or -- Borup: I don't know if it's -- probably, but -- Newton-Huckabay: There is no common driveway? Moe: No, there are not. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. That's what I understand. Moe: No. Two and five will -- Newton-Huckabay: Would face north and south. 4+ 4 3 5 k. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting August 31, 2006 Page 12 of 59 Moe: That is correct. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Moe: Yeah. When I reviewed this, you know, I think they did pretty much the best they could, quite frankly, with the area they had. I think if you were to reduce a few lots and whatnot, then, you might have some problems as far as getting around the subdivision any better, so I realize there is a little bit of concern on those six lots, but I think, again, that they pretty much have done the best they can in the design and I don't have any problems with this subdivision now. I'm glad they did get rid of the lot number eight that was up there. It looks a lot cleaner the way it is now. Borup: I agree. Moe: Well, having said that, then, can I get a motion to close the Public Hearing? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Freckleton: Mr. Chair? Moe: Yes, sir. Freckleton: Sorry. Chairman Moe, Members of the Commission, just a couple of the items I wanted to touch on. In our staff report Item 2.13 we talked about the White Drain along the eastern boundary of the subdivision. In our staff report we asked that the applicant clarify their intention for this facility at the Public Hearing. So, that's one item. And, then, just real quickly on the issue of Mr. Vogel's ditch, just wanted to mention to maybe give him a little bit of peace of mind on this thing, too. Prior to Public Works approving construction plans for this development, the applicant will be required to provide us written documentation of approval from Mr. Vogel that he's happy with the design. So, he will have a lot of say in the way that this is done, so -- Moe: Thank you very much. Freckleton: Thank you. Moe: At that point I'd like the applicant, maybe, to come back up and address the issue. Nickel: Mr. Chairman, again, Shawn Nickel. The intent of the White Drain is really to leave it as it is right now, because it is completely within an easement, half on our property and half on the property -- or the parcel to the west -- or to the east. Excuse me. We are planning to fence it at the easement line, but we aren't intending to do any improvements or really get in there at all on the drain. Moe: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Oving August 31, 2006 Page 13 of 59 Borup: Did that answer his question? Nickel: Mr. Chairman, did staff just want that on the record or there -- okay. Moe: Thank you very much. Staff have any other questions? Would staff have any other questions? No? Okay. No other questions. Newton-Huckabay: Do we have changes to -- we have no changes, then? Moe: I see none. Borup: Right. The only question is that one that -- yeah. There is no changes that I could see. Newton-Huckabay: Did we close the Public Hearing? Moe: No, we have not. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Mr. Chair, I recommend we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-030 and PP 06-030. Borup: Second. Moe: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearings on AZ 06-030 and PP 06-030. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign? Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Newton-Huckabay: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 06-030 and PP 06-030, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of August 31st, 2006, with no modifications. Borup: Second. Moe: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 06-030 and PP 06-030, to include all staff comments for the hearing date of August 31 st, 2006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Item 8: Public Hearing: AZ 06-041 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 8.95 acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for Harpe Subdivision by Larry C. Harpe — 4715 N. Locust Grove Road: 2 C r a d� �:�� �� f %� �i� w � 4 f r tt y a � ,•�< � � a Al t s� t s . a: 2 C r i Al s� a: �•,. � >.. ,tr,. .a,,,..R �.,� .,�, . .., s.�.v.a��. r. ,. ,..*3iF,«�t...,'� ,. «., acs �:u.iw ,.r ,.. .., w .. . Meridian Planning & Zoning Specialfeting is August 31, 2006 Page 14 of 59 Item 9: Public Hearing: PP 06-042 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 24 residential lots and 3 common lots on 8.95 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Harpe Subdivision by Larry C. Harpe — 4715 N. Locust Grove Road: Moe: I'd like to open the Public Hearing on AZ 06-041, request for annexation and zoning of 8.95 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Harpe Subdivision and PP 06-042, request for preliminary plat approval, 25 residential lots and three common lots on the 8.95 acres for Harpe Subdivision and start with the staff comments. Lucas: Thank you, Chairman Moe, Commissioners. The applicant has applied for annexation and zoning of 8.95 acres located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Locust Grove and McMillan Roads. To the north is some rural residential properties zoned RUT in Ada County, along with a large parcel currently zoned R-4. To the east is a future school site within the Settlement Bridge Subdivision, zoned R-4. To the south is the Havasu Creek Subdivision, also zoned R-4. And to the west is some more rural residential properties zoned RUT in Ada County. With that context, the applicant is requesting an R-8 zoning designation on this property. All of the property is currently zoned RUT in Ada County. I don't think the aerial helps us too much in this situation with our protector, but this is just an aerial view of the site. We will move on to the preliminary plat. Along with the annexation and zoning the applicant is also requesting preliminary plat approval of 22 single family building lots and three common lots. As you can see, one of the proposed lots is approximately 89,000 square feet. This lot has been designed to retain an existing home and is, therefore, much larger than the other proposed lots which range in size from approximately 7,500 to almost 9,000 square feet. With the current configuration of lots, the total gross density of the project is 2.45 units per acre, which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation for this area of low density residential, allows for up to three units per acre. Although this proposed density is consistent with the low density residential designation, it is important to note that the applicant is requesting an R-8 zone, which is designed to accommodate medium density developments. This zoning would allow the large lot that contains the existing home to re -subdivide and develop lots in the future that are only required to meet the R-8 standards. If in the future this large lot is subdivided and developed with similar lots as proposed in the current subdivision, the gross density for the entire area could reach up to four units per acre, which is above the low density standard, which it has on the Comprehensive Plan. Even if this scenario I just mentioned above played out, the potential gross density for this area is still in general compliance with the Comprehensive Plan because of the step up provision. This provision described on the Comprehensive Plan future land use map allows for the city to consider other residential densities than those shown on the future land use map, as long as the proposed density is within one step. For example, from low to medium of the density shown on the map. Due to this flexibility, the Comprehensive Plan and the applicant's attempt to include larger lots in this project, staff finds that the proposed annexation, zoning, and preliminary plat are in general compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, but staff also recommends that the Commission consider that situation of this -- this lot being able to redevelop in the future as an R-8 lot. Therefore, they would be able to subdivide this lot in the R-8 standards, which is, indeed, a step up Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Noting August 31, 2006 Page 15 of 59 for this area and it's something that could set a precedent as the rest of the lots in this area, which are all five acre lots similar to these, develop. Now, we can take a look at the landscape plan. Due to some -- some late changes that were basically imposed by ACHD, the landscape plan shown is not the landscape plan it will end up being, but this is just an example. You can see the difference. There is a small cul-de-sac that was placed instead of this common driveway. But the plat is correct and this is just an example just to show you the buffers along McMillan and I believe this is Linder Road here. Borup: Locust Grove. Lucas: Locust Grove. I apologize. You can also get a clearer view of where that current house is located. This access will be vacated and the house will take access off of a new driveway here. The applicant is also proposing parkway planters with trees, so it would be an eight foot parkway with five foot detached sidewalks and it shows up actually better here on the plat. There is going to be two micro pathways connecting to McMillan and Locust Grove. One micro pathway right here connecting up to the sidewalk and landscape buffer and another micro pathway right here connecting to the one on Locust Grove. In total it's .85 acres of open space, which is approximately 9.9 percent of the -- of the total project. Other than the issue of density, which I already mentioned, the only other issue that staff sees as a major issue or an issue for this project is the design of this -- this cul-de-sac. After -- because of these late changes that occurred, the fire department didn't have a chance to take a look at this necessarily early on in the project and it's just a little bit under what the fire department would like to see. So, staff did include a condition that -- that before submittal of the final plat that the applicant work with the fire department to insure that this turnaround meets their emergency vehicle turnaround requirements. The other issue is the requirement by ACHD that this lot here remain a non -build lot until this stub street is able to move through, due to the fact that, once again, there is a required turnaround there and rather than put the turnaround and allow a house to be built there, ACHD decided to acquire a non -build lot until that stub street moves through. But other than those issues, as stated earlier, staff is -- generally approves the project and I stand for any questions, Moe: Commissioners, any questions? Borup: Just one. The fire department -- we didn't see that on -- no, they didn't have comments earlier. Did they review the original plat and they didn't have any concerns with that? Lucas: Chairman Moe, Commissioner Borup, they did have -- this, actually, shows a little bit of what the original plat was -- Borup: Right. Lucas: -- before there was a -- they were using his driveway as an emergency vehicle turnaround, but the distance, actually, from the end of this common drive all the way Meridian Planning & Zoning Specialfing o August 31, 2006 Page 16 of 59 down to this was -- still exceeded the distance that the fire department wanted. And so that's why it originally went through a redesign. The issue is that the fire department doesn't have a chance to make official comments on it. They have a chance to make official comments on it at the comments meeting and after that it was more of an informal comment from Joe Silva, the assistant fire chief, saying that he was just concerned about that -- that proposed cul-de-sac. He just wanted to take a closer look at it and that's why that comment is in there that, really, he needs to have a chance to take a closer look at the -- Borup: Well, my observation was that without even driving around the cul-de-sac the fire trucks would still be closer on the new design than on the previous one. Closer to the houses and where they need to be. Lucas: Yeah. It's not the issue of being close enough, it's the turning radius of that cul- de-sac, being able to get that -- the 60 foot fire truck around the cul-de-sac. Borup: Well, I mean don't even -- don't even drive in the cul-de-sac and they'd still be as close as they were -- Lucas: The issue is of them being able to back up and turn around. Borup: And can't they still back up in the same -- back up before? But that was too far for them? Lucas: It was too far. Borup: All right. I understand. Thank you. Moe: Any other questions? One question. I'm a little bit -- I just kind of want to get a handle on this. You know, I -- the step up that we are going for it -- basically, the area around it we are in R-4. Basically, these lot sizes here -- am I hearing you that if, in fact, at a future date that they want to go ahead and develop the other lot, that is why the density is going to go up, therefore, the step up was considered the thing to do at this time? Lucas: Chairman Moe, correct. Staff felt it was only logical to realize they are stubbing to this large lot and in the future their -- the subdivision is set up for that stub street to go through and to have lots there. It seems fairly clear on how they designed it and that's why staff felt it was important to realize that while currently, including this 89,000 square foot lot, they may meet the density requirement or density -- up to three units per acre described in the low density residential on the Comprehensive Plan land use map or future land use map. The staff felt it was important to look at a scenario where if this were to develop in -- as R-8, because that is the zoning designation they are asking for. If this is all zoned R-8, then, when this develops it can develop at the R-8 standard. In a sense, staff loses its -- they don't have to meet a higher standard, because they already have the zoning of R-8 to put as many lots as they can fit in there with the R-8 standard. '5,.1 i3'Y� t 1 i Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting August 31, 2006 Page 17 of 59 And so there is options that the Commission can look at regarding how they want to condition this project. One of those options may be to allow some of the project to be zoned R-8 and maybe zone this large lot -- as this large lot to be zoned maybe an R-4 to insure that the lower density residential requirements are met in that area. Borup: That now does raise a question for me, but go ahead. Moe: Well, I think the main thing that I struggled on when I started reviewing this was the simple fact that at the present time it is noted as low density area within the Comp Plan at the present time and I know many of the folks that worked very hard to develop the UDC the way it is at the present time and the main reason that was done was to possibly try and curtail changes along the way, realizing that the step up does happen. I think he did a very good job explaining the reasons for the step up and I just wanted to make sure that everybody is aware that the low density and within the UDC, R-4 should be within this area, but I don't really have a real problem with the step up either. Borup: The question I had -- the project we approved two weeks ago a half mile to the west of here, was that also an R-8? Moe: Yes, it was. Borup: And weren't they about similar lot sizes? And was the Comp Plan the same on that one -- Comp Plan designation the same? Moe: No. That was -- I do believe that was mixed use there and we had R-4 to the south of that area, was it not? Borup: Yes. Same as we do here. R-4 to the south. But mixed use? Hood: The Comp Plan designation is the same. It's the same lots, in the same subdivision. Borup: Yeah. They are all five acre lots. This is just opposite ends of the same subdivision. And it's not -- I mean the subdivision was just five acre lots that was platted along McMillan. The developer didn't do anything other than survey it. Hood: Mr. Chair, if I may just real quick, I don't know if Justin was at the pre -apps. I just wanted to go on record and actually thank the applicant for providing the stub street, if you will, over that -- the out -- it's being platted, but the existing home. We did request that through out pre -apps. There is an existing access to McMillan. We wanted to see them relinquish that access and actually take access internally here. So, that is something that we, basically, pushed. I don't know that at this time they have any idea of when that property may redevelop. Just to let you know, they are not doing this to circumvent the system and trying to come back in next year and re -subdivide this and have ten dwelling units per acre here. It is something that may happen in the future and if you do look at these eight acres or nine acres all as one, you may end up with Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meting August 31, 2006 Page 18 of 59 something above the three dwelling units that the Comp Plan calls for. Again, I just wanted to point out that we were the ones -- staff was asking them to provide a stub street to that property so access to the existing home could be provided internally, rather than the driveway to McMillan. So, I just wanted to point that out. Thank you. Borup: And that was kind of my -- along with that, I think we are being consistent with what's developed at the other end, so -- and I assume the ones sandwiched in between are probably going to want to do about the same. Moe: Okay. Well, can we have the applicant come forward? Elg: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Van Elg. I'm with the Land Group, 462 East Shore in Eagle. I'd like to thank staff for the great explanation. They did a good job explaining this. And they have been good to work with. Justin, do you have that PowerPoint? Will that go in? Lucas: I'm attempting to load it right now. Elg: Okay. Okay. This is Harpe Subdivision. It looks like Harpe, but it's Harpe. And as Justin described, the southwest corner of McMillan and Locust Grove -- you can go to slide two, Justin. This plat just -- and I'm not sure if this represents some more recent tweaks to that cul-de-sac design or not from what you showed up there. It may not. Maybe the same one. But we did talk to Joe Silva. I know I was concerned about the cul-de-sac. And we thought that we had that worked out initially with the first design that we showed, but through discussions with ACHD and with Joe Silva, we realized that we better go back to the drawing boards and come up with something that was more palatable for all. And in coming back to the cul-de-sac design like this, we did end up giving up a -- what, two -- a couple of lots I think from the beginning -- from the initial design. But I think this cul-de-sac design will meet Joe's standards, that meets ACHD standards. We have gone to them in tech review already. So, I think -- I don't think Joe will have any problems with it. But as stated, Justin does have that condition of approval and we are completely satisfied and comfortable with that condition. If it doesn't, if it's a foot or two off or something, we have got a little bit of room to play with it and make it work. One thing that you need to note here -- these lots right here are all 8,000 square foot plus, 8,500. Across the street I think this is zoned -- Justin, if I'm not mistaken, unless my NGB thing is wrong, I think it's zoned R-8 across the street. Borup: Settlers is. Right directly across the street. Elg: Yeah. This whole area right here is zoned R-8 and down below Havasu, this area down -- this is R-4 right here and, then, there is R-8 right here. But it's R-4, R-8 mix for the most part. So, I think we are real compatible with what's there. The other thing is you can't quite see it, but see there is a line right there, that's one of the lots for Havasu Creek and I think those lots are at 65, 68 hundred square foot, somewhere around there. These lots here are 8,000 plus, 84, 85 hundred. So, we think that we are being very -- that this design is very compatible and sensitive to what's gone on in that Meridian Planning & Zoning Special sing is August 31, 2006 Page 19 of 59 development there. These lots right here are still larger than the Havasu lots, although these lots right here in Havasu -- I believe the reason that they are larger in size is simply because they are going around a bend and in order to get that they had to pay for those lot lines. But, in general, these lots are all probably similar in size to every lot that's around it. We tried to maintain some compatibility with the aligning the lot lines there. I think there is four lots down here and there is six lots up here. So, it's a fairly consistent ratio of lots. It's hard to line up lot to lot when you have lots going around a corner down there along the south side of you. Again, this -- the new plat that we have talked with ACHD and with the staff and this lot will be designated a non -buildable lot until this stub street is punched through or some other alternate means of connection or turn around can be provided that satisfies ACHD and fire department's requirements. Although that lot will be undeveloped -- of course, all the stubs and everything will be there, but there will be a little area of asphalt that comes down here that meets Joe's requirements for fire truck turnaround -- emergency vehicle turnaround. Again, we have provided the stub street up here. This lot right here -- we have absolutely no intention to develop that at R-8, we just needed the step up -- you know, we are talking on these lots right here 60 foot frontage versus 57 -foot frontage. So, you know, we are this far and that's basically -- besides the step down in, you know, four or five hundred feet of square footage, that's what we are looking for right there. That's where the step up really occurs. Everything else will be designed according to an R-4, basically. So, we have no problem if you wanted to place a condition of approval, a note on the plat for a condition that requires a note on the plat or for -- if you see it necessary to enter into a development agreement on this piece right here saying that we don't develop it at R-8 densities, it will maintain a similar density as this development here or similar lot sizes. We are comfortable with that. That doesn't alarm us at all. You might note also that part of the reason we had to go through a redesign wasn't just for the cul-de-sac here, but ACHD had some -- and Justin can verify this. We went back and forth and back and forth. They are trying hard -- they are trying to develop a plan right here for the intersection, just not there yet, so we developed this with worst case scenario in mind and I -- they have given us statements and -- written statements that if we design to this -- they are adjusting the staff report now, but what we show here is what ACHD will adopt and be satisfied with for that -- for that design of that intersection. So, we should be -- I think we are fairly safe. If for some reason it requires a little bit of extra right of way, which it shouldn't, we have discussed that thoroughly with them. These lots are a little bit larger and they can absorb some of that if they had to increase the size of those turning lanes right there. I have got lots of notes here, but I think Justin's covered the bulk of those. The next slide, Justin, is the landscape plan and I do have those revisements for you. I forgot to give them to you tonight. But this shows the -- a new pathway or landscaped area here, common area, open area with the covered gazebo structure for barbecue, picnic area. We have rotated it from up here, this narrow area, to this larger, more usable area down here. And, again, we are maintaining 9.9 percent open space versus the required five percent. Again, a meandering pathway connection through the -- the landscaped areas up to McMillan and over to Locust Grove and, then, of course, a circuitous connection there down into the subdivision. I believe we have provided more than the required amenities in this and the open space requirement. The other thing that we did in designing this -- we could have probably picked up another lot x My t ;r 41^�#�i I ik�l III �ill�l � i II u$ Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meting e August 31, 2006 Page 20 of 59 right here, but we felt that with the changes in traffic that were going on right here, that we ought to make these lots a little bit larger, rather than try to squeeze them in, and so providing a larger buffer there to the traffic and what was going on in that corner and, Justin, you can go to the next slide I think. This is a colored rendering of our landscape plan where you can see some of the street trees treatment, the shrub beds, the shrub beds along here. The planter areas along this street. And the pathway connections up through to there. It's a -- with this piece being -- in essence, it's a part of the plat, but it's not a part of the plat. You know, we have this large chunk that just didn't -- just didn't come on board and so -- fully. So, we are left with this configuration of property and we have tried to be very creative in how to come up with something that will work and still blend with all the subdivisions in there and I think we have come up with a plan that's very palatable. Justin, you can skip the next slide and we will just show you briefly a couple of the -- several of the elevations that the builder plans on putting into this project. They are not going to be whimpy little designs, they are pretty substantial buildings. If we could show the floor plans -- I don't have them on this slide here, they are pretty lovely homes. The stucco -- a treatment of stucco and stone, brick, and a couple of modulation changes and color changes for each of the buildings. This is the Spruce A and the Spruce B over here and you can see some of the modulation changes on that, as in the next slide. We have the Aspen. you can see some modulation change in the roof and colors there. And the next one. There is four slide variations there. The Pine. And is there one more? Okay. We will just end with that one. I'll open myself up for any questions. Moe: Any questions? Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Borup: I have one -- or maybe a little bit of a question and a comment. I notice on the setback and consistent with the R-8 zone it shows a side setback of four feet. Elg: Oh, do we? On the plat? Borup: No. On the note. On the zoning -- well, no, that -- it's stating that's a zoning setback and that's correct, but on your plat note -- Elg: It's four feet. Yeah. That's a typo. We will correct that. Borup: No, I don't -- well, it's not a typo. No. I'm saying that is correct. Four feet is a correct setback in an R-8, but you do have a note up there on -- note number three that says you are creating a five foot permanent public easement -- public utility easement along each lot line. Freckleton: Chairman Moe? Meridian Planning & Zoning Specialting o August 31, 2006 Page 21 of 59 Borup: So, is that -- can they change the size of that easement? It's got to stay five. So, is the city going to correct that some day? You're requiring a five foot -- you're requiring a five foot easement with a four setback. Freckleton: No. This isn't the first time this has come up. Borup: I know, but -- Freckleton: We took this to the utility coordinating council and asked how they felt about reducing their overall easement to eight feet versus the ten that they currently have and we got a resounding not interested at all. Five is even too tight. Borup: And which utility people are on that? Freckleton: You have power, gas, telephone, cable companies. Borup: How many of them have lines in those easements? Freckleton: That's a good argument. Borup: I mean have we seen any subdivisions in the last five years -- Freckleton: They actually utilize those side yard easements for the service lines to the home. Borup: Right. Exactly. That's it. Freckleton: The power company -- with the exception of the power company. The power company basically they go where they can get to the meter. But gas and telephone, they typically use that side yard easement. Borup: Just to get to the house. Freckleton: Correct. And that's the intent for it and that's what it's there for. Borup: So, why do we still have four foot on the books? Freckleton: I'll let Caleb answer that question. Hood: Commissioner Moe, Commissioners, I'm not exactly sure how that all came about. I think we were optimistic in thinking that we could get the utilities to accept a lesser easement. In effect, it takes your building setbacks to five. I mean if there is an easement there -- you can't build to four if you have got a permanent easement there. So, it's a little misleading in that -- I haven't talked to Anna in awhile about it, but we will probably clean that up with our next UDC text amendment, which should be coming z5 { £ Y A 5ar t t r, aa:? >d - t a t V Meridian Planning & Zoning Specialting o August 31, 2006 Page 21 of 59 Borup: So, is that -- can they change the size of that easement? It's got to stay five. So, is the city going to correct that some day? You're requiring a five foot -- you're requiring a five foot easement with a four setback. Freckleton: No. This isn't the first time this has come up. Borup: I know, but -- Freckleton: We took this to the utility coordinating council and asked how they felt about reducing their overall easement to eight feet versus the ten that they currently have and we got a resounding not interested at all. Five is even too tight. Borup: And which utility people are on that? Freckleton: You have power, gas, telephone, cable companies. Borup: How many of them have lines in those easements? Freckleton: That's a good argument. Borup: I mean have we seen any subdivisions in the last five years -- Freckleton: They actually utilize those side yard easements for the service lines to the home. Borup: Right. Exactly. That's it. Freckleton: The power company -- with the exception of the power company. The power company basically they go where they can get to the meter. But gas and telephone, they typically use that side yard easement. Borup: Just to get to the house. Freckleton: Correct. And that's the intent for it and that's what it's there for. Borup: So, why do we still have four foot on the books? Freckleton: I'll let Caleb answer that question. Hood: Commissioner Moe, Commissioners, I'm not exactly sure how that all came about. I think we were optimistic in thinking that we could get the utilities to accept a lesser easement. In effect, it takes your building setbacks to five. I mean if there is an easement there -- you can't build to four if you have got a permanent easement there. So, it's a little misleading in that -- I haven't talked to Anna in awhile about it, but we will probably clean that up with our next UDC text amendment, which should be coming z5 { £ Y A 5ar t I§ t a t r. k xu:;4 F! ,i y lk h l 'h ., 1' � 5E � -.k t s�H i� Cl ••,t s9� fi., xv 'illlp-;4 TYFe. £` 4 ' Meridian Planning & Zoning Special ong is August 31, 2006 Page 22 of 59 here in the next month or two. So, it's something -- again, it will be something that's cleaned up here in the near future. Borup: That's what I was wondering. But I do agree that the utilities can get in -- mean they can get in -- they don't have any machinery that won't fit in eight feet. Moe: But what they have they will never give up. I do have a question for you. In the presentation you discussed those lot sizes as being over 8,000 square feet. Am h, looking at the wrong plat? Borup: Yeah. Just some of them were. Elg: Just some -- just on the -- right here along Locust Grove. Borup: And we do have the wrong plat. We don't have a revised -- Moe: We have the wrong one, because I don't see an eight anywhere. Borup: You don't have the cul-de-sac one, do you? Elg: Yeah. If yours doesn't have the cul-de-sac, that's the open one. Moe: Might help to get the right plan. Thank you. Elg: If I could, I will pass these to Caleb -- or to Justin. Borup: But I was wondering if it went all the way down and apparently it does. I was wondering the same thing. Moe: All right. We have one person -- 011ie. Mr. Palmer, come forward. Palmer: I have some questions for the Council. 011ie Palmer. Borup: Address? Palmer: 1615 East McMillan. Moe: Okay. Palmer: The berm across McMillan where they shut the road off from my driveway there, how did the city come to the conclusion that they could take an extra 13 feet of easement to make this subdivision when I was only selling the back two and a half acres. I wasn't selling nothing on this little short side here that you got for the walkway that goes off to the side of the property and I didn't sell my driveway entrance and all of a sudden it comes to the place where they have taken that. n. H !� t } i 1 � S t 't� r`T k :✓ 3 . fit+ it a'� ` ...ti 2"�n h3s 4 � t y�4W'„�'['lVi ti `5g1�` `iu ' r' a a% �° xt. Y�.i�gx� „ 'A 4 . F , ' r _ ,.. v air .. . Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Ang is August 31, 2006 Page 23 of 59 Borup: This is your property? Palmer: This is my property. Yes, sir. Borup: It's not Mr. Harpe's property? Palmer: No. That's my property. And I called the board about that and told them that didn't want my driveway being gone, that I would -- Borup: Which is your driveway? Palmer: Well, it would be right out front. Straight out front. Borup: The large parcel? Palmer: On the large parcel on McMillan. Borup: Okay. Palmer: And they said, well, they are going to have me come in the other end and we'd have the same size driveway through the subdivision, which is real narrow, and with my equipment and stuff that I bring in through there, it would be really hard getting in and out of that street, because I have got a boat and motorhome and it's just -- you know, it's just -- turning out into there is going to be difficult to get out of that on the new street that they have got there and I called them and asked them and said, well, they were going to do that, that's part of the requirements, the city said they was going to do it and so that's why I'm here this evening to find out about that and, then, he said they are going to have a real elaborate landscaping across McMillan and all I can see there is some trees. I thought there was going to be a 25 foot big mound covering that, plus the little point that comes out right up here -- this was never part of the property either, somebody just put that in there and I just got rid of another parcel of land there and I'd just like to have the clarification of all those points. Moe: Well, we will have the applicant come up and clarify that. Baird: Mr. Chair, before we hear from the applicant again, can I make sure we don't have anybody else that wants to testify? Moe: Yes. Is there anyone else that would like to speak to this? Okay. Elg: Well, I stand here with my jaw dropped, too. Mr. Palmer, I apologize. We have worked with Larry Harpe on this project, who has a purchase agreement on the property, as I understand, and to our knowledge the information that he has given us is what he had negotiated with you. So, it sounds to me like Larry needs to probably discuss some things with Mr. Palmer. Meridian Planning & Zoning Specialleting August 31, 2006 Page 24 of 59 Moe: Absolutely. Elg: So, If possible, perhaps we can defer this or -- to the next hearing and gives us some time to -- for Larry to discuss this with Mr. Palmer. Borup: So, could you clarify the ownership of the -- Mr. Harpe has an option on the entire parcel? Elg: He has an option on this part and we -- Mr. Palmer is a co -applicant on it as well. He will have to sign the plat as well. Borup: So, I was -- Elg: Because he's maintained ownership of the large piece. Borup: Okay. It looks like one of his questions was that that landscaping pathway buffer -- so, is there a question on who owns that parcel of property -- that piece of property? Elg: You know, that discussion came up and to my knowledge that was part of the purchase deal, so that's -- Borup: And that was the original configuration of the lot? Elg: Uh-huh. So, that sounds like the applicant -- Mr. Harpe and Mr. Palmer need to sit down again and discuss what those bounds might be or if there is any lot size -- lot adjustments that we need to make on this plat still. Moe: Okay. I probably would like to ask staff a question that the point was made that the land owner made a statement that the city was the one that was requiring this berm across McMillan. Was there any discussions with Mr. Harpe in regards to this berming and taking that access off of McMillan away? Lucas: Chairman Moe, Commissioners, I stated earlier, I believe -- I wasn't at this pre - application meeting, but Caleb did state earlier that this was discussed at the pre - application meeting, the need to relinquish that access to McMillan Road and the landscape buffering, that's -- that's just -- the UDC requires the landscape buffer, the 25 foot landscape buffer along arterial streets, which both of these streets are. And so that's straight out of the UDC, the buffer requirements. Moe: Okay. Thank you. Elg: Could I make one other suggestion? Moe: Please do. Meridian Planning & Zoning Speciatting August 31, 2006 Page 25 of 59 Elg: If you're comfortable with this, we could move forward with the plat and make any f E ^ adjustments to that landscape lot, even if we had to skinny it over to the boundary line. . I guess the biggest question, then, would be -- Moe: And I guess what I would tell you is I'm not comfortable with that at all. I think there are some things to be resolved between the landowner and the developer in regard to what's going on here. r f: Elg: I think that's fine. Moe: There are some things that need to be resolved. g Borup: And I would have thought that a lot of that would have been covered in their .�, purchase agreement and -- Elg: Well, all I know is that when Mr. Harpe came to us and told us what -- where those lines were -- Borup: Right. And that makes sense. Elg: So, we assume that Mr. Palmer was well into -- Borup: Yeah. I think Mr. Harpe would have something in the agreement if -- if it wasn't approved that the contract would be void and -- Elg: Yeah. Borup: -- and Mr. Palmer gets his property back. v Elg: These two need to talk and, then, we will adjust as we need to, but if we could be tabled for -- until the next meeting, I think that would work for us. Moe: Well -- k ` Elg: That won't work for you, probably. Moe: It definitely will not be the next meeting, I can guarantee you that. Borup: It shouldn't be something that takes a long time, though, should it? Moe: Pardon me? Borup: How much time do we need to spend on this in the next meeting? It would be a one issue question, wouldn't it? h Y� e 1 *yet 11.`{a 1 g N4" t Y l�;il ' . 5 ak'.ti a. '. ,� n i, 2 "x i•. ,., tr„ 14 i .ks ry 2fi`a� t :.,y � �. K yr;.� L � •t. ..'m � Y��,\ i�'t v 3 ,c s F N ap +.;qifErtky°�'�w`',y. y 1 'm:.s*"" 'zea tarn .t" ce e Meridian Planning & Zoning Speciatting o August 31, 2006 ' Page 26 of 59 Moe: The problem is is our next meeting we are already full. We probably won't get through -- Borup: Right. On that one. Moe: The earliest, basically, is going to be the 5th of October would be the earliest meeting. Borup: And I don't know if Mr. Palmer had another question. I don't know if you wanted to -- Moe: Mr. Palmer, do you have another question? Please come forward. Palmer: One of the big concerns that I forgot to mention is that they have got this piece where the cul-de-sac is up here -- Moe: Please take the microphone right there. Palmer: This piece right up here -- my house sits right here and there is no way that I could keep the house there with that street coming in there. Borup: Well, there is no street coming in there unless you put the street in there. Palmer: Well, yeah, but if it was to be developed -- if I want to develop and keep my house, I couldn't keep my house there, because I can just sell the land, because of the way the street's coming in, and I was told by the city -- I called and talked to two or three different people -- I didn't bring their names with me this evening -- and they said that the berm had to be -- we had to cutoff and that's what they agreed to and this is the way that I was told and that's why I'm here this evening to see what -- who made that decision. Borup: So, Mr. Palmer, you didn't have any type of agreement with Mr. Harpe on the lot sizes or developing this or -- Palmer: None of the lot sizes was -- that I can recall. He was just going to buy the back two and a half acres. I wasn't going to be doing anything to the front of the property, anything to the side of the property, he was just buying two -- the back acres to connect it with his four acres or three and a half on Locust Grove. And, then, when the plat came back and I seen the picture of what this was, we initially had a conversation on it and I said I don't want my driveway to be dismissed and not be able to have access on McMillan and he says, well, it has to be, the City Council is saying it has to be and says, well, I'm going to call them and find out why it has to be and, then, I'm going to go to the meetings and see if I can't get that changed, because I have got -- I have been there for 30 years with that same entrance and I think it de -values my property, because if they ever did change and rezone it or whatever for commercial down the road, they {�a y . S x A: d �''`$' ft ".' '� #,'t'P"'",r```Y`�"�3•'Y iG � d `�r. ,�ti;� ,5�,. rc�c3.��' -; x - r. . ,, • k �; 4.;q s� ui a4{ ..i„ ,'.Y� ,. Q k ;H� . ',5{r 9' k a gar,i y i 'k. t aad ss ' 4, i# u yb i �-. ` t`Fre.J4 �?�ti � yi',rt` T�v ,�, .`;f A"�t'ss����#�t��'Ce• c ,�„s ,��". s2i_ a { Meridian Planning 9 p & Zoning Special Ag O August 31, 2006 Page 27 of 59 would have no access to that from the property anymore. So, all of that property has been just eliminated. Borup: The Comp Plan I don't think is allowing commercial there. Palmer: At this point in time. Borup: Yeah. You're going to be sandwiched on three sides with residential property and you're only -- you're less than 200 feet from the intersection. I think that's a big part of the -- of why that needs to be eliminated, because of the access to that intersection. And you already know what that intersection is like at busy times. Palmer: It's not a problem to us getting in and out of there with the intersection being there. We haven't had any problems and traffic's thick, but people are courteous enough to let you in and out of your driveway. You know, we don't have any problem there. And the stop signal is 75 feet from -- Borup: But if you had a business there that couldn't get in and out, that wouldn't be very -- Palmer: No. No. As commercial, yeah. But I just don't like the fact that I have to go through a subdivision and make all kinds of turns with an 85 -foot motor home and boat with the trailers on them and trying to get in and out -- Borup: So, I assume you have something in the agreement that if that -- the property revert back to your ownership if this is not approved? Palmer: Not necessarily along -- Borup: It sounds like that's what you're saying; you'd just as soon not sell the property. 2-0 a Palmer: I have already sold the property. It's already been sold and closed. t Borup: Okay. Palmer: I just didn't -- and, then, another reason why I was here this evening, because didn't how my property -- this two acres that's left, which should be two and a half acres, is part of this five acres or eight acres that we are talking about in this meeting, because z `< two that's left out, they took the half acre for the .. if those two and a half acres -- or acres berm and that side piece is my property and is not part of this subdivision. Borup: It sounds like there is some things to get worked out. sy Moe: Absolutely. Thank you. 5 Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Make a motion to continue? y i, y 5 K f 1 141,�G t 77 -7 '.'g 2 5 � ; :' E,.a+&, y �, ti 40, #ti Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting August 31, 2006 Page 28 of 59 Moe: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I recommend we continue AZ 06-041, PP 06-042, to the regularly scheduled meeting on October 5th, 2006. Borup: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to continue this hearing on AZ 06-041 for requesting annexation and zoning of the Harpe Subdivision and PP 06-042, request for preliminary plat of Harpe Subdivision. All those in favor -- to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning of October 5th, 2006. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Borup: Just one comment. I'm surprised that Mr. Palmer didn't ask Mr. Harpe about this back when he was aware of it. That would be the time for that to come out, rather than at this meeting. Moe: I'm not sure how long he knew -- Borup: I don't know either, but -- Moe: Okay. Thank you very much. Item 10: Public Hearing: CUP 06-024 Request for Conditional Use Permit for the construction of an 11,029 square foot multi -tenant retail building for Grandview Marketplace, Retail Building #2 by W.H. Moore Company — NWC of Overland Road and Eagle Road: Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, do we just -- Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Yes. Newton-Huckabay: -- recommend the acceptance of the request to withdraw. Is that how the motion should go? Moe: Pretty much. Can I get a second on that? Newton-Huckabay: Do we need to open it? Moe: Do we need to open it? Borup: Yes. We need to open it. F I � . a Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting August 31, 2006 Page 28 of 59 Moe: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I recommend we continue AZ 06-041, PP 06-042, to the regularly scheduled meeting on October 5th, 2006. Borup: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to continue this hearing on AZ 06-041 for requesting annexation and zoning of the Harpe Subdivision and PP 06-042, request for preliminary plat of Harpe Subdivision. All those in favor -- to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning of October 5th, 2006. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Borup: Just one comment. I'm surprised that Mr. Palmer didn't ask Mr. Harpe about this back when he was aware of it. That would be the time for that to come out, rather than at this meeting. Moe: I'm not sure how long he knew -- Borup: I don't know either, but -- Moe: Okay. Thank you very much. Item 10: Public Hearing: CUP 06-024 Request for Conditional Use Permit for the construction of an 11,029 square foot multi -tenant retail building for Grandview Marketplace, Retail Building #2 by W.H. Moore Company — NWC of Overland Road and Eagle Road: Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, do we just -- Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Yes. Newton-Huckabay: -- recommend the acceptance of the request to withdraw. Is that how the motion should go? Moe: Pretty much. Can I get a second on that? Newton-Huckabay: Do we need to open it? Moe: Do we need to open it? Borup: Yes. We need to open it. F I � Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting August 31, 2006 Page 29 of 59 Moe: Okay. Borup: No. Well, yeah, I -- Newton-Huckabay: We are behind schedule. Baird: Mr. Chair, let's at least identify it by its item number and then -- Moe: Okay. On Item No. 10, which was CUP 06-024, there has been a request from the applicant to withdraw this hearing. Can I get a motion to do such? Newton-Huckabay: So moved. Moe: And a second. Borup: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to withdraw CUP 06-024. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Item 11: Public Hearing: PP 06-037 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for six single-family residential building lots and one common lot on 1.96 acres within the R-4 zone for Moose Creek Subdivision by Moose Creek Construction — 4275 N. Jones Creek Lane: Moe: The next hearing will be a Public Hearing for PP 06-037, request for a preliminary plat approval for six single-family residential building lots, one common lot, on 1.96 acres within the R-4 zone for Moose Creek Subdivision. I'd like to hear the staff report, please. Hess: Thank you, Commissioner Moe, Members of the Commission. The application before you is the Moose Creek Subdivision. The applicant has requested preliminary plat approval of six single family residential lots and one common lot on 1.96 acres in the R-4 medium low density residential zone. As you can see, Moose Creek is generally located south of Cherry Lane and east of Black Cat Road, which runs here. The site is currently vacant land, as you can see on the aerial photo here. That's the property. To the east there is the existing Cherrywood Village Subdivision right here, zoned R-8. To the north is the Golf View Estates Subdivision, zoned R-4. South and west are residential parcels, this one here and this one here that are still under the jurisdiction of Ada County. As previously stated, the applicant has proposed preliminary plat approval of six residential lots between 8,000 square feet and about 13,000 square feet. There is a connection provided by Cherrywood Village that will serve as the sole access to the subdivision upon development. Moose Creek has provided a stub connection right here at the west property line to provide connectivity to the county Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Sting August 31, 2006 Page 30 of 59 parcel on the west here when it redevelops. Now there are three important issues to mention here. The first being the proposed Moose Trail Drive, which is the street right here. It does not meet ACHD's road design standards. ACHD is requiring at minimum 29 foot street sections, with 42 feet of right of way, with curb, gutter, and five foot attached sidewalks. ACHD is allowing the portion of Moose Trail Drive which abuts the south property line to be constructed as 40 -foot right of way, with curb, gutter, and five foot attached sidewalk solely on the north street section. So, right here this area will be 40 feet street section and out through here will be 42. Earlier today the applicant provided staff with a revised site plan reflecting these requirements. So, they are up to code with ACHD at this point with their new site plan. The second is that it looks like perimeter fencing along the eastern property boundary is not shown on the preliminary plat. Staff would like the applicant to clarify along here whether permanent fencing will be constructed on that boundary. And the most important issue to mention here is that the property is encumbered by a 30 foot easement, which runs the entire length of the west property boundary. That is right here. The neighbor to the south, which is still an Ada County district parcel, utilizes that access easement to access their 2.5 acre property. In 1999 the southern neighbor applied for and was given tentative approval by Ada County to construct a private street called Jones Creek Lane on this access easement. Staff has contacted Ada County and discovered that Jones Creek Lane is a de facto road only. The conditions to establish Jones Creek Lane as a legal private road were not met by Ada County's required date and the private road application has since expired. However, these neighbors still do have that legal interest to cross the Moose Creek development in the form of that 30 foot ingress -egress easement and are not willing to relinquish their rights at this time. As ACHD does not recognize Jones Creek Lane as a bona fide private road, they would require that the easement be vacated and access to the proposed Moose Creek development and this property to the south be taken from Summer Tree Way upon development of either of those properties. Staff has conditioned approval of this application upon vacation of the access easement as well. Staff would like the Commission to note that we recently set up a meeting between the applicant -- the applicant's representative Sabrina Whitehead, who is here tonight, with -- along with planning staff, ACHD, this neighbor to the south, and the property owner to the west over here, who is also looking to develop shortly. This meeting is set to take place on September 8th, which is two Fridays from now. Staff is hoping at that time an agreement can be reached on how this entire area will develop that is acceptable to all parties. And that is all staff has. Staff is having me note that, hopefully, the Commission has received that large packet from this property owner to the south that discusses the access ingress -egress and I think just recently we received a letter from that property owner's legal counsel requesting a continuance of this hearing until an agreement can be reached with -- with this property owner, so -- Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Yes, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Amanda, were you -- were you done? Meridian Planning& Zoning Special tin 9 P9 August 31, 2006 ; Page 31 of 59 Hess: I'm sorry. Yes. That's all staff has. Newton-Huckabay: I, myself, would prefer not to even hear this application since we have some serious outstanding issues that would be better heard possibly at another meeting in the future. Moe: Mr. Borup, what is your opinion? Borup: Well, I had the same opinion and I mentioned something to Commissioner, but might have changed my mind just from one reason only. As we got a fairly light meeting tonight, if we could see if there is any other issues and get them out of the way, the next time the hearing would be much shorter. And that's the only reason. If there would have been two more things on the agenda I would have completely agreed. Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh. I have one other question. Moe: Go ahead. Newton-Huckabay: Possibly based on -- and I'm sure lots of conversation has gone on -- people who are under the assumption or may have believed that this hearing was not going to take place this evening at all. And if that is the case, I, again, would not want to hear it this evening, because we will, at whatever time we hear it again, have to hear it again, if people were under the impression that -- Borup: Why would they have that assumption? Hess: Well, Commission Members, I was notified about 3:00 or 4:00 this afternoon that the -- by the applicant's representative that they would like to have the hearing tabled to the -- Borup: Oh. Hess: -- but it was the 11th hour and in order to give everybody sufficient notice, we felt that they should at least come and open the hearing and if people were planning to speak at this time that they would be able to, because that's what they were noticed for. Moe: Just to follow up on that, I, actually, was notified at about 3:00 o'clock that this came about and I, for one, said that I did want to go ahead and be able to open up the meeting and pretty much as you suggested, Commissioner Borup, I would like to get some of these items, you know, cleared up. The easement is going to take time and thereof we pretty much anticipated we would continue this hearing -- Borup: Okay. So, I'd like to go ahead and open the meeting and hear any testimony that didn't -- that had -- other than anything to do with the private road easement, because that's not going to be handled tonight. d «c ifk d ° b 4 Y. '✓@`:' C u't > F,K e L t '?;i �` �'y5�`,. , *w+A .J"3t� £'-ti-s" 4 ;p : PS ni. .� hyt Ry,e} 5 1 A, S k e Meridian Planning& Zoning Special Meetin O 9 P 9 August 31, 2006 Page 32 of 59 Moe: That's correct. Borup: So, I would not be interested in any testimony on that. That needs to be worked out, but anything else would make sense to me. Moe: I would agree and I don't know that it's going to take all that long and I think, basically, it would be design standards of ACHD, they have got a new plat that's been brought in to take care of that. They have got some fencing issues and if there is anything else that you guys have questions on, we will go from there. Borup: Okay. Is that okay? Newton-Huckabay: Well, I seem to be in the minority. Moe: Therefore, may I have the applicant come forward. Whitehead: Chairman Moe, Members of the Commission, hello and good evening. For the record, my name is Sabrina Whitehead, I am here on behalf of Moose Creek Development with Briggs Engineers. My business address is 1800 West Overland Road, Boise, Idaho. 83705. And tonight, as stated by Amanda, I'm here concerning the -- actually, the preliminary plat for Moose Creek Subdivision. Do you have -- by chance have the -- the updated plat? Hess: Did you want to put that up on -- we have the hard copy that we can put up on the -- Borup: Is this the one you're referring to? Whitehead: No. Borup: Oh. Whitehead: That would not be it. Borup: Okay. Whitehead: A whole bunch of variations. As stated, this is -- this property is located south of Cherry Lane. It is 1.96 acres. And we are requesting six buildable lots ranging approximately 11,500 to 8,500 square feet. And as stated, you know, this is a small in- fill. A lot of my in -fills -- they can be quite complicated and they can be just as complicated as some of the larger plats and originally I had requested to have this tabled, just because there is some issues that we did fully want to have addressed and completed before we come before you tonight and as requested we are here this evening just presenting -- to kind of explain some of the issues and some of the issues -- I know I'm not supposed to address the easement issues, but some accusations were made by their attorney and I would just like to be able to clarify and explain on our part. t 'A r=im p Y is gam', .s ti: � Yq {`5, �".`T'�� u 5" �, £ ylai'§ �'�AaF'. '�` kYt �y ry�i.�.t p •, 9'' dz ". ;9"x 'b �,. 5: .%g 't � t Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting 401 August 31, 2006 Page 33 of 59 So, this is the basic parcel right here. The one issue concerning was the not a part parcel. This parcel we will be funding and servicing hook up for sewer and water. Two, there is another easement -- and I believe it's for utility drainage that needs to be vacated and we are completely aware of that issue as well. Three, there is the private road easement and we are very familiar with the issues at hand. One, when we are going from agency to agency trying to get some, you know, information before we formulated the plat, it was requested that that private easement be removed. Newton-Huckabay: Excuse me. I'm sorry. Can I -- I need to ask a question. If Ms. Whitehead is going to discuss the easement, then, anyone else who has testimony is going to want to discuss the easement. Are we going to discuss the easement or are we not? Borup: I think that in presenting the application it's a little different situation, isn't it? To kind of get a feel for the overall project. I'd like for her to go ahead. Whitehead: And we have no problem with anyone else responding. It might give us a little more information when we do have our meetings to concerns. Moe: I would like to go forward. Whitehead: Okay. Thank you. We are very familiar with the Jones' property and this is their private easement road. We are well aware that they cannot be landlocked and, therefore, we are providing a private easement for them to use, the same easement -- same edge of paving with a 20 foot landscape strip for some buffer and some privacy, as well as the 28 radius turnaround for the fire trucks for them. With this consideration we feel that this would be accommodating. Now, in the letter that I received from the attorney it discloses that we did not notify for a neighborhood meeting and this is not true. I held a neighborhood meeting on May 17th, 2006. It started at 6:00 o'clock p.m., ended 6:45 p.m. that evening and it was on the subject site. The Joneses were notified. I do have labels that I brought with me from my office and that were sent out for that hearing. During that meeting a few issues of concern. One issue of concern was that this street, which ACHD required us to center line with this existing road, street car -- or street lights from the cars would shine into the residents homes and we completely understand this issue. It's kind of hard for us, since we are required to align this road and so it's kind of an issue that I don't know if there is a possible solution. More than willing to hear solutions if you know one that would work for that. The other issue that was brought up -- and these neighbors were in attendance -- was the sewer and explain the hookup that we would provide for them. As far as the meeting, the Joneses never attended and I did not hear from them until a couple weeks prior to our meeting. And so what we have decided -- our firm has set up an appointment next Tuesday with their attorney to meet, as well as Friday, as Amanda has noted -- not this Friday, but the following Friday we are going to meeting again with ACHD and with the neighboring neighbors. On that aspect I feel that that's as far as I can explain the easement. We have just kind of been doing what we have been told by the agencies. This is the layout that we felt would be the best, most compatible for this area. As you Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting August 31, 2006 Page 34 of 59 can see from the elevations, it's going to be a great in -full project. The site -- it's going to be a very quality development. The developer is the builder as well and so a lot of heart and soul has kind of been put into this project and I feel it's going to be a great project. I just ask, since we weren't able to table the hearing, that you be able to give a recommendation, even if it's denial, to go to City Council and we would have the issue situated before then, so we don't have to have a third hearing. That was my only kind of complaint. Instead of having to have two meetings with Planning and Zoning, have a meeting tonight, get a recommendation, and go to City Council and we would have all of our meetings and everything resolved and if it's not resolved, then, we can redesign, withdraw, there is other options, so -- and that, basically, summarizes my -- Borup: Did you just say you'd rather we recommend a denial than to continue it? Whitehead: Well, we'd rather for you to give a recommendation to City Council. Borup: Tonight. Whitehead: Tonight. And have a hearing. Borup: That's your request? Whitehead: That's what we'd prefer, instead of coming back in October for another meeting with Planning and Zoning, being pushed out another month for City Council. We feel that we can get resolution through the following meetings and that's what we would prefer. And you're more than welcome to talk to the developer about it. Borup: It makes it clear. The only other question I had is did you have any -- any other concerns on any other staff -- staff report? Any of staff comments? Whitehead: No. The conditions were fine. We agree with all the conditions. Basically, just the major issue of just getting the easement issue resolved and we feel that we can fully do that before City Council's hearing. Borup: Okay. Thank you. That kind of changes things. Moe: Okay. We have a few people signed up here. Borup: How many do we have on there? y Moe: There is five. Well, four. Sabrina has already spoke, so -- Borup: Maybe I just -- I'd state in light of the testimony, my recommendation would be y to recommend denial and pass it on to -- if they wanted an answer tonight, it would be to recommend denial because of the unresolved easement and pass that on to City Council and just wanted to mention that now, if that has any light on any of the � F 1 1 T ��k N 1, j{ e ;t r. , E r `y a l" A +'� � y � fi N t.' r 5.'Y� r, �t *{ , � r�,� � � �Yt�}� ���� � �i �" as t 'k Y.,.. e� 1 F t 4 ,�r"��2,?'.,-�:• ,� � x = �X"p Y C , � p -5 a a Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting August 31, 2006 Page 35 of 59 testimony that -- but I guess it's going to depend on what the other two Commissioners would feel. Moe: Well, I'm getting the high sign from the attorney at the end of the table, so I'd like to hear from him now. Baird: Mr. Chair, I just might want to remind you and perhaps point out to the applicant that you risk having the Council remand this back to this Commission, because what you're asking for them is to pass on a recommendation without fully developing the record that this Commission is supposed to consider and resolve all matters before passing something forward. So, I'd just remind the Commission of that before you take any further action. Moe: And, quite frankly, you took my thunder. I, quite frankly, anticipated that the one thing that -- what we have done for quite some time now is we have taken great care in making sure that before we send something onto City Council that we have gone through it and, quite frankly, I see that she's looking for the quickest way to get to City Council, but, quite frankly, I think it would come right back to us. So, therefore, to me it would be a recommendation to continue this thing out to a meeting sometime in October and, then, bring it back and, hopefully, these issues would be resolved and we can go forward. Because at the present time what we are looking at is the easement issue, is basically the only thing that we are not sure of right now. Borup: The question I would have, did the applicant understand that, that they are taking the risk of the City Council sending it back? Whitehead: We are fully aware that it could be remanded back. We feel that if the site - - if there is not substantial change to the layout, the layout staying the same, that we would hope that City Council would just go ahead and continue to hear it and, hopefully, we will have some resolution to the -- that we would have a resolution. Borup: You're willing to -- Whitehead: The developer can speak on their behalf. Borup: Maybe he ought to. Well, there is only three of us, so -- if that's what they are asking for, my feeling is let them take their chances, but I mean -- but when we pass something onto City Council and want it clean and everything resolved, that's usually when we are passing on with a recommendation for approval, not for denial. Newton-Huckabay: I'd just like to restate I thought we should continue this hearing without opening up for testimony. Moe: So, what would you like to do now? I have public testimony or we can just flat deny it, I guess. And I guess the other point I'd like to -- ! • Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting August 31, 2006 Page 36 of 59 Newton-Huckabay: I'm going to abstain from commenting, because I don't have a clue. My preference was not to open anything until we get difficult situations like this to try to understand. I don't think it's wise to send -- purposely send a project on to City Council with a motion of denial just for the mere fact that the developer would like the option of doing that. We do too much of that and we don't have to come every other Thursday night. Moe: Well, I'm not sure we do too much of that, but I guess by your comment -- Newton-Huckabay: We'd set a precedent. Moe: Okay. By your comment, then, I'm going to go ahead and take public testimony and the first one on the list would be Terry Jones. Terry Jones, want to speak? Jones: Hi. My name is Terry Jones. I reside at 1490 North Jones Creek and live south of the easement that they are speaking of. And I was called by my attorney, who spoke with these people earlier today, that said that this was not even going to be addressed tonight, so I'm going to decline and wait for our meetings that we have in place that they setup. Thank you. Moe: Thank you. Next on the list would be -- is it Oliver? I'm sorry. Last name? Cleaver. Thank you. Cleaver: Good evening. Thank you for allowing my public testimony. My name is Oliver Cleaver. I live at 1520 North Wintertree Avenue. I -- that's one of the parcels to the east in Cherrywood Village. I'm also the president of the homeowners association and they have asked me to come and speak on their behalf. Early in May I was notified -- we were notified of the public -- well, the neighborhood meeting. We did go on site and I met with the applicant and we discussed -- I discussed my opinion at that point and, then, I took it back to the neighborhood association. We also discussed it and I guess right now I'm speaking not only on behalf of myself, but mostly the neighborhood. I'd like to go over to the map. I'll grab the mike over there. Moe: That's fine. Cleaver: From what I have seen, I think there is -- I expressed to the applicant a change in design, one not coming through our subdivision up on the top here, but establishing their own entrance where the easement lies and, then, having the -- Borup: Sir, would you like a pointer? Cleaver: Yeah. Having their subdivision entrance come in here, do a turnaround, that would still allow this gentleman here to develop his parcel, they would still have their easement down on the bottom to develop if they want, or just to have their private lane at the bottom and not having a substandard road here and allowing us the quiet enjoyment that we have now in our subdivision, which is very nice, very quiet, we have Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting 40 August 31, 2006 Page 37 of 59 ten townhomes here that a lot of empty nesters have been buying and I built the ten townhomes, still retain some of them, but they very much enjoy the quiet serenity that this offers in terms of just not a lot of through traffic. If this design continues, then -- I don't know, it looks like the likely choice is there would be another connection down here, should -- I believe it's the Joneses. I have not met them formally. If they want to develop their property, then, it just puts a big burden on our subdivision by having through traffic this way, through traffic this way, and also creates safety issues. There is tall grass here, which I'm fine with, but if you're asking to pull cars out this way, we have got young kids playing down -- these are not townhomes, these are residents and children. As they come out, then, there is safety issues here I think, plus the applicant doesn't control this property here, there is a sidewalk we have here that meanders down, but, then, it stops here, it doesn't cross over, because this subdivision, Cherrywood Village, doesn't control this, they didn't put in the sidewalk, nor should they have to, but the applicant's not -- Moe: You go right ahead. You're representing your subdivision. Cleaver: I don't think the applicant -- doesn't control this property, so they can't put a sidewalk in here and I don't -- that bothers us as well. Let me look at my notes here real quick. We are not against -- the subdivision is not against them developing their land, we are for it. Right now it's just -- it's a grass -- they have got grass and they have got weeds, so it would work well. They responded at the time of the meeting we had in May that the City of Meridian was telling them they couldn't have an entrance here on Cherry, that they had to come this way, which I was a little suspicious of. I don't know if that's the case. Maybe your staff wants to comment on that. And, typically, I know ACHD requires that either subdivisions line up their entry, we line up with Golf View Estates over here, or they are offset 150 feet. Golf View also has an entrance here. I measured from across the street here to this location and that's about 180 feet, so that would make ACHD standard in having another entrance onto Cherry. I would -- on behalf of our neighborhood, I would very much like to see them take a design that's more friendly to this person down here, coming through down, looping around, and taking care of their business over here, allowing all these parcels to have future development and leaving our subdivision alone. That's politically incorrect, but there you go. Thank you for your pointer. Any questions from the Commission? Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Thank you, Mr. Cleaver. Moe: Thank you very much. Next on the list is Monica Lee. From the audience she declines. Robert. Lee: Chairman Moe, Commissioners, my name is Robert Lee, I'm am the -- my address is Post Office Box 8433, Boise, Idaho. I am the former owner of Hearthstone Subdivision, which is now Moose Creek Subdivision and I would like to go on record and say in the last two or three years of all my business dealings with Moose Creek Construction, I have found their business ethics and their character to be complimentary and above board in all our dealings, even if issues arise, regardless of what those Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting August 31, 2006 Page 38 of 59 issues are. I know that some issues have been brought up with regard to an easement. This is -- as an owner of that property I have always discussed openly with all my neighbors that I would potentially either build a home there, which was my original intent, or that I would do something with it. That something turned out to be selling it so somebody else could develop it. The subdivision to the east, when I owned that land, my concern was all the houses that would be there and all the traffic that would affect my lot as well. So, I understand where you're coming from as a homeowners association president representative, but in all my business dealings I would have to say six lots are not going to generate that much traffic. At the most maybe two cars per lot, 12 more cars in and out of there. I am in support of the subdivision, for the record. Moe: Okay. Any questions from the Commission? Okay. That's all that signed up. If there is anyone also that would like to speak? Seeing none, would the applicant, please, come back up. Whitehead: Thank you again. Sabrina Whitehead. Business address 1800 West Overland Road. Just to address a few concerns which the neighbors have had, we did go to ACHD, we did talk to the City of Meridian. Since Cherry -- and I don't know what it -- is it an arterial? Borup: Yes. Whitehead: Arterial. They were really trying to limit how many access points that are onto Cherry, as I'm sure you guys are well aware of and that's why they would not allow us access. If we had access from Cherry it would, again, solve a lot of our issues at hand. And so that really wasn't an option that we were given, unfortunately. Borup: That's what I was going to mention for Mr. Cleaver, the ACHD report says all access points will be closed and prohibited. That was what ACHD's report said. Whitehead: We are also giving five feet additional right of way. The street section wasn't a full street section, so that will complete it to this point, excluding this point that's not a part. Again, I really just want to reiterate it's going to be a great development, a great in -fill project. We have some issues that we need to hash out. If you decide to table it, that is completely your decision. We do need time to work through some issues. If you decide to let us move to City Council, we will definitely have those issues handled before we do reach City Council. But, again, that is in your hands and your decision. Again, I thank you for your time and will stand for any questions that you may have or concerns, so -- Borup: Just a comment again on what our attorney mentioned is that past experience the City Council has quite often remanded those back when there is unsettled issues. Whitehead: Want to comment or -- Borup: Well, he's just stated a fact. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting 01 August 31, 2006 Page 39 of 59 Whitehead: Sure. Borup: It's going to be up to the City Council to make that decision, but -- Whitehead: You can see our position, I'm trying to relieve the developer from having an additional hearing. If it's just going to -- if that additional hearing is going to happen regardless -- Borup: It just may be in December, instead of October. Whitehead: Yeah. And, then, your decision will be whatever you think would be best, that would be fine. Moe: Do you have any other questions? Newton-Huckabay: I have possibly a suggestion. Is there any possibility, Ms. Whitehead, that the owner of the property that isn't in this that would allow to have a sidewalk placed to Cherry Lane? I know we have had some developments come through where the developer has continued the sidewalk. Whitehead; I would hate to speak on behalf of those residents, since the last time I talked to them was at my neighborhood meeting, which was in May. It's a very older couple. They were very concerned. They have existing trees and whatnot. It may be something I'd have to go back and talk to them again. She was very concerned that the trees would have to be taken down if additional right of way and curb and gutter was taken. I do remember that point being heavily stressed to me. And so we'd have to maybe go back and talk to them again. Borup: Could you comment on why Summertree was only a 40 foot right of way? How did that subdivision ever get approved? Whitehead: I have no idea. I wasn't the planner on it. Borup: Yeah. I realize you weren't, but did you look into how that got approval? Whitehead: Well, usually, when we do -- when ACHD approves half sections, they are usually -- Borup: Is that what that was intended to be? Whitehead: Right. Borup: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meg August 31, 2006 Page 40 of 59 Whitehead: No. No. No. Usually, when the half street sections are done it's usually the general idea that the development adjacent to it will one day come in and do the rest of the street, which we are up to our end of the subdivision. So, if this area ever decided to redevelop, then, they would have to provide the additional right of way, curb, gutter, sidewalk and continue the road up. But, ideally, what -- Borup: Okay. And that was my thought for Mr. Cleaver is that they didn't do a full street section, so that was intended that that would be shared by the adjoining property. If they would have done a full 50 foot right of way, there may be some merit to saying don't drive on our street, but it looks like it was designed that way to start with. Whitehead: And it's a public street. Borup: And it was forced that that's the way it would be. Whitehead: Yeah. Borup: Okay. Whitehead: Can we have public testimony for one extra person? Borup: Was this from the developer? So, that would be the applicant, then, wouldn't it? Moe: That would be fine. Loosli: My name is Julie Loosli and do you want my business address or residence address? Moe: Business is fine. Loosli: Okay. 1220 North Meridian Road, Suite B. And we just want to make it known here this evening that, of course, we are willing to work with any of the neighbors and make sure it's done. I think I would prefer to have this tabled, if that is going to be an issue, and get into an earlier meeting, than possibly have it kicked back. But a couple points that I had wanted to make is when we originally bought this property from Mr. Lee, he was told -- we were told that there was an easement and there was an agreement with the neighbors and everybody that there was a development, because it's already been developed once. It was Hearthstone Sub, knowing that there was going to need to be access going in and that was the most -- you know, that was the best of our knowledge of what was going on. It wasn't until two weeks ago that I received a phone call from Mrs. Jones and it was about the time they put up the public hearing sign, saying what are you doing and I said, you know, excuse me and she said I had no idea that this was going on and I said, well, there was a neighborhood meeting held and she made a point of saying that her mail had been stolen between the months of April and May and possibly June. I don't know. And that she didn't receive the notice. And I think I even said to her, well, you know, we are -- we are giving you Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting August 31, 2006 Page 41 of 59 access through -- you will still have a private road and maybe that will help not having a mail box on Cherry Lane where you won't have to deal with these issues, because we gave you the rights of notice. It wasn't until today, the day of the hearing, that Briggs Engineering received a letter from her attorney. I did not receive a letter from the attorney as being the owner. We just received a phone call this morning from Briggs Engineering that said we have received a letter from the attorney wanting you to completely vacate this project. Borup: But you knew there was an easement through your property. Loosli: We knew there was an easement, but we were under the understanding that it was a right of way easement and we were providing another access into that home that will still -- Borup: So, your understanding the deed didn't specify a location? Baird: Mr. Chair, I'm sorry to interrupt. I thought it was your desire to avoid this sort of a debate tonight and have it worked out and brought back to you. Moe: Thank you very much, sir. Anything else, other than the -- Loosli: No. That would be it, other than that we would probably prefer to see it tabled, if that's going to be an issue, and get to our meetings for next week. Moe: Thank you very much. Comment from the Commission? Newton-Huckabay: Do we want to table this until when? Borup: Do we have more room on the 5th? Moe: Yes. The 5th would be fine for this one as well. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I recommend we continue Public Hearing PP 06-037 until the regularly scheduled Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on October 5th, 2006. Borup: Second. Moe: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to continue the Public Hearing on PP 06- 037, request for preliminary plat approval for six single family residential building lots on -- and one common lot on 1.96 acres for Moose Creek Subdivision to the regularly scheduled meeting of Planning and Zoning to October 5th, 2006. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. That will be moved to October the 5th. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting August 31, 2006 Page 42 of 59 Moe: At this time -- we usually take a break at 9:00 o'clock and we are going to go ahead and take a short one. We will come back in session at 9:15. (Recess.) Item 12: Public Hearing: AZ 06-035 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 12.06 acres to C -C (1.50 acres) and R-40 (10.56 acres) zones for Regency at River Valley by The Regency at River Valley, LLC — east of Eagle Road and north of Fairview Avenue: Item 13: Public Hearing: CUP 06-022 Request for a Conditional Use Permit approval to construct a multi -family development consisting of 204 multi- family dwelling units on 12.06 acres in a proposed R-40 zone for Regency at River Valley by The Regency at River Valley, LLC — east of Eagle Road and north of Fairview Avenue: Moe: It's 9:20. I'm going to reopen the Planning and Zoning meeting for August 31st and open the public hearings for AZ 06-035, request for annexation and zoning of 12.06 acres to C -C, 1.50 acres in R-40, 10.56 acres as zoned for Regency at River Valley, and CUP 06-022, request for Conditional Use Permit for Regency. And we will start with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Before I jump into those applications you just listed, a little bit of housekeeping. I think everyone now has met Sonya Watters. She is not new to the city, but new to the position. She got a promotion and will be an associate and will be preparing staff reports. The 21st I think she has an item or two on that, so become familiar with her. Just to kind of complete the story, Jenny, this is her last hearing presenting before you. She is, actually, going to be an assistant and do some of the front counter planning stuff in our office. So, that's kind of what's going on in the office and so get familiar with Sonya and Jenny did a great job the few months she was here and really filled the gap for us nicely and I wish I could have stated that earlier when she was here, but Sonya will do a great job for us as well I'm sure. So, with that being said, there are some other applications that are also running concurrently with this application. They are not on your agenda tonight. One of them is for a private street application. There are four or five different private streets actually shown within this property being proposed. Most notably there is one proposed out to Eagle Road. I will touch on that in just a second. That leads me to the next three applications. Three variances. The Council -- by ordinance only the Council has to act on a variance request. However, they are included as part of this staff report, because they play a pretty big role in what is being proposed. Without the variances the development as shown would not be able to happen. So, the private street is a staff level application. The annexation and zoning and CUP you make recommendation to the City Council on and the variances are just a City Council review application, so -- but feel free to comment. In the staff report it is talked about that they all are intertwined together and rely on each other quite heavily to get the finished product somewhere near, anyways, Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Sting is August 31, 2006 Page 43 of 59 what the applicant is proposing. So, with some of that background information, the project is 12 acres. There is about 1.5 acres right on the edge of Eagle Road -- pointer is dying -- right in here that's going to be zoned for community business district. There is no use proposed at this time in the staff report. They talk about it being on Eagle Road, an entryway corridor and being subject to design review in the future. Also -- I'm kind of getting some of the easier items out of the way first and we will jump into the meat of this project. There is a requirement for some landscaping adjacent to that. It is part of the 12 acres and so that landscape buffer is required as part of the Conditional Use Permit and in the conditions of approval. Quickly, just to orient you, I guess, a little bit before I go too much further, the red surrounding this property is the commercial portion of Redfeather Subdivision, which is primarily a residential subdivision. This map is pretty accurate. I think phases five and six are going though our platting process now, but there are homes being construct in here. This is Duane Drive and some one and two acre parcels in the county. There are Kleiner property, the turf farms. This is Stokesberry, I believe, office park and, then, this is elementary -- River Valley Elementary is here. Carol Subdivision. Leslie Drive. And, then, some of the other recent applications that we have reviewed there with Sadie Creek and Bienville and whatnot. So, just to kind of orient you a little bit and you can see the zoning on that map. It's kind of a mixed bag of county and city zoning in the general vicinity. As was done in previous presentations, I'm just going to fly right passed the aerial. There is a fairly large lateral that runs along the north side of this property, it's called the Finch Lateral, the South Slough, I'm not quite sure when it changes from one to the other. It's, essentially, the same body of water. They call it different things and different people recognize it as different bodies of water. I guess I bring it up, because it is a big -- a large body of water. The UDC does allow any -- it says large body, actually, in the UDC. It does allow the City Council to waive the requirement to tile any water facilities if they take a -- generally it will be 48 inches or larger pipe to tile them. It just gets too costly and they allow them to leave it open. But we did want -- the applicant did not address that in their submittal letter. We can get behind that and support that if there is some engineering showing that, in fact, it would take a larger diameter pipe to the that thing. So, just putting them on notice, basically, that unless you prove that up, basically, it would need to be need covered by ordinance, so -- now, to the meat of the project. The remainder -- the majority of this -- this project, about ten acres, is zoned R-40, high density residential. They are proposing to construct 204 multi -family units on nine -- in nine different buildings and this is a clubhouse here. There is a pretty good mix of one, two, and three bedroom units. I think -- let's see. The gross density is 17.86 dwelling units per acre. Most of these buildings are split up with two and three bedroom units, one and two bedroom units. I can't remember if this is just one or just two bedroom units, but there is a pretty good mix of, you know -- throughout the development of two and three and single bedroom units available. I'll let the applicant do a lot more of the -- more of the detail going through, you know, some this common area and pool and the hot tub they are proposing. There are quite a few amenities. They are detailed in the staff report. I'll let the applicant kind of touch on those a little bit. I guess I'd like to spend the rest of my time talking about some of the -- particularly the variances and some roadways that are proposed and going to be required by not the city, but ACHD. So, the first variance I'd like to talk about is parking. With the UDC we did require for Meridian Planning & Zoning Special ong August 31, 2006 Page 44 of 59 multi -family developments that two or more bedroom units provide two covered parking stalls. One bedroom units need to provide one covered parking stall and one over air stall or it could be covered, I guess, if you wanted to, but that's the minimum that there needs to be one per one bedroom and two for a two plus bedroom. The parking -- covered parking proposed now -- there are some garage units, as well as some carport units. It's hard for me to make them out now. I know there is a few over here. I thought there was a few over here. The numbers are detailed in the staff report. Essentially, everything else is -- is open parking as submitted on the site plan. I did get an e-mail a little after 5:00 today. I think that the engineering company is working on making the changes. It was hard for me to tell, just based on where they are at with the changes, if they are truly intending to cover all of them, but for the ones that are encumbered by the irrigation easement that run along the northern boundary or not. I guess I'll let them touch on that point when it's their turn. Our requirement or my recommendation to you is that, except for the parking stalls that are in front of this building here and around the roundabout and in front of this building here, that everything else that's not within an easement should be either a carport or a garage and, then, that gets you pretty close to the requirement of the UDC to have two covered car parks. And, again, that is in a carport or a garage, so they have some options there. It leaves something like -- 93, 1 think, is the number that's up along this northern boundary that would still be left open. The reason, I guess, just to kind of follow that thought through, this will be, once River Valley Street -- and I'll come back to that in a second -- gets pushed out to Eagle Road, this will be a very focal point of the subdivision -- or, excuse me, not a subdivision of the development and I imagine this will be where a lot of guest parking will occur and it can be a very visual entrance into the site and being able to see the clubhouse and not cover that up with carports and parking and things, makes some good sense to us, anyways, and give it a little more open feel as well through the -- to the open space and the pool area behind. So, that's kind of what's behind that recommendation. I think I'll jump to the access variance next to Eagle Road. As you can see this parcel is configured a little bit differently than most. It does have some frontage out to Eagle Road. There is no other public street access to this property as of today. The applicant is -- there is a little bit of discrepancy, I guess I should say first. The site plan states -- there is a note on the site plan talking about a temporary access out to Eagle Road here that will be converted to right -in, right -out once River Valley Street gets extended. I did talk to the -- I think it was the president of the corporation here last week or the week before when I was preparing my staff report and they fully intend to have that actually closed when River Valley is a full access street and, hopefully, there is a signal here. The big picture idea is that there is a signal here. And, then, this will be the ingress - egress into the development. So, staff is supportive of this access -- a full access in this location to be abandoned when River Valley Street gets pushed through. Also, with that we'd like to see that this parcel also shares in that temporary access and that when River Valley -- the idea was when this public street comes through there will be cross - access agreements with all of these parcels, so they can use the drive aisles anyways to get to the signalized intersection, so you don't have, you know, three driveways here adjacent to a signalized intersection. So, that's what we are looking for as staff. And the final one has to do with private usable open space. That's the third variance that's being requested. In the applicant's letter I just wasn't convinced that there is a hardship Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Ang August 31, 2006 Page 45 of 59 there. We do require 80 square feet of private usable open space per unit. At 240 units, that's quite a good chunk of private usable open space, but when you look at it for each unit and each family that lives in there, 80 square feet for a patio or a deck to call your own, something that's outside that you can say is yours, I think is -- when the UDC was put together something we thought made a quality of life amenity for people that were living -- that were living in any multi -family unit, that they should have at least 80 square feet of something that they can use. In the letter, I guess, just for -- real quickly, it talked about in the past these areas have been used to store barbecues and I can imagine bikes -- I have seen things like that stored out there. Those types of things can be addressed in CC&Rs and some type of, you know, control committee or property management that can cite people if there is -- you know, if there is excess storage or things hanging down or whatever. So, a lot of -- I think the concerns and the reasons that they asked for the variance could be addressed in a separate legal document that says, you know, their residents can't do X, Y, and Z or whatever some of the concerns may be about not having it be esthetically pleasing with the storage being within those patios or decks. I did want to note they do -- they do have it on the ground floor for the units, they do have a little patio for the ground units, and, essentially, that's what we are looking for for every single unit that's within the development. As I promised, River Valley Street -- let me -- and maybe I'll jump back to this. I won't tell the whole story, I'll try to kind of paint the picture. ACRD, you may remember, annexed this property not too long ago, earlier this year, anyways. This development is also going through the annexation process. Allys Way, which Lowe's is right here, there is that public street and they have got the -- the streetlight conduit run and I think even a couple of the arms are up, I don't think it's turned on yet, but, anyway, the idea is that there will be a collector road that will come through here, go through the Kleiners when they develop and come back out to the Records Avenue intersection. So, you will have, essentially, in this location you will have a major collector roadway that can alleviate, at least between Ustick and Fairview, the heavy traffic volumes that are experienced on Eagle Road and give residents and people in this area an alternative route that is a collector roadway, not just a local street that they can cut through on, but a route from a signal to a signal. And, again, coming back out to River Valley there will also be a signal at the half mile. Now, the offset with that it's just -- the way I understand it, it's just offset from the corner section right here and it's south a little bit of that. So, it will take a little bit of alignment work, there maybe a little tiny jog in it, so you get a true four leg intersection to line up there, but we are working with ACHD and I believe, from what I understand from ACHD staff, too, that the applicant's been very good to work with and very cooperative and is trying to work with that property owner as well to get River Valley Street and maybe even they are working with these folks to get River Valley Street to happen sooner than later and not piecemeal it in, but let's get it constructed and done. So, that's encouraging to hear from ACHD staff. We would sure like to see that happen. It's much needed in this area, although a lot of this hasn't developed yet, but when it does it would sure be nice to have infrastructure in place. The other collector roadway - - I talked about Alleys Way. They do have a small portion of Allys Way that they will be constructing as well. The biggest portion of -- the biggest cost -- out-of-pocket cost for this -- it is going to take probably a bridge, because, as I mentioned, this is a big lateral. If they can culvert it, that's fine, but it's probably going to be some type of a bridge. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Ang August 31, 2006 Page 46 of 59 They are going to need to road trust for one half of whatever that cost is to cross that and, then, when Redfeather comes through it will be put into that developer's pocket, basically, and, then, they construct it and if it's less than, you know, what they road trusted for, they would get back anything that wasn't used, essentially. But that would be -- what ACHD is looking at doing is having them do half of the road trusting, construct their portion -- I think it's all of Allys Way there, like a 70 foot right of way, but it's not a very big run. I guess while I'm talking about ACHD, I did get a phone message today from Andrew over there, he's a staff planner on this. Originally I thought in their staff report they were going to require a 40 foot right of way along the south property line for River Valley Street. I didn't talk to him, but he left me a voicemail today saying that they think they will be all right with a 35 foot wide right of way. that is, essentially, right at half of the right of way, which is a little bit odd. Usually you have them -- the first guy in construct a little bit more than half, but I'll let them work that out if that's what they agreed to and can have worked out, I guess, I should say. That's fine. So, I feel like I'm rambling on now, so I think I am probably going to let the staff report stand. We are recommending approval of this project, but for the one variance and, then, parcel approval of the other variances, but I will stand for any questions you may have. Moe: Any Commissioners have any questions? Borup: Just so I'm clear on -- even though we are -- we are not voting on the variances, but the objection was to -- the private area was the one variance objection; right? The 80 square feet; is that correct? Hood: Correct. Borup: And, then, the partial was on -- which was the partial one on? Hood: The parking. You need some variance, because you're still not going to have -- Borup: Right. Okay. Thank you. Hood: I do have -- just so you know and the applicant knows, I have also the elevations in here. I have -- I will briefly just go through those, not talking about them too much, but just showing them to you and they can -- we can go back or if they have some other ones they want to show as well, we can sure, you know, do that as well, but I did have Barb coming in, so I would hate for her to do all that work and, then, not show them to you, so -- Borup: It looks like -- yeah, it looks like that's the same ones that are in our packet. Hood: Yeah. And this is the garage. You probably don't have that. These are six day - - actually, there is more -- is there six there? Yeah. Okay. There are six there. So, that's what the garage units are going to look like. I think there are five or six that were shown on the site plan, so that's what they would look like. But this is the clubhouse. So, that's it, so -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Special fling August 31, 2006 Page 47 of 59 Moe: Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward? Rindlisbaker: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, good evening. My name is Greg Rindlisbaker. I'm with Balk Corporation. The address is 11650 South State Street, Suite 300, in Draper, Utah. Just to give you a little bit of background about our company. Are we new to the Boise metropolitan area. We are a residential and commercial developer and we have been in business for about 30 years now and we primarily focus on residential communities. We build single family homes and multi- family apartment communities and townhome projects. We are excited to be here in Meridian and, hopefully, we can proceed with this project. We have built -- we have done some work in Idaho before. We have done some projects in Idaho Falls and Twin Falls and we feel like we do a really good job building projects and we try to build class A projects that the communities will be proud of. You can see from some of our pictures the examples of the projects that we do. We put in a lot of amenities for the residents, so that they can have a sense of pride and sense of ownership in their community, things such as a pool, hot tub, open areas for the kids to play, tot lots. Inside the clubhouse we have a 24 hour fitness center. Billiards room. A little cyber cafe where they can kind of meet with friends and surf the web, things like that. A few other things that we have. We have the garages available for residents to use and covered carports. The individual units themselves, we have different types. We try to reach different types of market. We do executive units on the high end, but we will put fireplaces, garden tubs, microwaves, washers and dryers, things like that. Extra amenities. They do cost a premium, but we have known there is a great demand for those as well. And we are trying to reach more the upper end market, the upper end renter. We want these -- this property to be nice for a long time and to be an asset to your community. We build -- we are the builder and developer of the project. We also are the owner. It's a single owner. We do have a couple of investors, but we are the majority owner and control the property and we are the property managers as well and we have a vested interest in maintaining and taking care of the property. So, you can know going forward that it will be well maintained and cared for. As far as the issues tonight, I wanted to just -- I don't know if I need to address the variances or not. Maybe I can just touch lightly on the 80 feet of private open space. We have been doing apartments now for over ten years and we have constructed quite a few apartments with this private open space and it's our experience that they are not the best thing to have from a management standpoint. It's easy to say to a resident don't store your barbecue, don't barbecue on your patio, it's a fire hazard, and -- but they will -- when you're gone or when you're not watching they will barbecue and it is a fire hazard and that's where most fires start in an apartment building. Also, they do store bicycles, boxes, it's a constant battle to try to get those from -- to keep them cleaned up and we do have rules and regulations against that, but it is a property management difficulty. But we do have those provided on the first floor, the patio, so if somebody is really requesting and wanting to have some private area, there is a patio available if they want to rent a first floor unit and use that. We have chosen to put the money in amenities and to put the money -- instead of putting them in those private areas, to put them inside the unit and make the units larger and also to put the money in common areas. There are common areas where they can barbecue and Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Sting August 31, 2006 Page 48 of 59 gather to do that type of activity. Anyway, I think we are going to have Scott, our engineer, he's with Mason Stanfield, talk about some of the other issues, but we feel like we have resolved quite a few of those and are excited to be part of the community and ask for your approval or a recommendation for approval of this. Thank you. Moe: Okay. Any questions so far? Okay. Stanfield: Good evening. Scott Stanfield. Mason Stanfield Engineering. 314 Batiola, Caldwell, Idaho. It's good to be back in Meridian. It's been awhile and I want to thank Caleb. It took me awhile to figure out who Caleb was and I figured it's Craig, so I want to thank Caleb and Kristy both in the P&Z department and Andrew at ACRD. I do a lot of work in a lot of different jurisdictions and it's always nice to come home and work with normal people. That's all I'm going to say. So, thank you to your staff. Greg went over the amenities real quick. That was, I guess, not a question in the staff report, but it's left to the City of Meridian to approve the amenities, since we are over X number of units. As Greg indicated, we are going to have a clubhouse. There will be a billiard room in there. A 24 hour fitness. A cyber cafe. The office is going to be in there. Some storage will be in the office. There will be barbecue areas out on the lawns. There is a pool. A hot tub. A tot lot. He missed the putting green. There would be the putting green. Overall, the open space accounts to plus or minus 22 percent. So, that's just a quick rundown on the amenities and you will probably see some of them in the pictures we have here. And a water feature up front and a roundabout just to kind of set the theme. The staff report listed a question regarding storage of maintenance type material. One of the garage units will be used for storage and maintenance items and that is not included in the covered parking count, so we have excluded that. In addition, the clubhouse will have closets and whatnot for additional maintenance items. So, on- site storage of maintenance features and equipment can be taken care of. The staff report discusses fencing briefly. We understand we are going to have to put a six foot chain link along the north boundary, depending on at the Council level if that's tiled or closed and I won't get into that tonight, because the staff report kind of leaves that up to the Council. But if it's open, a six foot chain link fence is going to be required. And, then, we contemplated putting a fence along the westerly boundary of the multi -family between the office and the multi -family and a neighborhood parcel putting a six solid probably vinyl fence along that corridor there. Parking is pretty much probably the only issue, but I hope not to make it an issue real quick. We can and will provide at least 408 stalls. That's probably hard for Greg to read -- it's rather late today, but we did verify and we laid it out and we can get at least 408 total stalls. We have negotiated with Joe Silva and he's been a lot of help. There was a concern, a question about putting the covered parking in front of the units and we sat down with Joe Silva just the other day and he found a requirement in the code where, gee, we can exceed the maximum distance -- it gets real complicated, but there is a certain distance that we can and can't do with the covered parking for the units if these builders would upgrade the internal fire sprinkler system, then, that separation can be waived. So, we are willing to upgrade that, get all stalls covered that are in front of the units. We can comply with Caleb's condition 1.1.6 regarding parking, both total count and covered counts. Basically, in a nutshell we would cover all of them, except for, as he mentioned, these Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Ming August 31, 2006 Page 49 of 59 items on the north boundary, because we are in Nampa -Meridian Irrigation easement and they don't allow structures in there and, then, Greg wanted a corridor left open to the south, which makes logical sense and we can keep that open and basically cover everything else in a combination either carports or garages. So, that condition can be met. Access -- Caleb touched quickly on the access points. Originally, before Greg got involved with the project with his company, the thought was to request a right -in, right - out. Ultimately, when River Valley was punched through Greg became active in the project and said, no, we don't want to do that. Once River Valley is punched through let's go ahead and block off that approach. So, there is the discrepancy that Caleb was referring to, the original drawing -- and probably the one, actually, now probably still stays that, but I'm here to tell you tonight that when River Valley punches through that access will go away and the developers are more than happy to create a -- start creating a north -south ingress -egress, as Caleb pointed out, to benefit all the parties and I'm assuming that as the two parties south of our proposed office area, as those applications come in, staff will more than likely require them to continue the ingress - egress, so that all parcels can benefit to that access as it occurs to River Valley. So, a lot of coordination going on. Things are moving forward. Accesses -- we have been working with ACHD to have verbally approved today the 35 foot right of way, that puts a meandering sidewalk along River Valley, a seven foot meandering sidewalk in an easement inside of our landscape buffer. So, with that I think I have tried to quickly answer any point of contentions that may exist, but we can meet all the conditions and we just agree to disagree on the 80 square foot variance. Borup: That's not bad. Moe: Okay. In regards to the tiling, are you going to be able to bring any documentation to City Council? Stanfield: We definitely will. I tried to look around and it's a rat hole mess down there, so I couldn't look at the size, but the concern I have, regardless of the size -- and that is that for the facilities is we generally are in and out of the center line as property ownership. We don't have a right to tile that, because it's not wholly on our property and I couldn't even get my surveyor out to topo the north side of that without a threat of bodily harm by that landowner to the north. So, I -- I don't think tiling it is going to be an option regarding this site. Moe: Okay. Stanfield: So, that's my honest answer. Borup: You're talking a small piece. The property owner there? Stanfield: No. I think he owns most of it. Borup: I thought they said Redfeather -- that's a -- you mean this small piece right -- this is what I meant by the small piece. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Ring 10 August 31, 2006 Page 50 of 59 Stanfield: No. Borup: Oh. You're saying all this? Stanfield: All that. Correct. Borup: I thought the presentation said that was Redfeather? Hood: It is the commercially zoned part of Redfeather, which -- there is no development on it now and it's all just a field, but it is zoned C -G. They didn't have a concept plan, either, when they annexed that. It was kind of before we started the -- Borup: So, the property owners of Redfeather are now allowing you in there? Stanfield: Well, I know my crew called me and said -- and I told them don't go on that property, then. Borup: Well, that surprises me and, frankly, bothers me a little bit that someone else is -- that's talking about having a project approved -- and I suspect it may be a tenant or -- Stanfield: You might be right, Commissioner, it might not -- Borup: -- something like that, not the true owners of the property. Stanfield: And you may be correct. It could have been a lessee out there. But we can certainly work with that landowner. If I knew we were able to dig down there and find that pipe site, I would have that for you, get your answer tonight. Borup: Have you looked at what's going on on -- anywhere else where those laterals -- through any other subdivisions? Are they piped anywhere else? I don't believe so, but - Stanfield: I don't think that that one has been tiled. That one -- Bruce may know more, but I think that runs year around. Borup: It splits at -- actually, I know where it splits, it splits in Finch Creek and at the diversion it's tiled and, then, the rest is a drainage. Stanfield: And Nampa -Meridian calls it a lateral, because there are some water rights users, but I think it -- personally, I think it intercepts groundwater and that's why it's so deep. It's a drain to me. Borup: The only other question I had was you -- did you state that -- is it Regency that you're planning on abandoning when River Valley goes in? Meridian Planning & Zoning Special eng 0 August 31, 2006 Page 51 of 59 Stanfield: If that's -- I can't remember what we call that -- Borup: Just the one street -- the one street? Stanfield: Yeah. That would be -- once River Valley Street -- the east -west southerly connection is made -- Borup: Right. Stanfield: -- and that was staffs, really, the requirement in a staff report and we can -- Borup: To abandon it to -- oh. Okay. Stanfield: And turn it into landscaping or combination landscaping parking. And, then, that -- as River Valley is punched through and the part that is to the south we will continue the ingress -egress to that parcel, plus the outparcel that we don't control to the north, will have a direct shot to River Valley and in the future signalization to Eagle Road. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Stanfield: So, we can conform to that. No problem. Newton-Huckabay: Can I possibly see that board a little closer, please? If you could hand it to me for a minute. Thank you. Hood: Mr. Chair? Moe: Yes. Hood: While Commissioner Newton-Huckabay is looking at that board, can I ask Scott a question? Is that okay? Moe: Yes, sir. Hood: I was a little bit confused and I'm not -- this is the first 30, 40, 50 foot multi -family development that I have processed. In working with Joe Silva a little bit, he throws that NFPA 13 quicker than I understand what's going on, so can you help me with the roadway widths? Because I think I'm with him on -- you know, if you got a ladder truck and you had to go up over a carport to get to the back side of some of these, you're too far back to get up there. So, he's requiring you to fire sprinkler the attic, the whole building, and that's kind of how they can get around that requirement for having an extra wide roadway and the separation between the building and the street. You know, being parking in between them. My questions, I guess, is some of the roads are 24, 25, some of them are 26. Does that affect that at all? Do they still need to be 26 or can they go down to 25 and you can pick up that foot again? Meridian Planning & Zoning Special ting 40 August 31, 2006 Page 52 of 59 Stanfield: I would like to reduce them down to 25. Right now with the revision they are all 26, because in the staff report there is a requirement for 26 and we have made them all 26. The dilemma still is between the face of carport and the face of the -- what is the stairwell on this project. We could take -- we could reduce our front walk down to five foot and we can take the building and shove it closer to the carport, but, then, you're going to eliminate the green space that we have in front of them. So, there is other ways to fix it short of upgrading the fire suppression system. But the end product, in our opinion, is going to be carport, sidewalk, unit. So, it's kind of independent. Sure, if we -- if we were able to narrow our drive aisles we could pick up a couple feet, but I don't think it would be enough. Hood: Okay. And, again, I just didn't know -- it sounds like there is two separate issues. Stanfield: Correct. Hood: But usually requiring -- because you are 30 feet or taller, but there must also be another requirement that says, okay, if you're 30 feet or taller you still need to be within a certain distance from the road. Stanfield: Yeah. Horizontal distance. It's backwards to what I thought I would and it took me awhile to get my arms around it, but, yeah, two different requirements. Hood: Okay. Just throwing it out there and giving the Commissioners a chance to look at your pretty board there and just so I was clear, too, for future -- Stanfield: I had to draw it up several times just to get my arms around it. Hood: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: I'm curious -- the pictures of the buildings on there has open space -- personal open space on each of the three levels. Stanfield: I'm going to guess that Greg, when he made the comment about they have done that before and they haven't had good luck with them, that's probably some that he's been referring to. Or it might have been a variance they requested in another city and they were told no. Newton-Huckabay: So, the ones on the upper left-hand corner, that's the front of the building? Stanfield: Correct. That's the front. There is some brick columns -- they look like brick columns jutting out, but there is no -- what you see is your stairwell -- Newton-Huckabay: Right. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Sting August 31, 2006 Page 53 of 59 Stanfield: -- right in the middle. That's the brick. You have a question, I can tell. Newton-Huckabay: I just don't like that building. It looks like a dorm. Stanfield: Well, we don't have to build that building. We can block it with carport. They have various product types. Borup: I think it depends on what you compare it with. I mean we -- the other apartment complexes we have in Meridian are a lot different than this in a negative way. I mean this is a big improvement over what we have seen so far. Though we haven't seen one this size for a lot of years. Newton-Huckabay: I was kind of comparing this one more to the Renaissance at Hobble Creek. It kind of strikes me as that type of development. Is that -- is that what it's called, Renaissance at Hobble Creek? Borup: Yeah. I think so. Stanfield: Yeah, the brick -- Newton-Huckabay: The three story -- desperately needs paint. Stanfield: Heavy landscaping. Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh. Stanfield: That's -- I don't think my client has seen that one, but -- Newton-Huckabay: This is similar? Stanfield: Only better. Because it's in Meridian. And I'll add I think some of the city's experience are duplexes and townhomes and not one owner controlling it. This is not a condo plat, this is not a townhouse project, it's not a duplex, this is builder -owner -- Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh. Borup: Well, we have got the one over off Meridian Road, is it -- I want to say Aspen. Aspen Hills. That would probably be the closest thing as far as size. Stanfield: I can't picture Aspen Hills. Newton-Huckabay: Where is it? Borup: Meridian Road and -- James Court. Yeah. Off of James Court. That's the street. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Oting Is August 31, 2006 Page 54 of 59 Newton-Huckabay: Oh. Okay. Borup: It's, what, ten years old. Newton-Huckabay I'm thinking just drive by and just don't look at them anymore. Borup: I mean it's three stories also and that's why -- I mean it's got the carports in front of them and I believe -- has the fire code changed from ten years ago? Well, I had understood that one of the requirements -- there are three levels. Technically, they got around the regulations by calling that a two and a half story, because they bermed up dirt around it, but it -- it's the same building. Would that make some difference on fire code, didn't it? But it doesn't make any difference on how high the ladders have to reach. Moe: Well, Scott, did I understand you to say that in regards to the carports that, basically, what was presented by Caleb tonight you guy are -- have no opposition to? Stanfield: Correct. Moe: Okay. So, in regards to the variance you're going after, are you saying that you would -- you would adhere to that and the variance would go away? Stanfield: No. That was the partial variance I think Caleb was referring to, because we don't quite -- because we are leaving the visual corridor open to the south and the Nampa -Meridian drain area, we don't quite meet the ordinance. We could, but we don't -- we agree with staff, it's not in the best interest of the final product, so -- Moe: I agree with that. Stanfield: -- we would still need a variance. Borup: I agree with that. Moe: Okay. Any other questions? Borup: So, the issue is just the private space, then? Moe: That's the only issue we have. No one else has signed up to speak. There is other guys out here, but I assume you're all together, so anyone else that would like to speak, now is the time. Vallentine: Chairman Moe, Commissioners, Michael Vallentine, 250 South 10th. Just a couple quick questions, just to make sure I understand. The Kleiner family owns property to the south. We are asking about secondary fire access for -- during the interim before River Valley went in. When would the secondary fire access be required Meridian Planning & Zoning Special *ing August 31, 2006 Page 55 of 59 and, if so, where would that be coming from? And I want to make sure I understood. Are they going to be required to build part of Records Road, Allys Avenue, even though they won't be able to take access off of it? Maybe that's their secondary fire access. And, then, just to ask Scott, I thought the tiling of the lateral was based on the flow as determined by the irrigation district, so they said if X amount of cubic feet or whatever, therefore, it requires a 48 inch pipe, therefore, you don't have to -- Borup: I think that may be a criteria they may have used, but I think the ordinance says all ditches be tiled and, then, I think City Council has taken that type of stuff in consideration. Is that a correct statement, staff? I think it is. Vallentine: Based on my limited role as a developer, which is very limited, it just -- I just thought that rather than having him to have to avoid shock and -- that the irrigation district just tells them what the capacity is or the flow and, then, they determine whether or not it requires 48 inches and, then, he comes back for a variance. Borup: That makes sense. Vallentine: So, those are my questions, basically, for staff. Moe: Thank you. Hood: Commissioner Moe, would you like me to answer those? Moe: Yes, I would. Hood: I think I have answers to all of them. I hope anyways. The secondary fire access, we did talk with the fire department at length and Rich Green was there and he reviews most of the commercial projects in the city, as well as Joe Silva, they came to a meeting here -- oh, boy, it's probably been three or four weeks now and their cutoff for multi -family units is 200, 1 think, without requiring secondary access. There are 204 here. They said you can have those four units, basically, if you fire sprinkle all the buildings and that's how we can kind of let you go under that requirement for only the one access point. Allys Avenue, Way, whatever it's going to be called, they are constructing that. ACHD is going to require, basically, a bunch of barricades at all ends saying, you know, to be extended in the future, but the public is not going to be able to get to this yet until the road gets pushed through. So, the idea there is each developer in this section, as they come and develop, they construct their portion and, eventually, they all tie together and you have a continuous roadway. And, then, finally, the Finch Lateral saying we left it up to the City Council, the applicant, basically, has to do some research. They don't have to go out there and survey it, but they need to come up with something that appeases the Council saying, yes, you have done enough research to show that this is a large facility and it doesn't -- it shouldn't be tiled. So, there are a few different documents and Nampa -Meridian would be one or Settler's, I can't remember whose lateral that is now, but -- you know, or even just, you know, showing that no one in this section had tiled it before, may be enough, but the impetus, really, is on them to Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Ong August 31, 2006 Page 56 of 59 convince the Council that they shouldn't have to do it, so, hopefully, that answered the question. Moe: Okay. Anyone else want to speak? Okay. Thank you very much. Does the applicant have anymore they want to say? Any questions? Borup: Not right now, but we could. I don't have any questions right now. Moe: Okay. Well, we are at the point now where -- Borup: Do we want to express an opinion on any of the variances? Moe: I think that would be -- Borup: I know we are not voting on them, but -- Moe: Yeah. I do believe it would be a good idea, so that at least Council has an indication how we feel about those as well. Borup: Okay. So, are we down to, basically, two? We don't have all of the covered parking, but staffs in agreement with what they have said there and I certainly am, too. It would -- much less desirable project to do anymore than what's proposed. At least in that entrance area. That doesn't make sense. And then -- so, the other issue was the 80 square feet, I guess. Moe: Well, in regard to the 80 square feet, quite frankly, again, I'm going to go back to what I was speaking of earlier this evening and that is, basically, within the UDC that is a requirement. Quite frankly, we haven't had enough of these projects come through since the UDC has come through that -- that I, for one, am not wanting to start right out of the chute making changes to the UDC, so that projects coming forth later will have the same opportunity, number one. Number two, I'm of the opinion that I think that the residents do need to have some of their own private space per se and so I would like to see the 80 square foot be required. And I want to talk -- ask staff one more time. I'm getting a little bit confused in regards to the covered parking and what you are accepting or what you would approve in regards to us making any recommendation tonight on this application, less the variance. Hood: I don't think that any change to the staff report regarding parking needs to be made. The applicant stated they can propose -- or they can construct 408 parking stalls. I didn't put a number in there, but, essentially, anything that's in front of Building I, south of Building I, and south of Building -- I think that's A and I. Buildings A and I. And around the roundabout in front of the clubhouse, do not have to be covered or garages and anything that lies within the irrigation easement along the north doesn't have to be, but pretty much everything else -- in fact, everything else needs to be -- have a carport or a garage. That's how the staff report is written. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Ong August 31, 2006 Page 57 of 59 Moe: And that's where I was getting confused, because I thought that's what it was. Thank you very much. And I would adhere to the staff report in that, so -- either one of you have anything more to say? Newton-Huckabay: I just don't like these kind of projects, because there is no win in my opinion. I think carports are ugly, but I know you need them, so I'll just go forward as is. Borup: Well, I'm -- go ahead. Moe: No. Go right ahead. Borup: I felt very strongly -- I like the idea of the private space and when it became a part of the UDC and I'm not so sure I feel the same on a project of this size, so I'm glad we don't have to vote on it. Newton-Huckabay: I would prefer to see the 80 square feet of personal space. Borup: But I have seen a lot of projects just like they described. I mean I -- in -- well, just in Boise things all kind junk on those balconies. You know, they can start looking like a slum if you -- if you get -- one spreads to the other, but -- Moe: Well, I think -- Borup: Maybe that's an exaggeration. Moe: I think the comment was made earlier that, you know, that a property management -- Borup: Yeah, they got to be on top of it. They got to be on top of it. Moe: -- the items on that -- I would -- the one last thing I'd like to say, I think it is a very nice project. The amenities and whatnot, I -- that's something we have not touched on. I do believe that they are well within, you know, what we are looking for in the amount of amenities for this project and whatnot. It's a very nice project and I look forward to seeing this, hopefully, go forward. Borup: The one statement they said that I was curious on is that most of the fires are started from barbecues. Did the fire department mention anything about that? Newton- H ucka bay: Commissioner Borup would like validation on that statistic. Borup: Well, no, I mention it, because that's what you see -- you see a lot of barbecues on those balconies. That's a real common thing and they are a small space. Newton-Huckabay: I do want to tell you, I don't think this is a bad project. I might have come across that way. I think it is a nice project. It's got great amenities. 1 like the Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Sing 10 August 31, 2006 Page 58 of 59 green space in the middle and the sense of community that I think you get. What I don't like in these kinds of developments is when you look at it you see rows and rows of carports and I think carports are ugly, but I know that we need them and I don't like the look of that building in the upper left-hand corner. But other than that, I like where you're going with this as far as an apartment community goes, just to clarify. Borup: And I agree with her statement. I think the one thing here is it's got good landscaping around it and the location. You know, if this was somewhere else it may be different, but Eagle Road is probably a good spot for it is on Eagle Road. Other than all the extra traffic. Moe: Having said that -- Borup: Are we done? Newton-Huckabay: Yep. Do you want me to do it? Borup: I can do it, I just got to get my -- Newton- H uckabay: Mr. Chair, I recommend we close the Public Hearing -- you can do the motion. Borup: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: -- on AZ 06-035, CUP -- I close the Public Hearing on all of these; right? And, then, we -- Moe: On both of them. Newton-Huckabay: CUP 06-022. Borup: Yeah. Just the two. Newton-Huckabay: End of motion. Borup: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on 06-035 and CUP 06-022. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Borup: Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 06-035 and CUP 06-022 and PS 06-006, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of August 31st. End of motion. 5 i< �J 7 �s4 Lk�t Yv 14 q4. } 4 �J 7 �s4 Lk�t Yv Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Ong August 31, 2006 Page 59 of 59 Newton-Huckabay: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 06-035 and CUP 06-022, to include the staff report for the hearing date of August 31 st, 2006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Borup: Should I have also made recommendations on the variance? I was thinking that we weren't doing them, but -- Moe: We are not doing a recommendation on that. It's up to Council. We just were making comment. Hood: And, that's fine, if you guys want to make a statement to the Council, I can sure include that in the revised staff report. If not, we will go through this again at Council, so it's really up to you. Borup: We don't need to do a motion on that. Moe: Well, therefore, that motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Moe: There is only one more motion that needs to be made this evening. Newton-Huckabay: I move we adjourn. Borup: Second. Moe: All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED. THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:15 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF P" DAVID MOE — VICE -C E PROCEEDINGS.) 14^- If I \\% RMAN DATE APPROV D C FO 044 r 1l 0 ATTESTED, WILLIAM G. BERG JR., CITY- L 1 ///1 /�hrrin nreoNN August 28, 2006 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING August 31, 2006 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 3-A REQUEST Approve Minutes of August 3, 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: COMMENTS �� PgOo b OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. 0 • August 28, 2006 CUP 06-023 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING August 31, 2006 APPLICANT W.H. Moore Company ITEM NO. 3-B REQUEST Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law: Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a 14,315 square foot multi -tenant retail building with one drive thru window for Grandview Marketplace, Retail Building #1 - NWC of Overland Road & Eagle Road AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Emailed: COMMENTS See Attached Findings �.✓;;t3—/419 Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of 1 +Irr a �', �+ way✓ ,-, tfrri! t._ _ CITY OF MERIDIAN OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF FINDINGS ,�P LAW AND -.�� f DECISION & ORDER In the matter of a Conditional Use Permit Request for a 14,315 square foot retail building with a drive-through window in the C -G Zone, by W.H. Moore, Co. Case No. CUP -06-023 For the Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: August 17, 2006 (Findings approved on 8-31-06) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of August 17, 2006, incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of August 17, 2006, incorporated by "reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of August 17, 2006, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of August 17, 2006, incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the "Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975," codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code (I.C. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has, by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted August 6, 2002, Resolution No. 02-382 and Maps. 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-5A. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO. CUP -06-023 - PAGE I of 4 0 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this Decision, which shall be signed by the Commission Chair and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk upon the applicant, the Planning Department, the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. 7. That this approval is subject to the Site Plan, and the Conditions of Approval all in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of August 17, 2006, incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the Planning & Zoning Commission's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11-5A and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant's CUP Site Plan and Landscape Plan, dated June 8, 2006, and Elevations, also dated June 8, 2006, are hereby conditionally approved; and, 2. The site specific and standard conditions of approval are as shown in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of August 17, 2006, incorporated by reference. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits 1. Notice of Eighteen (18) Month Conditional Use Permit Duration Please take notice that the conditional use permit, when granted, shall be valid for a maximum period of eighteen (18) months unless otherwise approved by the City. During this time, the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground. For conditional use permits that also require platting, the final plat must be recorded within this eighteen (18) month period. For projects with multiple phases, the eighteen (18) month deadline shall apply to the first phase. In the event that the development is made in successive contiguous segments or multiple phases, such phases shall be constructed within successive intervals of one (1) year from the original date of approval. If the successive phases are not submitted within the one (1) year interval, the conditional approval of the future phases shall be null and void. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11 -5B -6.G.1, the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the use not to exceed one (1) eighteen (18) month period. Additional CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO. CUP -06-023 - PAGE 2 of 4 time extensions up to eighteen (18) months as determined and approved by the Commission may be granted. With all extensions, the Director or Commission may require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11. E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis 1. The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code 67-8003, a denial of a plat or conditional use permit entitles the Owner to request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than twenty-eight (28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review may be filed. 2. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian, pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521 an affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the issuance or denial of the conditional use permit approval may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. F. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of August 17, 2006 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO. CUP -06-023 - PAGE 3 of 4 a e By action of the Planning & Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the day of 92006. COMMISSIONER MICHAEL ROHM VOTEDA)2- %LV a (Chair) COMMISSIONER DAVID MOE VOTED COMMISSIONER WENDY NEWTON-HUCKABAY VOTED l COMMISSIONER KEITH BORUP VOTED,_ COMMISSIONER DAVID ZAREMBA VOTEDjAk I)Q V i d 6�o-(Cc l� } Attest: e 17, Tara Green, Deputy City Clerk _ Copy served upon Applicant, *e l ep int, Public Works Department and City Attorney. k By:.Vi0611(Jnc'Dated: City Clerk f v. x �s CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER ' - CASE NO. CUP -06-023 - PAGE 4 of 4 d y vrt z� �t �^�€"k g ,. ev f 31 43 4, i 4 3 r � e tR „s Y } 4 I, mi s- �t CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNISEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAW DATE OF AUGUST 17, 2006 STAFF REPORT TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Hearing Date: 8/17/2006 Planning & Zoning Commission Amanda Hess, Associate Planner Grandview Marketplace (Retail Building No. 1) • CUP -06-023 Conditional Use Permit for a 14,315 square foot retail building and drive- through window, by W. H. Moore Co. 1. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST The applicant, W. H. Moore Co., has applied for Conditional Use Permit approval for a retail building and drive-through window. The proposed building will be located approximately 600 feet northwest of the Eagle Road / Overland Road intersection on portions of Lots 4 & 5, 7-9, and 14-16, Block 1, of the Dorado Subdivision, Section 17, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, B.M. The subject property is currently zoned C -G (General Retail and Service Commercial District). Restaurants, retail stores, and drive-through windows are principally permitted uses within the C -G zone. However, the Development Agreement in effect for the Dorado Subdivision requires all future building on Lots 1, 2, 3, 15, and 16 to obtain Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval prior to submittal of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. 2. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Staff has provided a detailed analysis of the requested CUP application below. Staff recommends approval of CUP -06-023 for Grandview Marketplace Retail Buildine No. 1 as presented in the Staff Report for the hearine date of Aueust 17, 2006, subiect to the conditions listed in Exhibit B. 3. PROPOSED MOTIONS Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number CUP - 06 -023 as presented during the hearing of August 17, 2006, with the following modifications to the conditions of approval: (add any proposed modifications). I further move to direct staff to prepare an appropriate findings document to be considered at the next Planning and Zoning Commission hearing on August 31, 2006. Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number CUP -06- 023 as presented during the hearing of August 17, 2006, for the following reasons: (you must state specific reason(s) for the denial of the conditional use permit.) I further move to direct Legal Department Staff to prepare an appropriate findings document to be considered at the next Planning and Commission hearing on August 31, 2006. Continuance After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to continue File Number CUP - 06 -023 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (you should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) 4. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS a. Site Address / Location: Grandview Marketplace Retail Building No. 1 (CUP -06-023) — Page I CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIIOEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAW DATE OF AUGUST 17, 2006 Portion of Lots 4 & 5, 7-9, and 14-16, Block 1, Dorado Subdivision Section 17, T3N R1E b. Owner / Applicant: W. H. Moore 1940 S. Bonito Way, Suite 160 Meridian, ID 83642 c. Representative: Jonathan Seel, Larson Architects d. Present Zoning: C -G e. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: Commercial f. Description of Applicant's Request: The applicant is requesting Conditional Use Permit approval for a 14,315 square foot retail building with a drive-through. 1. Date of Site Plan (See Exhibit A): June 8, 2006 2. Date of Landscape Plan (See Exhibit A): June 8, 2006 5. PROCESS FACTS a. The subject application will in fact constitute a conditional use as determined by the Development Agreement in effect for this site. By reason of the provisions of UDC 11-5B-6, a public hearing is required before the Planning and Zoning Commission on this matter. b. Newspaper notifications published on: July 31St, 2006; August 1 e, 2006 c. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: July 21St, 2006 d. Applicant posted notice on site by: August 7th, 2006 6. LAND USE a. Existing Land Use(s): Vacant b. Description of Character of Surrounding Area: Single family residential; highway -oriented services including a hotel and chain restaurants c. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning: 1. North: Marriott Courtyard, Dorado Subdivision, zoned C -G 2. West: Overland Way Subdivision, zoned R-1 (Ada County) 3. South: Bonito Subdivision / El Dorado Business Campus, zoned C -C 4. East: Future Taco Bell Restaurant, Dorado Subdivision, zoned C -G d. History of Previous Actions: In 2005, the City of Meridian approved the annexation and zoning of 10.9 acres to C -G (General Retail and Service Commercial for the Dorado Subdivision (AZ -05-019). Preliminary Plat (PP -05-024) and Conditional Use (CUP -05-031) approval for a Planned Development was granted in 2005. The PP and CU application proposed 16 commercial lots. The Final Plat (FP -05-057) was also approved in 2005. The subject site, part of Lots 4-5, 7-9, and 14-16, is therefore subject to the conditions of final plat approval and the development agreement for the Dorado Subdivision. e. Existing Constraints and Opportunities: 1. Public Works Location of sewer: Services installed with Dorado Subdivision. Grandview Marketplace Retail Building No. 1 (CUP -06-023) — Page 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIIOEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAW DATE OF AUGUST 17, 2006 Location of water: Services installed with Dorado Subdivision. Issues or concerns: None 2. Vegetation: N/A 3. Floodplain: Lots 10-15, Block 1, Dorado Subdivision — 100 -year floodplain 4. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: N/A 5. Hazards: N/A 6. Size of Property: 84, 315 sq. ft. (1.94 acres) 7. Description of Use: Proposed 14,820 square foot retail building with a drive-through f. Landscaping: 1. Width of street buffer(s): N/A 2. Width of buffers between land uses: The Dorado Subdivision is a Planned Development. The subject application proposes at least 5' of landscaping along the western property boundary, in addition to the 5' approved via the Final Plat process (FP -05-057) for the Dorado Subdivision. 3. Percentage of landscaped area: 15% (12,751 sq. ft.) 4. Other landscaping standards: MCC 12-13-11 requires landscaping within and around parking lots. The landscaping standards for parking lots will be applied prior to issuance of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance permit (see Exhibit B, Conditions of Approval). g. Conditional Use Information: The Development Agreement in effect for the Dorado Subdivision requires all future building on Lots 1, 2, 3, 15, and 16 to obtain Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval prior to submittal of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. Procurement of a CUP is also required where a drive-through facility is located within 300' of another drive—through, residential district, or an existing residence. The subject site abuts several residential properties to the west that are currently zoned R-1, Ada County. Additionally, a Taco Bell was recently issued a Certificate of Zoning Compliance for construction of a restaurant and drive-through on Lot 7, Block 1, Dorado Subdivision, located not 100 feet from the proposed building. h. Off -Street Parking (Non-residential Uses): 1. Parking spaces required: UDC 11 -3C -6B establishes minimum parking standard for nonresidential uses. Within commercial districts, spaces shall be provided at one per 500 square feet of gross floor area. 2. Parking spaces proposed: 110 3. Compact spaces proposed: 0 4. Off-site parking proposed: N/A 5. Percentage of interior parking as landscaping: Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance, staff will ensure that the proposed parking lot is improved with landscaping according to UDC requirements (see Exhibit B, Conditions of Approval). f. Summary of Proposed Streets and / or Access: Grandview Marketplace Retail Building No. 1 (CUP -06-023) — Page 3 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIAPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA66 DATE OF AUGUST 17, 2006 Access to the site will be from a right -in, right -out only access from / to Overland Road. In addition, a right -in only access from Eagle Road has also been approved. Eagle Road, south of I-84, and Overland Road are under the jurisdiction of the Ada County Highway District (ACHD). ACHD has indicated approval of accesses at these locations. Additionally, a note on the Final Plat (Book 95, Page 11647) establishes a perpetual vehicular cross access easement that is dedicated to all lots within the Dorado Subdivision. 7. AGENCY COMMENTS On July 28, 2006, a joint agency and departments meeting was held with service providers in this area. The agencies and departments present include: Meridian Fire Department, Meridian Parks Department, Meridian Public Works Department, Meridian Police Department, and the Sanitary Services Company. Staff has included comments, conditions and recommended actions in Exhibit B below. 8. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS This property is designated "Commercial" on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. In Chapter VII of the Comprehensive Plan, "Commercial" areas are anticipated to provide a full range of commercial and retail to serve area residents and visitors. Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this property and apply to the proposed development (staff analysis in italics): • Require that development projects have planned for the provision of all public services. (Chapter VII, Goal III, Objective A, Action 1) When the City established its Area of City Impact, it planned to provide City services to the subject property. The City of Meridian plans to provide municipal services to the lands in the following manner: • Sanitary sewer and water service will be extended to the project at the developer's expense. • The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Meridian City Fire Department, who currently shares resource and personnel with the Meridian Rural Fire Department. • The subject lands will be serviced by the Meridian Police Department (MPD). • The roadways adjacent to the subject lands are currently owned and maintained by the Ada County Highway District (ACHD) and ITD. This service will not change. • The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian School District #2. This service will not change. • The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian Library District. This service will not change and the Meridian Library District should suffer no revenue loss. Municipal, fee -supported, services will be provided to this site by the Meridian Building Department, the Meridian Public Works Department, the Meridian Water Department, the Meridian Wastewater Department, the Meridian Planning Department, Meridian Utility Billing Services, and Sanitary Services Company. • "Require all commercial businesses to install and maintain landscaping." (Chapter V, Goal III, Objective D, Action 5) Grandview Marketplace Retail Building No. 1 (CUP -06-023) — Page 4 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNII WPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAei DATE OF AUGUST 17, 2006 Staff is conditioning approval of the subject CUP upon the applicant installing and maintaining landscaping on this site. Refer to the CUP Analysis, Section 10, for more information on landscaping at this site. • "Require appropriate landscape and buffers along transportation corridors (setback, vegetation, low walls, berms, etc.)." (Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective D, Action 4) A 25 foot wide landscape buffer is typically required between C -G zoned properties and residentially zoned properties. However, the Dorado Subdivision, a planned development, was approved for 5' of landscaping along the western property boundary. The applicant proposes S' of landscape buffer in addition to that approved via the Final Plat process (FP -05-057). • "Plan for a variety of commercial and retail opportunities within the Impact Area." (Chapter VII, Goal 1, Objective B) Staff believes that the proposal will contribute to the variety of uses in this area. 9. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE a. Zoning Schedule of Use Control: UDC 11-2B-2 lists drive-through windows as Permitted / Conditional Uses in the C -G zone. However, the applicant is required to obtain CUP approval, as the recorded Development Agreement for this subdivision requires it. b. Purpose Statement of Zone: The purpose of the purpose of the C -G district is to provide for commercial uses which are customarily operated or almost entirely within a building; to provide for a review of the impact of proposed commercial uses which are auto and service oriented and are located in close proximity to major highway or arterial streets; to fulfill the need of travel -related services, as well as retail sales for the transient and permanent motoring public. 10. ANALYSIS a. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation: Staff is generally supportive of the proposed site design as presented in the CUP site plan, labeled as Sheet SP -1 and dated June 8, 2006, and the landscaping as proposed, with the following comments: Existing Development Agreement: The Development Agreement (DA) in effect for this property, Recorder's Instrument #105127512, requires future uses on Lots 1, 2, 3, 15, and 16 to be approved through the Conditional Use Permit process. In accordance with the DA, the applicant has submitted a CUP for the proposed construction to also include a drive-through window. Access: There are three access points to Dorado Subdivision, all approved by ACHD. The first is a right -in, right -out driveway from / to Overland Road, located approximately 260 -feet west of Eagle Road. The second is a full access driveway to Overland Road at the west property line. The third, a right -in only access from Eagle Road. North bound turning is not allowed from the development onto Eagle Road. A perpetual vehicular cross access easement is dedicated to all lots within the Dorado Subdivision. Landscaping_ The applicant has proposed approximately 12,751 square feet of landscaped open space including, but not limited to the landscape buffer between the residential and commercial districts. The subject application proposes at least 5' of landscaping along the western property boundary, in addition to the 5' approved via the Final Plat process (FP -05- 057) for the Dorado Subdivision. The applicant has provided landscape planter islands within Grandview Marketplace Retail Building No. I (CUP -06-023) — Page 5 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIAWPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA@i DATE OF AUGUST 17, 2006 the parking lot which meet the requirements of the Unified Development Code. An amenity in the form of an outdoor seating area, with covered gazebo will be provided in the northwest corner of the subject site. Parking: The applicant is proposing to construct 98 parking stalls. Only 29 parking stalls are required by Ordinance. UDC Table 11-3C-1 requires 90 -degree parking stalls to be 19 -feet long, adjacent to 25 -foot wide drive aisles. UDC 11-3C-5134 allows parking stall dimensions to be reduced by 2 feet in length if 2 feet is added to the width of the sidewalk or landscape area. Compact stalls may be reduced in depth by an additional two feet. UDC 11 -3A -17A requires sidewalks to be at least 5 -feet wide. All parking should comply with the standards of the UDC. Additionally, one bicycle parking space shall be provided for every 25 vehicle parking spaces (UDC 11 -3C -6G). Provide a minimum of a 3 -park bicycle rack on site to be located near the main entrance. Drive -Through Design:Staff is generally supportive of the proposed drive-through configuration. UDC 11-4-3-11 states that "a site plan shall be submitted that demonstrates safe pedestrian and vehicular access and circulation on the site and between adjacent properties." At a minimum, the site plan shall demonstrate compliance with the following standards: • Stacking lanes shall have sufficient capacity to prevent obstruction of the public right-of-way by patrons; • The stacking lane shall be a separate lane from the circulation lanes needed for access and parking; • The stacking lane shall not be located within ten feet (10') of any residential district or existing residence; • Any stacking lane greater than one hundred feet (100') in length shall provide for an escape lane. The Meridian Fire and Police Departments have concerns regarding the flow of the traffic to the north of the proposed drive-through. The proximity of the stacking lane barrier with the nearest trash enclosure inhibits safe, two-way vehicular circulation. Staff is recommending that the drive aisle to the east of the trash enclosure be restricted to one-way only, traffic flow be directed to the west, and signed appropriately as such. Staff will work with the applicant to arrive at a suitable design. Certificate of Zoning Compliance: The purpose of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) permit is to ensure that all construction, alterations and/or the establishment of a new use complies with all of the provisions of the UDC before any work on the structure is started and/or the use is established (UDC 11 -5B -1A). To ensure that all of the conditions of approval listed in Exhibit B are complied with, the applicant will be required to obtain a CZC from the Planning Department prior to receiving occupancy. b. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of CUP -06-023 for the Grandview Retail Building No.1 as presented during the hearing of August 17, 2006, based on the Findings of Fact listed in Exhibit C, and subject to the conditions of approval listed in Exhibit B. Grandview Marketplace Retail Building No. 1 (CUP -06-023) — Page 6 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNISEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAG DATE OF AUGUST 17, 2006 11. EXITS A. Drawings 1. Vicinity Map 2. Dorado Subdivision Retail Use Plan 3. Dorado Subdivision Landscape Plan (Dated August 17, 2005) 4. Grandview Retail No. 1 Site Plan (Dated June 8, 2006) 5. Grandview Retail No. 1 Landscape Plan (Dated June 8, 2006) 6. Building Elevations (Dated June 8, 2006) B. Conditions of Approval 1. Planning Department 2. Public Works Department 3. Fire Department 4. Police Department 5. Parks Department 6. Sanitary Service Company 7. Ada County Highway District C. Required Findings of Fact Grandview Marketplace Retail Building No. I (CUP -06-023) — Page 7 3r y aq ry f } f p3: OF"5` t T ? }WTI,tes'' IrS 4, #1V�^t1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNROEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAW DATE OF AUGUST 17, 2006 A. Drawings 1. Vicinity Map Exhibit A CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIAEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAW DATE OF AUGUST 17, 2006 2. Dorado Subdivision Approved Landscape Plan [Nn"1311 Houma iE- [... ..m am;* �.ear -�,= .• �1'' �r 1+t t t Exhibit A 4 4 1 1 1 I 0 0 z e 1 1 w CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIT,&PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAW DATE OF AUGUST 17, 2006 3. Dorado Subdivision Retail Use Plan c Exhibit A aaa 37)Y3 a , 5 � .: '"` ^+ � '3.' riS� ��Y'+�# m ei"l�k' } �'t S � k z�4L 3 � �•�{ P# t° f 'Al 4 ` k }W4F'�r', lj } ,%., X � kn } 4t Sd,Sat +, t v s r d; FT',7� CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIT,&PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAW DATE OF AUGUST 17, 2006 3. Dorado Subdivision Retail Use Plan c Exhibit A aaa 37)Y3 a � .: '"` ^+ � '3.' riS� ��Y'+�# m ei"l�k' } �'t S � k z�4L 3 � �•�{ P# FsxY 'a f 4 ` k }W4F'�r', lj } ,%., X i } 4t Sd,Sat +, t v s r FT',7� CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINWPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA* DATE OF AUGUST 17, 2006 4. Grandview Retail No. 1 Site Plan (Dated June 8, 2006) ME aast-su (soal bi�WS SII 018 _ GWOH MY-MA0 CKV 3MV3e i P AN cV= WOW N A 4 'N1�A 3Jv1d13?RiYw M3AAGIVkf3 i P"d ��lAg7W"f' +�7 9 .Dais.=--20=me mLIN" mmm=m amm—f==vmm" (D Exhibit A CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNfI &PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA4b DATE OF AUGUST 17, 2006 5. Grandview Retail No. 1 Landscape Plan (Dated June 8, 2006) 04epl Uelppevq III 6uiPl!n8 Le1aN u01181S ,wain pueJE) :was PIN Exhibit A ■ VIM Exhibit A VIM Exhibit A CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNISEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA61G DATE OF AUGUST 17, 2006 6. Building Elevations (Dated June 8, 2006) �-� reosl oNva t MUM MOMMOM Pd V0811AW' U8"7 11E ONaVM 71111 JJEJ�ffE]j Exhibit A gpsgg�6 a �k x � � v e r trE �4 'Q� o 6 Of ae O o -ra e a 333 Z m N _ t a' &LL— Exhibit A CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNII4EPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAji DATE OF AUGUST 17, 2006 B. Conditions of Approval 1. PLANNING DEPARTMENTS 1.1 The Site Plan, labeled Sheet SP -1, prepared by Larson Architects, Inc., and dated June 8, 2006, is approved subject to the conditions listed herein. A revised site plan shall be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application for the subject retail use and accompanying drive- through. The applicant shall comply with all previous requirements of this site associated with AZ -05-019, PP -05-024, CUP -05-031, and FP -05-057, as well as the Development Agreement in effect for the Dorado Subdivision. 1.2 The Landscape Plan, labeled Sheet L1.0, prepared by The Land Group, Inc., and dated June 8, 2006, is approved as submitted. A written certificate of completion shall be prepared by the landscape architect, designer, or qualified nurseryman responsible for the landscape plan and submitted prior to occupancy of the building. All standards of installation shall apply as listed in UDC 11-3B-14. 1.3 Two-way traffic shall be limited to the parking area only. "Do Not Enter" signs shall be installed to face west at the rear of the dumpster enclosure as well as the landscape planter. The drive aisle to the east of the trash enclosure shall be restricted to one-way only and also signed appropriately as such. 1.4 Provide a minimum of a 3 -bicycle parking rack on site to be located near the main entrance. 1.5 Although not subject to Design Review, the south and east facing elevations, labeled Sheet A-2, prepared by Larson Architects and dated June 8, 2006, generally comply with the Architectural Character Standards as outlined in UDC 11-3A-19. 1.6 Sidewalks/walkways shall be installed around the perimeter of the proposed structure according to UDC 11-3A-17. 1.7 The applicant shall comply with the outdoor lighting standards shown in UDC 11-3A-11. 1.8 To ensure that the conditions of approval for CUP -06-023 and the terms of the existing Development Agreement in effect for the Dorado Subdivision are complied with, the applicant shall be required to obtain a Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) permit from the Planning Department prior to construction of the building shell. 1.9 All required improvements must be complete prior to obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy for the proposed development. A temporary Certificate of Occupancy may be obtained by providing surety to the City in the form of a letter of credit or cash in the amount of 110% of the cost of the required improvements (including paving, striping, landscaping, and irrigation). A bid must accompany any request for temporary occupancy. 1.10 No signs are approved with this CUP application. All business signs require a separate sign permit in compliance with the sign ordinance 1.11 Staff's failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or terms of Dorado's approved final plat / Conditional Use does not relieve the applicant of responsibility for compliance. 1.12 The applicant shall have a maximum of 18 months to commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval listed above. 2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2.1 Sanitary sewer and water service to this development is being proposed via existing stubs to the property. The applicant shall install any mains necessary to provide service; applicant shall coordinate main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINDEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAW DATE OF AUGUST 17, 2006 of easements for any mains that are required to provide service. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub -grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2 The applicant shall coordinate fire hydrant placement with the Public Works Department during plan review. 2.3 The applicant shall provide a 20 -foot easement for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way (include all water services and hydrants). Submit an executed easement (supplied by Public Works), a legal description, which must include the area of the easement (marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2" x 11" map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. 2.4 Sewer, water, pressurized irrigation, and any life safety development improvement shall receive final approval prior to occupancy. Other required development improvements such as fencing, micro -paths, and landscaping may be bonded for prior to obtaining certificates of occupancy. 2.5 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process. 2.6 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 2.7 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES Permitting that may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency. 2.8 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.9 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material. 3. FIRE DEPARTMENT 3.1 Acceptance of the water supply for fire protection will be by the Meridian Fire Department and water quality by the Meridian Water Department for bacteria. 3.2 Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department. a. Fire Hydrants shall have the 4 %z" outlet face the main street or parking lot aisle. b. The Fire hydrant shall not face a street which does not have addresses on it. c. Fire hydrant markers shall be provided per Public Works specifications. d. Fire Hydrants shall be placed on corners when spacing permits. e. Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10'. f. Fire hydrants shall be place 18" above finish grade. g. Fire hydrants shall be provided to meet the requirements of the IFC Section 509.5. h. Show all proposed or existing hydrants for all new construction or additions to existing buildings within 1,000 feet of the project. 3.3 All internal roads and alleys shall have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside radius. 3.4 All driveways shall be straight or have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside and shall have a clear driving surface which is 24' wide. 3.5 For all Fire Lanes, provide signage "No Parking Fire Lane." 3.6 Fire lanes and streets shall have a vertical clearance of 13'6". This includes mature landscaping. Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIISEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAWS DATE OF AUGUST 17, 2006 3.7 Operational fire hydrants, temporary or permanent street signs and access roads with an all weather surface are required before combustible construction is brought on site 3.8 Commercial and office occupancies will require a fire -flow consistent with the International Fire Code to service the proposed project. Fire hydrants shall be placed per Appendix D. 3.9 The fire department requests that any future signalization installed as the result of the development of this project be equipped with Opticom Sensors to ensure a safe and efficient response by fire and emergency medical service vehicles. This cost of this installation is to be borne by the developer. 3.10 Provide a Knox box entry system for the complex prior to occupancy. 3.11 The applicant shall work with the Planning Department staff to provide address identifiers at a minimum of two entrance locations to the Dorado Subdivision. The applicant shall also construct signs which meet the requirements of the City of Meridian sign ordinance. 3.12 All aspects of the building systems (including exiting systems), processes & storage practices shall be required to comply with the International Fire Code. 3.13 All portions of the buildings located on this project must be within 150' of a paved surface as measured around the perimeter of the building. 3.14 Provide exterior egress lighting as required by the International Building & Fire Codes. 3.15 There a portion of the facility or building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction is more than 400 feet (122 m) from a hydrant on a fire apparatus access road, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building, on-site fire hydrants and mains shall be provided where required by the code official. For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system, installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2 the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183). a. For Group R-3 and Group U occupancies, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m). b. For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m). 3.15 There shall be a fire hydrant within 100' of all Fire Department connections. 4. POLICE DEPARTMENT 4.1 The trash enclosure located near the drive-through stacking lane creates a traffic hazard. Prior to the next public hearing, the applicant shall meet with the Police Chief to discuss methods of increasing visibility to the facility in an around said location. 5. PARKS DEPARTMENT 5.1 The Parks Department has no concerns with the site design as submitted with the application. 6. SANITARY SERVICES 6.1 Please contact Bill Gregory at SSC (888-3999) for detailed review of your proposal and submit stamped (approved) trash enclosure plans along with your certificate of zoning compliance application. 7. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT 7.1 SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 7.1.1 Utilize an existing 35 -foot wide curb return type driveway that functions as a full access driveway Exhibit B 4 r 3e } vw j W i 'rs'h et$ Kp'r* t� CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIISEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAWS DATE OF AUGUST 17, 2006 3.7 Operational fire hydrants, temporary or permanent street signs and access roads with an all weather surface are required before combustible construction is brought on site 3.8 Commercial and office occupancies will require a fire -flow consistent with the International Fire Code to service the proposed project. Fire hydrants shall be placed per Appendix D. 3.9 The fire department requests that any future signalization installed as the result of the development of this project be equipped with Opticom Sensors to ensure a safe and efficient response by fire and emergency medical service vehicles. This cost of this installation is to be borne by the developer. 3.10 Provide a Knox box entry system for the complex prior to occupancy. 3.11 The applicant shall work with the Planning Department staff to provide address identifiers at a minimum of two entrance locations to the Dorado Subdivision. The applicant shall also construct signs which meet the requirements of the City of Meridian sign ordinance. 3.12 All aspects of the building systems (including exiting systems), processes & storage practices shall be required to comply with the International Fire Code. 3.13 All portions of the buildings located on this project must be within 150' of a paved surface as measured around the perimeter of the building. 3.14 Provide exterior egress lighting as required by the International Building & Fire Codes. 3.15 There a portion of the facility or building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction is more than 400 feet (122 m) from a hydrant on a fire apparatus access road, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building, on-site fire hydrants and mains shall be provided where required by the code official. For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system, installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2 the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183). a. For Group R-3 and Group U occupancies, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m). b. For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m). 3.15 There shall be a fire hydrant within 100' of all Fire Department connections. 4. POLICE DEPARTMENT 4.1 The trash enclosure located near the drive-through stacking lane creates a traffic hazard. Prior to the next public hearing, the applicant shall meet with the Police Chief to discuss methods of increasing visibility to the facility in an around said location. 5. PARKS DEPARTMENT 5.1 The Parks Department has no concerns with the site design as submitted with the application. 6. SANITARY SERVICES 6.1 Please contact Bill Gregory at SSC (888-3999) for detailed review of your proposal and submit stamped (approved) trash enclosure plans along with your certificate of zoning compliance application. 7. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT 7.1 SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 7.1.1 Utilize an existing 35 -foot wide curb return type driveway that functions as a full access driveway Exhibit B 4 S S 3e i J t CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIISSEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA DATE OF AUGUST 17, 2006 and intersects Overland Road approximately 365 feet east of Bonito Way, as proposed. 7.1.2 Construct a 24 -foot wide curb return -type driveway that functions as a right -in / right -out driveway ONLY and intersects Overland Road approximately 235 feet west of Eagle Road. 7.1.3 Construct a five-foot wide detached concrete sidewalk on Eagle Road abutting the portion of the site that was not improved as a part of the intersection project (approximately 320 feet). Construct the sidewalk a minimum of 50 feet from the centerline of Eagle Road. 7.1.4 Construct a 20 -foot wide right -in ONLY driveway that intersects Eagle Road approximately 230 feet north of the curb line for Overland Road and construct a 15 -foot wide (390 feet long) deceleration lane on Eagle Road to accommodate the right -in driveway ONLY. Coordinate the details with District staff in regard to the design and construction of the driveway and deceleration lane on Eagle Road. Construct a 6 -inch raided median in Eagle Road to restrict the driveway to provide a right -in movement ONLY. 7.1.5 Other than the access points that have specifically been approved with this application, direct lot access to Overland Road and Eagle Road is prohibited. Place a note on the final plat that states this access restriction. 7.1.6 Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval. 7.2 STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 7.2.1 Any existing irrigation facilities shall be relocated outside of the right-of-way. 7.2.2 All utility relation costs associates with improving street frontages abutting the site shall be borne by the developer. 7.2.3 Replace any existing damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk and any that may be damaged during the construction of the proposed development. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file number) for details. 7.2.4 Utility street cuts in pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing by the District. Contact the District's Utility Coordinator at 387-6258 (with file numbers) for details. 7.2.5 All design and construction shall be in accordance with the Ada County Highway District Policy Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services procedures and all applicable ACHD Ordinances unless specifically waived herein. An engineer registered in the State of Idaho shall prepare and certify all improvement plans. 7.2.6 The applicant shall submit revised plans for staff approval, prior to issuance of building permit (or other required permits), which incorporates any required design changes. 7.2.7 Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable requirements of the Ada County Highway District prior to District approval for occupancy. 7.2.8 Payment of applicable road impact fees is required prior to building construction in accordance with Ordinance #200, also known as Ada County Highway District Road Impact Fee Ordinance. 7.2.9 It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right-of-way. The applicant at no cost to ACHD shall repair existing utilities damaged by the applicant. The applicant shall be required to call DIGLINE (1-800-342-1585) at least two full business days prior to breaking ground within ACHD right-of-way. The applicant shall contact ACHD Traffic Operations 387-6190 in the event any ACHD conduits (spare or filled) are compromised during any phase of construction. 7.2.10 No change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they are in writing Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANND&PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA*b DATE OF AUGUST 17, 2006 and signed by the applicant or the applicant's authorized representative and an authorized representative of the Ada County Highway District. The burden shall be upon the applicant to obtain written confirmation of any change from the Ada County Highway District. 7.2.11 Any change by the applicant in the planned use of the property which is the subject of this application, shall require the applicant to comply with all rules, regulations, ordinances, plans, or other regulatory and legal restrictions in force at the time the applicant or its successors in interest advises the Highway District of its intent to change the planned use of the subject property unless a waiver/variance of said requirements or other legal relief is granted pursuant to the law in effect at the time the change in use is sought. I Exhibit B 71-1 1�1, 41 4, N 4"A 4 7, 41, 4, CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNISEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAA*GG DATE OF AUGUST 17, 2006 C. Required Findings from Zoning Ordinance 1. Conditional Use Permit Findings: The Commission shall base its determination on the Conditional Use Permit request upon the following: a. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. The proposed building and drive-through window on this site can accommodate and meet all dimensional and development regulations of this District. The Commission should rely on Staff's analysis, and any oral or written public testimony provided when determining if this site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use. The Commission finds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the required setbacks, parking, landscaping, and other features required by Ordinance. b. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in accord with the requirements of this Title. The Commission finds that the designated Comprehensive Plan designation for this property is "Commercial" and the proposed use is generally harmonious with the requirements of the UDC (see Section 8 above for more information regarding the requirements for this use.) c. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. The Commission finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the general design, construction, operation, and maintenance of a retail / restaurant with a drive-through should be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing and intended character of the area. d. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. The Commission should rely upon any public testimony provided to determine if the development will adversely affect the other property in the vicinity. The Commission finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the proposed uses will not adversely affect other property in the area. e. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools, parks, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, and sewer. The Commission finds that sanitary sewer, domestic water, refuse disposal, and irrigation are currently available to the subject property. Please refer to any comments prepared by the Meridian Fire Department, Police Department, Parks Department, Sanitary Services Corporation, TTD and ACHD. Based on comments from other agencies and departments, the Commission finds that the proposed use will be served adequately by all of the public facilities and services listed above. Exhibit C CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNI*PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAW DATE OF AUGUST 17, 2006 f. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. If approved, the applicant will be financing any improvements required for development. The Commission finds there will not be excessive additional requirements at public cost and that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the community's economic welfare. g. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. The Commission recognizes that traffic and noise will increase with the approval of a retail / restaurant with a drive-through use in this location; however, staff does not believe that the amount generated will be detrimental to the general welfare of the public. The Commission does not anticipate the proposed use will create excessive noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors. The Commission finds that the proposed uses will not be detrimental to people, property or the general welfare of the area. h. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. The Commission fords that there should not be any health, safety or environmental problems associated with this use that should be brought to the Commission's attention. The Commission fords that the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural, scenic or historic feature of major importance. Exhibit C r 5+ 5 Y S M,yJ9f Y— w`f h":4''�Zsf " r ,,r✓flt f .' [; s( August 28, 2006 CUP 06-025 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING August 31, 2006 APPLICANT W.H. Moore Company ITEM NO. S -C REQUEST Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law: Conditional Use Permit for a 24,835 square foot Retail Building on 1.76 acres in the C -G zone for Centre Pointe Retail 1 - 3445 N. Eagle Road AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Emailed: COMMENTS See Attached Findings z4ia -' Date: �fd 7 vb Phone: .5,p15-/7/7 �f . c4..@( C 04-1-; Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meefings shall become property of the City of Meridian. . 3<4�"3 �� � y �..{ � 45•"3 � L" � i "a�`S �, �' t£ $8X h N- '•� . .. ;*.:,� a d, YY i '1-Y riy �,} .}: 1.u3. j.s�,6. r,Lt'wS 'i F.r, R 5'id °•nnR" .%,.iir�.•Y y4- '''i3 3. ;'t$ #� 11�^. •'1'n` #p, e tet, k n ' v ' n, 4- � . .., x•�Y , . : S' ..� ,t x xx t•� n i 5� 1411 b. a y... hy. 1 Mi, r3 §'4" i� u,, ,t� .e�_3tr•t. a. v6,4 MP3iK#,, F,r • A U 6 P F' CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER r4wfit; ' 1C&.!H � In the Matter of a Conditional Use Permit Request for a 23,335 square foot retail building in the C -G Zone, by W.H. Moore, Co. Case No. CUP -06-025 For the Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: August 17, 2006 (Findings approved on 8-31-06) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of August 17, 2006, incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of August 17, 2006, incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of August 17, 2006, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of August 17, 2006, incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the "Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975," codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code (I.C. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has, by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted August 6, 2002, Resolution No. 02-382 and Maps. 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-5A. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO. CUP -06-025 - PAGE 1 of 4 • 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this Decision, which shall be signed by the Commission Chair and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk upon the applicant, the Planning Department, the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. 7. That this approval is subject to the Site Plan, and the Conditions of Approval all in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of August 17, 2006, incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the Planning & Zoning Commission's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11-5A and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant's CUP Site Plan dated July 10, 2006, Landscape Plan, dated June 5, 2006, and Elevations, dated July 2006, is/are hereby conditionally approved; and, 2. The site specific and standard conditions of approval are as shown in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of August 17, 2006, incorporated by reference. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits 1. Notice of Eighteen (18) Month Conditional Use Permit Duration Please take notice that the conditional use permit, when granted, shall be valid for a maximum period of eighteen (18) months unless otherwise approved by the City. During this time, the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground. For conditional use permits that also require platting, the final plat must be recorded within this eighteen (18) month period. For projects with multiple phases, the eighteen (18) month deadline shall apply to the first phase. In the event that the development is made in successive contiguous segments or multiple phases, such phases shall be constructed within successive intervals of one (1) year from the original date of approval. If the successive phases are not submitted within the one (1) year interval, the conditional approval of the future phases shall be null and void. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11 -5B -6.G.1, the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the use not to exceed one (1) eighteen (18) month period. Additional CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO. CUP -06-025 - PAGE 2 of 4 time extensions up to eighteen (18) months as determined and approved by the Commission may be granted. With all extensions, the Director or Commission may the use comply with the current of Meridian City Code require conditional provisions Title 11. E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis 1. The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code 67-8003, a denial of a plat or conditional use permit entitles the Owner to request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than twenty-eight (28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request r,.. for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review may be filed. r 2. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian, pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521 an affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the issuance or denial of the use approval may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of �u conditional permit this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. F. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of August 17, 2006 .} 3 h 3 �4 5 I .k, C,93i ? C t M 1 . ' CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO. CUP -06-025 - PAGE 3 of 4 Tff .,- „ 9 {. . r> 5 t .. s �e 9* x 7 v, �k t {Vf` frxi YLs" o 0 By actiop of the Planning & Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the 511 day of ftU 0034- , 2006. COMMISSIONER MICHAEL ROHM (Chair) COMMISSIONER DAVID MOE COMMISSIONER WENDY NEWTON-HUCKABAY COMMISSIONER KEITH BORUP COMMISSIONER DAVID VOTED I k SC✓ 4 VOTED VOTED VOTED I � 9� VOTED 1%6ay'V-- OCAV 1 d ISG C - VI C C Attest: ���� �$ of Tara Green, Deputy City Clerk �b Copy served upon Applicant, Th 'PI Public Works Department and City Attorney. BY: Sh Dated: - C� 5-0 G, City Clerk CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO. CUP -06-025 - PAGE 4 of 4 9* 7 v, t CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINSPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA* DATE OF AUGUST 17, 2006 STAFF REPORT Hearing Date: 8/17/2006 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Justin Lucas Associate City Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: Centre Pointe Retail #1 • CUP -06-025 f6:'I ith Conditional Use Permit for a 23,335 square foot retail building with a drive- through on 1.76 Acres in the C -G District, by W.H. Moore Company. 1. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST The applicant, W.H. Moore Company, is requesting Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval to construct a 23,335 square foot retail building with one drive-through. The proposed retail building is located on 1.76 acres within the Centre Pointe Subdivision (PP -06-020, FP -06-035). The site is located on the north- west corner of the intersection of Ustick and Eagle Roads. The property is currently zoned C -G (General Retail and Service Commercial). In general, a Conditional Use Permit would not be required for this project due to the fact that retail uses are principally permitted in the C -G district. That being said the development agreement adopted at the time this property was annexed (Blue Marlin Annexation - AZ -03- 025) specifically states that a site specific Conditional Use Permit must be applied for and received before any part of the property is developed. 2. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Below, staff has provided detailed analysis and recommended conditions of approval for the requested Conditional Use Permit application. Staff recommends approval of the subject application, CUP -06-025, with the conditions contained in Exhibit B. 3. PROPOSED MOTIONS Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number CUP - 06 -025 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of August 17, 2006, and the site plan labeled SP -1, dated July 10, 2006 with the following modifications to the conditions of approval: (add any proposed modifications). I further move to direct staff to prepare an appropriate findings document to be considered at the next Planning and Commission hearing on August 31, 2006. Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move deny File Number CUP -06- 025 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of August 17, 2006, for the following reasons: (you must state specific reasons for denial.) I further move to direct staff to prepare an appropriate findings document to be considered at the next Planning and Commission hearing on August 31, 2006. Continuance After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to continue File Number CUP - 06 -025 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (you should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) Centre Pointe Retail #1 CUP -06-025 PAGE 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNII PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAD DATE OF AUGUST 17, 2006 4. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS a. Site Address/Location: 3445 N. Eagle Road/north west corner of the intersection of Eagle Road and Ustick Road. Section 32, T4N RIE b. Owner: WH Moore Company 1940 Bonito #160 Meridian, ID 83642 c. Applicant: Same as Owner d. Representative: Jonathan Seal e. Present Zoning: C -G f. Present Comprehensive Plan Designation: Mixed Use Regional g. Description of Applicant's Request: The applicant is requesting Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval to construct a 23,335 square foot commercial building with a drive-through facility. The proposed building is located on Lot 1, Block 2, Centre Pointe Subdivision. The applicant is proposing to provide 71 parking spaces on this site. 1. Date of CUP site plan (attached in Exhibit A): July 10, 2006 2. Date of Landscape plan (attached in Exhibit A): June 5, 2006 3. Date of Building Elevations (attached in Exhibit A): May 31, 2006 h. Applicant's Statement/Justification: The retail building #1 project consists of a 23,335 s.f. retail building and proposed drive-through window. It will be a single story, brick, painted, and textured concrete tilt -up and stucco structure with a low sloped single membrane roofing behind the parapets. The HVAC units will be roof mounted and screened by the roof parapets. We hope the Planning and Zoning Commission and city staff will approve this project. (Please see applicant's submittal letter.) 5. PROCESS FACTS a. The subject application will in fact constitute a conditional use as required by the development agreement for this site. By reason of the provisions of UDC 11-5B-6, a public hearing is required before the Planning and Zoning Commission on this matter. b. Newspaper notifications published on: July 3 V and August 14t`, 2006 c. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: July 21", 2006 d. Applicant posted notice on site by: August 7`b, 2006 6. LAND USE a. Existing Land Use(s): Vacant. b. Description of Character of Surrounding Area: This area is rapidly transitioning into a commercial area. There are various other commercial uses that are being proposed to the east and west of the subject site. c. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning Centre Pointe Retail #1 CUP -06-025 PAGE 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIISPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAeb DATE OF AUGUST 17, 2006 1. North: Future Commercial, zoned C -G 2. East: Future Commercial, zoned C -G 3. South: Future Kohl's Department Store, zoned C -G 4. West: Future Commercial, zoned C -G d. History of Previous Actions: This site was originally annexed into the city in the Blue Marlin Annexation (AZ -03-025). This annexation included a development agreement that specifically required all future developments to receive a CUP before any construction. Later the site received preliminary plat approval in the Centre Pointe Subdivision (PP -06-020). The Final Plat for this site has been submitted and is currently being processed by staff. The applicants have made every effort to comply with the development agreement for this site and all other conditions of approval that were included in the Preliminary Plat. e. Existing Constraints and Opportunities 1. Public Works Location of sewer: Sewer mains were installed with the Center Pointe Subdivision. Location of water: Water mains were installed with the Center Pointe Subdivision. Issues or concerns: None. 2. Vegetation: N/A 3. Flood plain: N/A 4. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: N/A 5. Hazards: N/A 6. Existing Zoning: C -G 7. Size of Property: 1.76 acres f. Conditional Use Information: 1. Non-residential square footage: 23,335 square foot building 2. Proposed building height: 23 feet 3. Number of Residential units: 0 g. Off -Street Parking: 1. Parking spaces required: 47 2. Parking spaces proposed: 71 3. Compact spaces proposed: 0 h. Summary of Proposed Streets and/or Access (private, public, common drive, etc.): The access to this specific building is mainly from internal drive aisles that connect to previously approved (Centre Pointe Subdivision) access points to Eagle Road and Ustick Road. Along with these access points the approved Centre Pointe preliminary plat also includes a new public street, North Centre Pointe Way, which will run parallel to Eagle Road to the north of the proposed building. Staff is generally supportive of the access points and parking lot design. The applicant appears to be in compliance with the conditions set forth in the approved preliminary plat. Centre Pointe Retail #1 CUP -06-025 PAGE 3 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINWPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAW DATE OF AUGUST 17, 2006 7. COMMENTS MEETING On July 28, 2006 Planning Staff held an agency comments meeting. The agencies and departments present include: Meridian Fire Department, Meridian Police Department, Meridian Parks Department, Meridian Public Works Department, and the Sanitary Services Company. Staff has included all comments and recommended actions as Conditions of Approval in the attached Exhibit B. 8. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS This property is designated "Mixed Use Regional" on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. The "Mixed Use Regional" designation provides for a wide range of retail uses including drive-through facilities. Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this property and apply to the proposed development (staff analysis in italics): • Require that development projects have planned for the provision of all public services. (Chapter VII, Goal III, Objective A, Action 1) When the City established its Area of City Impact, it planned to provide City services to the subject property. The City of Meridian plans to provide municipal services to the lands in the following manner. • Sanitary sewer and water service will be extended to the project at the developer's expense. • The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Meridian Rural Fire District. Once annexed the lands will be under the jurisdiction of the Meridian City Fire Department, who currently shares resource and personnel with the Meridian Rural Fire Department. • The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Ada County Sheriffs Office. Once annexed the lands will be serviced by the Meridian Police Department (MPD). • The roadways adjacent to the subject lands are currently owned and maintained by the Ada County Highway District (ACHD). This service will not change. • The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian School District #2. This service will not change. • The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian Library District. This service will not change and the Meridian Library District should suffer no revenue loss as a result of the subject annexation. Municipal, fee -supported, services will be provided by the Meridian Building Department, the Meridian Public Works Department, the Meridian Water Department, the Meridian Wastewater Department, the Meridian Planning Department, Meridian Utility Billing Services, and Sanitary Services Company. • "Require all commercial businesses to install and maintain landscaping." (Chapter V, Goal III, Objective D, Action 5) The applicant is proposing to install internal landscaping. Please see the CUP Analysis in Section 10 below for more information on landscaping this site. • "Plan for a variety of commercial and retail opportunities within the Impact Area." (Chapter VII, Goal 1, Objective B) Staff believes that the proposed uses do contribute to the variety of uses in this area. Centre Pointe Retail #1 CUP -06-025 PAGE 4 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN&PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAW DATE OF AUGUST 17, 2006 Staff believes that the proposed retail building is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the previously approved applications for this site. Staff recommends that the Commission rely on any verbal or written testimony that may be provided at the public hearing when determining if the applicant's request is appropriate for this property. 9. ZONING ORDINANCE a. Allowed Uses in Commercial Districts: UDC Table 11-2B-2 lists the permitted, accessory, and conditional uses in the C -G zoning district. Retail stores are a principally permitted use in the C -G zone. Drive-through establishments are allowed as an accessory use in the C -G zone. The existing Development Agreement for this site requires all new development to receive a CUP. b. Purpose Statement of Zone: The purpose of the Commercial Districts is to provide for the retail and service needs of the community in accord with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. Four Districts are designated which differ in the size and scale of commercial structures accommodated in the district, the scale and mix of allowed commercial uses, and the location of the district in proximity to streets and highways. c. General Standards: No dimensional modifications are being requested for the proposed development; full compliance with the UDC is required. This site/building is subject to design review. Analysis of the design standards for buildings located in designated design review areas are provided in Section 10 below. d. Conditional Uses: In approving any conditional use, the decision-making body may prescribe appropriate conditions, bonds and safeguards in conformity with this Title that: minimize adverse impact of the use on other property, control the sequence and timing of the use, control the duration of the use, assure that the use and the property in which the use is located is maintained properly, designate the exact location and nature of the use and the property development, require the provision for on-site or off-site public facilities or services, required more restrictive standards than those generally required in this Title, and require mitigation of adverse impacts of the proposed development upon service delivery by any political subdivision, including school districts, that provides services within the City (UDC 11 -5B - 6D). 10. ANALYSIS a. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation Drive -Through: After extensive review and revisions staff is generally supportive of the drive- through design as proposed. To make the design function the landscape island at the exit of the drive through should be planted with only low shrubs or vegetation that will not block the view of automobiles exiting the drive -though. A stop sign should also be placed at the exit of the drive- through to maintain safety and good circulation. Parking: The applicant is proposing to construct 70 parking stalls for this use; 47 parking stalls are required by Ordinance. The applicant is proposing to construct all of the parking stalls as 19 - feet long and nine feet wide. These dimensions are consistent with UDC Table 11-3C-1 which describes minimum parking stall dimensions required adjacent to 25 -foot wide drive aisles. One bicycle parking space shall be provided for every 25 vehicle parking spaces (UDC 11 -3C - 6G). Provide a minimum 3 -bicycle rack on this site.. The bicycle rack should be located on the sidewalk near the front of the building in a safe place out the main pedestrian corridor. See Exhibit B. Centre Pointe Retail #1 CUP -06-025 PAGE 5 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN&PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE IEA* DATE OF AUGUST 17, 2006 Landscaping: The landscape plan prepared by The Land Group, Inc., on 6-5-06, labeled Sheet L1.0 is approved with the following modifications/notes: • A written certificate of completion shall be prepared by the landscape architect, designer, or qualified nurseryman responsible for the landscape plan and submitted prior to occupancy of the building. All standards of installation shall apply as listed in UDC 11-3B-14. Submit a landscape plan, reflecting the changes/notes mentioned above, with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. Certificate of Zoning Compliance: The purpose of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) permit is to ensure that all construction, alterations and/or the establishment of a new use complies with all of the provisions of the UDC before any work on the structure is started and/or the use is established (UDC 11 -5B -1A). To ensure that all of the conditions of approval listed in Exhibit B are complied with, the applicant should be required to obtain a CZC permit and occupancy from the Planning Department. Design Review Standards (UDC 11-3A-19): Staff finds that the subject site complies with the standards for uses along entryway corridors as follows: 1. Architectural Character: a. Fagades: Fagades visible from a public street shall incorporate modulations in the fagade, roof line recesses and projections along a minimum of twenty percent (20%) of the length of the facade. b. Primary public entrance(s): The primary building entrance(s) shall be clearly defined by the architectural design of the building. Windows, awnings, or arcades shall total a minimum of thirty percent (30%) of the facade length facing a public street. c. Roof lines: Roof design shall demonstrate two or more of the following: a) overhanging eaves, b) sloped roofs; c) two (2) or more roof planes; d) varying parapet heights; and e) cornices. d. Pattern variations: At least two (2) changes in one (1) or a combination of the following shall be incorporated into the building design: color, texture and/ materials. e. Mechanical equipment: All ground -level and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be screened to the height of the unit as viewed from the property line. 2. Color and materials: Exterior building walls shall demonstrate the appearance of high-quality materials of stone, brick, wood or other native materials. Acceptable materials include tinted or textured masonry block, textured architectural coated concrete panels, tinted or textured masonry block, or stucco or stucco -like synthetic materials. Smooth -faced concrete block, tilt -up concrete panels, or prefabricated steel panels are prohibited except as accent materials. 3. Parking Lots: No more than seventy percent (70%) of the off-street parking area for the structure shall be located between the front facade of the structure and abutting streets, unless the principal building(s) and/or parking is/are screened from view by other structures, landscaping and/or berms. 4. Pedestrian walkways: Centre Pointe Retail #1 CUP -06-025 PAGE 6 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNI APARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA& DATE OF AUGUST 17, 2006 a. A continuous internal pedestrian walkway that is a minimum of eight feet (8') in width shall be provided from the perimeter sidewalk to the main building entrance. The walkway width shall be maintained clear of any outdoor sale displays, vending machines, or temporary structures. b. The internal pedestrian walkway shall be distinguished from the vehicular driving surfaces through the use of pavers, colored or scored concrete, or bricks. c. Walkways at least eight feet (8') in width, shall be provided for any aisle length that is greater than one -hundred fifty (150) parking spaces or two hundred feet (200') away from the main building entrance. d. The walkways shall have weather protection (including but not limited to an awning or arcade) within twenty feet (20') of all customer entrances. The building elevations prepared by Larson Architects (Sheet A-2.0, dated 7/06) are approved as they comply with the Design Review standards contained in UDC 11-3A-19. b. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of CUP -06-025 for Center Pointe Retail #1 as presented in the Staff Report for the hearing date of August 17, 2006 based on the Findings of Fact as listed in Exhibit C and subject to the conditions of approval as listed in Exhibit B. Centre Pointe Retail #1 CUP -06-025 PAGE 7 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINOPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA* DATE OF AUGUST 17, 2006 11. EXHIBITS A. Drawings 1. Date of CUP Site Plan: July 10, 2006 2. Date of Landscape plan: June 5, 2006 3. Date of Building Elevations: May 31, 2006 B. Conditions of Approval 1. Planning Department 2. Public Works Department 3. Fire Department 4. Police Department 5. Ada County Highway District (ACHD) 6. Sanitary Services Company C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code Centre Pointe Retail #1 CUP -06-025 PAGE 8 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINSPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAL DATE OF AUGUST 17, 2006 A. Drawings 1. CUP Site Plan (dated: July 10, 2006) -- -_------_- -+f--------------_-----�-__-_--- - - - - -- - - -- - - _--- — � -I 100 1r -- -- she o 0 — _ —-- . a C- W " 0,71M __P kco -- O Cei — —1104 FBI i `-- Exhibit A Page 1 run u ansa❑ I CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINSPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAI& DATE OF AUGUST 17, 2006 2. Landscape Plan (Dated June 5, 2006) OP, L 11" Exhibit A Page 2 1�4-p-j Bupjpq pejo .l p O add aaa aAa 11 n SS 1 o sf gI f4Y YC pSddY�ftaa 11 � Exhibit A Page 2 1�4-p-j Bupjpq pejo .l p O ti - a fill IIg CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN&PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA* DATE OF AUGUST 17, 2006 3. Building Elevations Exhibit A Page 3 III CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNII&PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR T 4E HEA* DATE OF AUGUST 17, 2006 B. Conditions of Approval 1. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1.1 The applicant shall comply with all conditions of approval for Center Pointe Subdivision, and Blue Marlin Annexation (PP -06-020& AZ -03-025) as part of the subject Conditional Use Permit (CUP -06-026). The Site Plan labeled as SP -1, prepared by Larson Architects, dated May 31, 2006 is approved, with the conditions listed herein. 1.2 The landscape island at the exit of the drive through shall be planted with only low shrubs or vegetation that will not block the view of automobiles exiting the drive -though. 1.3 A stop sign shall be placed at the exit of the drive through to maintain safety and good circulation. 1.4 Provide a minimum 3 -bicycle rack on this site. The bicycle rack shall be located on the sidewalk near the front of the building in a safe place out the main pedestrian corridor 1.5 The landscape plan prepared by The Land Group, Inc., on 6-5-06, labeled Sheet L1.0 is approved with the following modifications/notes: The applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan to that reflects the changes in site design for the drive-through. A written certificate of completion shall be prepared by the landscape architect, designer, or qualified nurseryman responsible for the landscape plan and submitted prior to occupancy of the building. All standards of installation shall apply as listed in UDC 11-3B-14. Submit a landscape plan, reflecting the changes/notes mentioned above, with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. 1.6 This project complies with the Design Review requirements of UDC 11-3A-19. The building elevations prepared by Larson Architects (Sheet A-2.0, dated 7/06) are approved. 1.7 To ensure that all of the conditions of approval for CUP -06-025 are complied with, the applicant shall be required to obtain a Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) permit, and occupancy, from the Planning Department prior to operation. 1.8 All required improvements must be complete prior to obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy for the proposed development. A temporary Certificate of Occupancy may be obtained by providing surety to the City in the form of a letter of credit or cash in the amount of 110% of the cost of the required improvements (including paving, striping, landscaping, and irrigation). A bid must accompany any request for temporary occupancy. 1.9 No signs are approved with this CUP application. All business signs require a separate sign permit in compliance with the sign ordinance. 1.10 The applicant shall have a maximum of 18 months to commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval listed above. If the business has not begun within 18 months of approval, a new conditional use permit must be obtained prior to operation. 2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2.1 Sanitary sewer and water service to this development is being proposed via existing stubs to the property. The applicant shall install any mains necessary to provide service; applicant shall Exhibit B Page 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN&PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA& DATE OF AUGUST 17, 2006 coordinate main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub -grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2 The applicant shall coordinate fire hydrant placement with the Public Works Department during plan review. 2.3 The applicant shall provide a 20 -foot easement for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way (include all water services and hydrants). Submit an executed easement (supplied by Public Works), a legal description, which must include the area of the easement (marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2" x 11" map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. 2.4 Sewer, water, pressurized irrigation, and any life safety development improvement shall receive final approval prior to occupancy. Other required development improvements such as fencing, micro -paths, and landscaping may be bonded for prior to obtaining certificates of occupancy. 2.5 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process. 2.6 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 2.7 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES Permitting that may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency. 2.8 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.9 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material. 3. FIRE DEPARTMENT 3.1 Acceptance of the water supply for fire protection will be by the Meridian Fire Department and water quality by the Meridian Water Department for bacteria testing. 3.2 Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department. a. Fire Hydrants shall have the 4 V2" outlet face the main street or parking lot aisle. b. The Fire hydrant shall not face a street which does not have addresses on it. C. Fire hydrant markers shall be provided per Public Works specifications. d. Fire Hydrants shall be placed on corners when spacing permits. e. Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10'. f. Fire hydrants shall be place 18" above finish grade. g. Fire hydrants shall be provided to meet the requirements of the IFC Section 509.5. h. Show all proposed or existing hydrants for all new construction or additions to existing buildings within 1,000 feet of the project. 3.3 All entrance and internal roads and driveways shall have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside radius. 3.4 Operational fire hydrants, temporary or permanent street signs and access roads with an all weather surface are required before combustible construction is brought on site. Exhibit B Page 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA* DATE OF AUGUST 17.2006 3.5 For all Fire Lanes, provide signage "No Parking Fire Lane". 3.6 The roadways shall be built to Ada County Highway Standards cross section requirements and shall have a clear driving surface, available at all times, which is 20' wide. Streets with less than a 29' street width shall have no parking. Streets with less than 33' shall have parking only on one side. These measurements shall be based on the face of curb dimension. The roadway shall be able to accommodate an imposed load of 75,000 GVW. 3.7 Commercial and office occupancies will require a fire -flow consistent with the International Fire Code to service the proposed project. Fire hydrants shall be placed per Appendix D. 3.8 Maintain a separation of 5' from the building to the dumpster enclosure. 3.9 Provide a Knox box entry system for the complex prior to occupancy. 3.10 The applicant shall work with Planning Department staff to provide an address identification plan and a sign which meets the requirements of the City of Meridian sign ordinance at the required intersection(s). 3.11 All aspects of the building systems (including exiting systems), processes & storage practices shall be required to comply with the International Fire Code. 3.12 Provide exterior egress lighting as required by the International Building & Fire Codes. 3.13 Where a portion of the facility or building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction is more than 400 feet (122 m) from a hydrant on a fire apparatus access road, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building, on-site fire hydrants and mains shall be provided where required by the code official. For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2 the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183). a. For Group R-3 and Group U occupancies, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m). b. For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m). 3.14 There shall be a fire hydrant within 100' of all Fire Department connections. 4. POLICE DEPARTMENT 4.1 The west fagade shall be modified to include windows that look onto the parking areas and/or other public areas. 4.2 The loading areas including the trash enclosure shall be separated from all public parking areas which includes the main drive isle to the west of the proposed building. 5. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT 5.1 It has been determined that the Right -of -Way and Development Services Department does not have any site specific requirements for you at this time due to the fact that street improvements were approved under the Centre Pointe Subdivision (PP -06-020, FP -06-035). Exhibit B Page 3 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIOEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAW DATE OF AUGUST 17, 2006 5.2 A traffic impact fee may be assessed by ACRD and will be due prior to the issuance of a building permit. Contact ACHD Planning & Development Services at 387-6170 for information regarding impact fees. 6. SANITARY SERVICES COMPANY 6.1 Please contact Bill Gregory at SSC (888-3999) for detailed review of your proposal prior to the public hearing. There is a concern that the required modifications may significantly impact your site design and may require a revised site plan. If the site plan is revised, contact the planner assigned to the project immediately to discuss the changes and how to proceed with the revised site plan. Exhibit B Page 4 t. }3 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNI*PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAW DATE OF AUGUST 17, 2006 C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code CUP Findings: The Commission shall base its determination on the Conditional Use Permit request upon the following: 1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. The proposed building and uses on this site can accommodate and meet all dimensional and development regulations of this district. Parking stalls are required at the ratio of one space per 500 square feet of gross floor area in commercial districts (UDC 11-3C-6). Per this requirement, 47 stalls are required. There are 70 parking stalls proposed on this site, with designated handicap accessible stalls. This provision exceeds the City's minimum parking stall ratio. Commission finds that the project should have ample parking. Commission finds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the required yards (setbacks), parking, landscaping and other features required by the ordinance. Staff recommends the Commission rely on Staff's analysis, and any oral or written public testimony provided when determining if this site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use. 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in accord with the requirements of this Title. Commission finds that the designated Comprehensive Designation for this property is Mixed -Use Regional. The property is currently zoned C -G, with a requirement for CUP approval of each buildingluse. The proposed use is generally harmonious with the requirements of the UDC (see Sections 8 and 10, above for more information regarding the requirements for this use.) 3. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. Commission finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the general design, construction, operation, and maintenance of a retail building with a drive-through should be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing and intended character of the area. 4. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Commission finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the proposed uses will not adversely affect other property in the area. The Commission should rely upon any public testimony provided to determine if the development will adversely affect the other property in the vicinity. Exhibit C Page 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNII%WPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAW DATE OF AUGUST 17, 2006 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools, parks, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, and sewer. Commission finds that sanitary sewer, domestic water, refuse disposal, and irrigation are currently available to the subject property. Please refer to any comments prepared by the Meridian Fire Department, Police Department, Parks Department, Sanitary Services Corporation and ACRD. Based on comments from other agencies and departments, Commission finds that the proposed use will be served adequately by all of the public facilities and services listed above. 6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. If approved, the applicant will be financing any improvements required for development. Commission finds there will not be excessive additional requirements at public cost and that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the community's economic welfare. 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. Commission recognizes that traffic and noise will increase with the approval of retail uses in this location; however, Commission does not believe that the amount generated will be detrimental to the general welfare of the public. Commission does not anticipate the proposed use will create excessive noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors. Commission finds that the proposed uses will not be detrimental to people, property or the general welfare of the area. 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. Commission finds that there should not be any health, safety or environmental problems associated with this subdivision that should be brought to the Commission's attention. Commission finds that the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural, scenic or historic feature of major importance. Exhibit C Page 2 • August 28, 2006 CUP 06-026 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING August 31, 2006 APPLICANT W.H. Moore Company ITEM NO. 3-D REQUEST Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law: Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a 13,635 square foot Retail Building on 2.03 acres in the C -G zone for Centre Pointe Retail "B" - 3445 N. Eagle Road (Lot 10, Block 2, Centre Point Subdivision) AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: COMMENTS OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. R,EcE OF Vi3 ,! �FM, _Aa CITY OF MERIDL4,N N, FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND r. DECISION & ORDER In the Matter of a Conditional Use Permit Request for a 13,653 square foot retail building in the C -G Zone, by W.H. Moore, Co. Case No. CUP -06-026 For the Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: August 17, 2006 (findings approved on the August 31, 2006 Commission agenda) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of August 17, 2006, incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of August 17, 2006, incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of August 17, 2006, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of August 17, 2006, incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the "Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975," codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code (I.C. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has, by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted August 6, 2002, Resolution No. 02-382 and Maps. 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-5A. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO. CUP -06-026 - PAGE 1 of 4 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this Decision, which shall be signed by the Commission Chair and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk upon the applicant, the Planning Department, the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. 7. That this approval is subject to the Site Plan, and the Conditions of Approval all in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of August 17, 2006, incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the Planning & Zoning Commission's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11-5A and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant's CUP Site Plan dated May 31, 2006, Landscape Plan, dated June 5, 2006, and Elevations, dated may 31, 2006, is/are hereby conditionally approved; and, 2. The site specific and standard conditions of approval are as shown in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of August 17, 2006, incorporated by reference. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits 1. Notice of Eighteen (18) Month Conditional Use Permit Duration Please take notice that the conditional use permit, when granted, shall be valid for a maximum period of eighteen (18) months unless otherwise approved by the City. During this time, the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground. For conditional use permits that also require platting, the final plat must be recorded within this eighteen (18) month period. For projects with multiple phases, the eighteen (18) month deadline shall apply to the first phase. In the event that the development is made in successive contiguous segments or multiple phases, such phases shall be constructed within successive intervals of one (1) year from the original date of approval. If the successive phases are not submitted within the one (1) year interval, the conditional approval of the future phases shall be null and void. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11 -5B -6.G.1, the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the use not to exceed one (1) eighteen (18) month period. Additional CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO. CUP -06-026 - PAGE 2 of 4 time extensions up to eighteen (18) months as determined and approved by the Commission may be granted. With all extensions, the Director or Commission may require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11. E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis 1. The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code 67-8003, a denial of a plat or conditional use permit entitles the Owner to request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than twenty-eight (28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review may be filed. 2. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian, pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521 an affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the issuance or denial of the conditional use permit approval may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. F. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of August 17, 2006 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO. CUP -06-026 - PAGE 3 of 4 By action of the Planning & Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the day of 2006. COMMISSIONER MICHAEL ROHM VOTED - (Chair) COMMISSIONER DAVID MOE VOTED 0 COMMISSIONER WENDY NEWTON-HUCKABAY VOTED if OL COMMISSIONER KEITH BORUP VOTED Ld 0 COMMISSIONER DAVID Z VOTED_Natrj)L, UHA4R*hk-N-MW-+hkE�-eHM mo (f V, Attest: OF UJ - Tara Green, Deputy CityGlerki SJU2 L 76 Copy served upon Applicant;] t, Public Works Department and City Attorney. By:_ SaA Dated: C � (c: City Clerk I CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO. CUP -06-026 -PAGE 4 of 4 ,9,zc gvl� Al -Z' 0 a Z' 1 �4 7' Ta X, Z 0p, � A i 4A -N CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN&PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA* DATE OF AUGUST 17, 2006 STAFF REPORT Hearing Date: 8/17/2006 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Justin Lucas Associate City Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: Centre Pointe Building B • CUP -06-026 Conditional Use Permit for a 13,653 square foot multi -tenant retail building on 2.03 acres in the C -G District, by W.H. Moore Company. I. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST The applicant, W.H. Moore Company, is requesting Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval to construct a 13,653 square foot multi -tenant retail building. The proposed retail building is located on 2.03 acres within the Centre Pointe Subdivision (PP -06-020, FP -06-035). The site is located on the north-west corner of the intersection of Ustick and Eagle Roads. The property is currently zoned C -G (General Retail and Service Commercial). In general, a Conditional Use Permit would not be required for this project due to the fact that retail uses are principally permitted in the C -G district. That being said the development agreement adopted at the time this property was annexed (Blue Marlin Annexation - AZ -03-025) specifically states that a site specific Conditional Use Permit must be applied for and received before any part of the property is developed. 2. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Below, staff has provided detailed analysis and recommended conditions of approval for the requested Conditional Use Permit application. Staff recommends approval of the subject application CUP -06-026 with the conditions contained in Exhibit B On August 17, 2006 the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission voted to approve the subiect application with the modified conditions in Exhibit B a. Summary of Public Hearings: i. In favor: Jonathan Seel (Applicant) ii. In opposition: None iii. Commenting: None iv. Staff presenting application: Justin Lucas v. Other staff commenting on application: None b. Key Issues of Discussion by Commission: i. Minimum number of tenant spaces; ii. Architectural details for west elevation; iii. Opportunity for public gathering space. c. Key Commission Changes to Staff Recommendation: i. Changed language from six to two tenants required' ii. Required architectural enhancements along the west building elevation. 3. PROPOSED MOTIONS Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number CUP - 06 -026 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of August 17, 2006, and the site plan Centre Pointe Building B CUP -06-026 PAGE 1 u" p NfcBki3"�iff y a0AW) fit^"-aq Conditional Use Permit for a 13,653 square foot multi -tenant retail building on 2.03 acres in the C -G District, by W.H. Moore Company. I. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST The applicant, W.H. Moore Company, is requesting Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval to construct a 13,653 square foot multi -tenant retail building. The proposed retail building is located on 2.03 acres within the Centre Pointe Subdivision (PP -06-020, FP -06-035). The site is located on the north-west corner of the intersection of Ustick and Eagle Roads. The property is currently zoned C -G (General Retail and Service Commercial). In general, a Conditional Use Permit would not be required for this project due to the fact that retail uses are principally permitted in the C -G district. That being said the development agreement adopted at the time this property was annexed (Blue Marlin Annexation - AZ -03-025) specifically states that a site specific Conditional Use Permit must be applied for and received before any part of the property is developed. 2. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Below, staff has provided detailed analysis and recommended conditions of approval for the requested Conditional Use Permit application. Staff recommends approval of the subject application CUP -06-026 with the conditions contained in Exhibit B On August 17, 2006 the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission voted to approve the subiect application with the modified conditions in Exhibit B a. Summary of Public Hearings: i. In favor: Jonathan Seel (Applicant) ii. In opposition: None iii. Commenting: None iv. Staff presenting application: Justin Lucas v. Other staff commenting on application: None b. Key Issues of Discussion by Commission: i. Minimum number of tenant spaces; ii. Architectural details for west elevation; iii. Opportunity for public gathering space. c. Key Commission Changes to Staff Recommendation: i. Changed language from six to two tenants required' ii. Required architectural enhancements along the west building elevation. 3. PROPOSED MOTIONS Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number CUP - 06 -026 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of August 17, 2006, and the site plan Centre Pointe Building B CUP -06-026 PAGE 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINSPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAD DATE OF AUGUST 17, 2006 labeled SP -1, dated May 31, 2006 with the following modifications to the conditions of approval: (add any proposed modifications). I further move to direct staff to prepare an appropriate findings document to be considered at the next Planning and Commission hearing on August 31, 2006. Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move deny File Number CUP -06- 026 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of August 17, 2006, for the following reasons: (you must state specific reasons for denial.) I further move to direct staff to prepare an appropriate findings document to be considered at the next Planning and Commission hearing on August 31, 2006. Continuance After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to continue File Number CUP - 06 -026 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (you should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) 4. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS a. Site Address/Location: 3445 N. Eagle Road/north west corner of the intersection of Eagle Road and Ustick Road. Section 32, T4N R1E b. Owner: WH Moore Company 1940 Bonito #160 Meridian, ID 83642 c. Applicant: Same as Owner d. Representative: Jonathan Seal e. Present Zoning: C -G f. Present Comprehensive Plan Designation: Mixed Use Regional g. Description of Applicant's Request: The applicant is requesting Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval to construct a 13,653 square foot multi tenant commercial building. The proposed building is located on Lot 3, Block 2, Centre Pointe Subdivision. The applicant is proposing to provide 81 parking spaces on this site. 1. Date of CUP site plan (attached in Exhibit A): May 31, 2006 2. Date of Landscape plan (attached in Exhibit A): June 5, 2006 3. Date of Building Elevations (attached in Exhibit A): May 31, 2006 h. Applicant's Statement/Justification: The retail building #1 project consists of a 13,653 s.f. retail shop building with multiple tenants. It will be a single story, painted, and textured concrete tilt -up and stucco structure with a low sloped single membrane roofing behind the parapets. The HVAC units will be roof mounted and screened by the roof parapets. We hope the Planning and Zoning Commission and city staff will approve this project. (please see applicant's submittal letter.) 5. PROCESS FACTS Centre Pointe Building B CUP -06-026 PAGE 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIINEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA& DATE OF AUGUST 17, 2006 a. The subject application will in fact constitute a conditional use as required by the development agreement for this site. By reason of the provisions of UDC 11-5B-6, a public hearing is required before the Planning and Zoning Commission on this matter. b. Newspaper notifications published on: July 31St and August 14th, 2006 c. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: July 21St, 2006 d. Applicant posted notice on site by: August 7th, 2006 6. LAND USE a. Existing Land Use(s): Vacant. b. Description of Character of Surrounding Area: This area is rapidly transitioning into a commercial area. There are various other commercial uses that are being proposed to the east and west of the subject site. c. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning 1. North: Future Commercial, zoned C -G 2. East: Future Commercial, zoned C -G .3. South: Future Kohl's Department Store, zoned C -G 4. West: Existing Residential, zoned R-4 (Champion Park Subdivision) d. History of Previous Actions: This site was originally annexed into the city in the Blue Marlin Annexation (AZ -03-025). This annexation included a development agreement that specifically required all future developments to receive a CUP before any construction. Later the site received preliminary plat approval in the Centre Pointe Subdivision (PP -06-020). The Final Plat (FP -06-035) for this site has been submitted and is currently being processed by staff. The applicants have made every effort to comply with the development agreement for this site and all other conditions of approval that were included in the Preliminary Plat. e. Existing Constraints and Opportunities 1. Public Works Location of sewer: Sewer mains were installed with Center Pointe Subdivision. Location of water: Sewer mains were installed with Center Pointe Subdivision. Issues or concerns: None. 2. Vegetation: N/A 3. Flood plain: N/A 4. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: N/A 5. Hazards: N/A 6. Existing Zoning: C -G 7. Size of Property: 2.03 acres f. Conditional Use Information: 1. Non-residential square footage: 13,653 square foot building 2. Proposed building height: 21 feet 3. Number of Residential units: 0 Centre Pointe Building B CUP -06-026 PAGE CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN&PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA1& DATE OF AUGUST 17, 2006 g. Off -Street Parking: 1. Parking spaces required: 28 2. Parking spaces proposed: 81 3. Compact spaces proposed: 0 h. Summary of Proposed Streets and/or Access (private, public, common drive, etc.): The access to this specific building is mainly from internal drive aisles that connect to previously approved (Centre Pointe Subdivision) access points to Eagle Road and Ustick Road. Along with these access points the approved Centre Pointe preliminary plat also includes a new public street, North Centre Pointe Way, which will run parallel to Eagle Road behind the proposed building. Staff is generally supportive of the access points and parking lot design. The applicant appears to be complying with the conditions set forth in the approved preliminary plat. 7. COMMENTS MEETING On July 28, 2006 Planning Staff held an agency comments meeting. The agencies and departments present include: Meridian Fire Department, Meridian Police Department, Meridian Parks Department, Meridian Public Works Department, and the Sanitary Services Company. Staff has included all comments and recommended actions as Conditions of Approval in the attached Exhibit B. 8. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS This property is designated "Mixed Use Regional" on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. The "Mixed Use Regional" designation provides for a wide range of retail uses. Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be, applicable to this property and apply to the proposed development (staff analysis in italics): • Require that development projects have planned for the provision of all public services. (Chapter VII, Goal III, Objective A, Action 1) When the City established its Area of City Impact, it planned to provide City services to the subject property. The City of Meridian plans to provide municipal services to the lands in the following manner.- Sanitary anner:Sanitary sewer and water service will be extended to the project at the developer's expense. • The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Meridian Rural Fire District. Once annexed the lands will be under the jurisdiction of the Meridian City Fire Department, who currently shares resource and personnel with the Meridian Rural Fire Department. • The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Ada County Sheriff's Office. Once annexed the lands will be serviced by the Meridian Police Department (MPD). • The roadways adjacent to the subject lands are currently owned and maintained by the Ada County Highway District (ACH0). This service will not change. • The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian School District #2. This service will not change. • The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian Library District. This service will not change and the Meridian Library District should suffer no revenue loss as a result of the subject annexation. Centre Pointe Building B CUP -06-026 PAGE 4 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIAPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA& DATE OF AUGUST 17, 2006 Municipal, fee -supported, services will be provided by the Meridian Building Department, the Meridian Public Works Department, the Meridian Water Department, the Meridian Wastewater Department, the Meridian Planning Department, Meridian Utility Billing Services, and Sanitary Services Company. "Require all commercial businesses to install and maintain landscaping." (Chapter V, Goal III, Objective D, Action 5) The applicant is proposing to install internal landscaping. Please see the CUP Analysis in Section 10 below for more information on landscaping this site. • "Plan for a variety of commercial and retail opportunities within the Impact Area." (Chapter VII, Goal 1, Objective B) Staff believes that the proposed uses do contribute to the variety of uses in this area. Staff believes that the proposed retail building is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the previously approved applications for this site. Staff recommends that the Commission rely on any verbal or written testimony that may be provided at the public hearing when determining if the applicant's request is appropriate for this property. 9. ZONING ORDINANCE a. Allowed Uses in Commercial Districts: UDC Table 11-213-2 lists the permitted, accessory, and conditional uses in the C -G zoning district. Retail stores are a principally permitted use in the C -G zone. Drive-through establishments are allowed as an accessory use in the C -G zone. The existing Development Agreement for this site requires all new development to receive a CUP. b. Purpose Statement of Zone: The purpose of the Commercial Districts is to provide for the retail and service needs of the community in accord with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. Four Districts are designated which differ in the size and scale of commercial structures accommodated in the district, the scale and mix of allowed commercial uses, and the location of the district in proximity to streets and highways. c. General Standards: No dimensional modifications are being requested for the proposed development; full compliance with the UDC is required. d. Conditional Uses: In approving any conditional use, the decision-making body may prescribe appropriate conditions, bonds and safeguards in conformity with this Title that: minimize adverse impact of the use on other property, control the sequence and timing of the use, control the duration of the use, assure that the use and the property in which the use is located is maintained properly, designate the exact location and nature of the use and the property development, require the provision for on-site or off-site public facilities or services, required more restrictive standards than those generally required in this Title, and require mitigation of adverse impacts of the proposed development upon service delivery by any political subdivision, including school districts, that provides services within the City (UDC 11 -5B - 6D). 10. ANALYSIS a. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation Minimum Number of Tenants: In order to maintain a "variety of retail opportunities" in the Centre Pointe Building B CUP -06-026 PAGE 5 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN&PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAL DATE OF AUGUST 17, 2006 Centre Pointe subdivision staff feels that the proposed multi -tenant building should be required to provide a minimum of six tenant spaces as proposed. Lot Line Locations: During staff review of the site plan it became clear that the proposed building "B" is located on two separate lots according to the pending Final Plat application (FP -06-035). While locating a building across property lines is not inherently a problem in the C -G district the applicant should be aware of any building code requirements that apply to structures that cross property lines. Parking: The applicant is proposing to construct 81 parking stalls for this use; 28 parking stalls are required by Ordinance. The applicant is proposing to construct all of the parking stalls as 19 - feet long and nine feet wide. These dimensions are consistent with UDC Table 11-3C-1 which describes minimum parking stall dimensions required adjacent to 25 -foot wide drive aisles. One bicycle parking space shall be provided for every 25 vehicle parking spaces (UDC 11 -3C - 6G). Provide a minimum 3 -bicycle rack on this site. The bicycle rack should be located on the sidewalk near the front of the building in a safe place out the main pedestrian corridor. See Exhibit B. Landscaping: The landscape plan prepared by The Land Group, Inc., on 6-5-06, labeled Sheet L1.0 is approved with the following modifications/notes: • The landscape and site plan do not show the total extent of the two lots being developed for this building. The applicant has informed staff that the area to the west (rear) of the building will be used for vehicular access and possible future development. Any area used for vehicular access or off street loading should be paved and comply with all UDC requirements. Areas of future development including the building "C" site to the north should be kept weed free and maintained until said development occurs. • A written certificate of completion shall be prepared by the landscape architect, designer, or qualified nurseryman responsible for the landscape plan and submitted prior to occupancy of the building. All standards of installation shall apply as listed in UDC 11-3B-14. Submit a landscape plan, reflecting the changes/notes mentioned above, with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. Certificate of Zoning Compliance: The purpose of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) permit is to ensure that all construction, alterations and/or the establishment of a new use complies with all of the provisions of the UDC before any work on the structure is started and/or the use is established (UDC 11 -5B -1A). To ensure that all of the conditions of approval listed in Exhibit B are complied with, the applicant should be required to obtain a CZC permit and occupancy from the Planning Department. b. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of CUP -06-026 for the proposed multi - tenant retail building as presented in the Staff Report for the hearing date of August 17, 2006 based on the Findings of Fact as listed in Exhibit C and subject to the conditions of approval as listed in Exhibit B. Centre Pointe Building B CUP -06-026 PAGE 6 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN&PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAS DATE OF AUGUST 17, 2006 11. EXHIBITS A. Drawings 1. Date of CUP Site Plan: May 31, 2006 2. Date of Landscape plan: June 5, 2006 3. Date of Building Elevations: May 31, 2006 B. Conditions of Approval 1. Planning Department 2. Public Works Department 3. Fire Department 4. Police Department 5. Ada County Highway District (ACRD) 6. Sanitary Services Company C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code Centre Pointe Building B CUP -06-026 PAGE 7 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN&PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA& DATE OF AUGUST 17, 2006 A. Drawings 1. CUP Site Plan (dated: May 31, 2006) ao@L-@L@ (904 _- 6lLS@ E. '+o}n9 —m Ole 'V'd 's7aaIgyaly uos.Gv7 Exhibit A Page 1 I j n W co (o vi p owa Wa m �= O LL Co QSaI �d �V3 N� cc f��� ---------------------------- _.l I j n W co (o vi p ii �= O LL Co QSaI �I cc �I ---------------------------- T pp 7 fqq g s ►`� °y g a 4# P gill CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIOEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAob DATE OF AUGUST 17, 2006 2. Landscape Plan (Dated June 5, 2006) oyept uetpi,aw 6uippe do4S {, ` aoe�dla�teN;wod GJluao � lftSi�f�i`iE 33 3 +fid f Sj a { 1 7 I !! is Exhibit A Page 2 I�iiii '• 000�o I '00000 or'[or®I 7�p, �4 <9- �0000'`000 f� \�`► ��''SII' I0 a N inLIJ l �Lo C/7 ?`� t 9 I ®� U. CIJ C@ CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIAEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAeb DATE OF AUGUST 17, 2006 3. Building Elevations -rI-- zest -see (esz) OHtla ����--- ncss ^WPI 'Mos N I t s x oiz Nod 3Atl3 0 yd Ispalyquy uoscv7 s�Nmns iat� auaod stray ILI% 11--] Exhibit A Page 3 a 0� In 8 yV-------------- u<I 4 In CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNISEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAOG DATE OF AUGUST 17, 2006 B. Conditions of Approval 1. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1.1 The applicant shall comply with all conditions of approval for Center Pointe Subdivision, and Blue Marlin Annexation (PP -06-020& AZ -03-025) as part of the subject Conditional Use Permit (CUP -06-026). The Site Plan labeled as SP -1, prepared by Larson Architects, dated May 31, 2006 is approved, with the conditions listed herein. 1.2 The building shall contain a minimum of 4K -two tenant spaces espfegesed. 1.3 Provide a minimum 3 -bicycle rack on this site. The bicycle rack shall be located on the sidewalk near the front of the building in a safe place out the main pedestrian corridor 1.4 Any structure built across property lines shall comply with all building and fire code requirements for buildings that cross property lines. 1.5 The landscape plan prepared by The Land Group, Inc., on 6-5-06, labeled Sheet L1.0 is approved with the following modifications/notes: The landscape and site plan do not show the total extent of the two lots being developed for this building. The applicant has informed staff that the area to the west (rear) of the building will be used for vehicular access and possible future development. Any area used for vehicular access or off street loading should be paved and comply with all UDC requirements. Areas of future development including the building "C" site to the north shall be kept weed free and maintained until said development occurs. A written certificate of completion shall be prepared by the landscape architect, designer, or qualified nurseryman responsible for the landscape plan and submitted prior to occupancy of the building. All standards of installation shall apply as listed in UDC 11-3B-14. Submit a landscape plan, reflecting the changes/notes mentioned above, with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. 1.6 To ensure that all of the conditions of approval for CUP -06-026 are complied with, the applicant shall be required to obtain a Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) permit, and occupancy, from the Planning Department prior to operation. The CZC application shall include the entire lots affected by the proposed development including areas of future development. 1.6 All required improvements must be complete prior to obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy for the proposed development. A temporary Certificate of Occupancy may be obtained by providing surety to the City in the form of a letter of credit or cash in the amount of 110% of the cost of the required improvements (including paving, striping, landscaping, and irrigation). A bid must accompany any request for temporary occupancy. 1.8 No signs are approved with this CUP application. All business signs require a separate sign permit in compliance with the sign ordinance. 1.9 The applicant shall have a maximum of 18 months to commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval listed above. If the business has not begun within 18 months of approval, a new conditional use permit must be obtained prior to operation. 1.10 The applicant shall work with staff to provide more architectural details along the western building elevation. 2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Exhibit B Page 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIIOEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA W DATE OF AUGUST 17, 2006 2.1 Sanitary sewer and water service to this development is being proposed via existing stubs to the property. The applicant shall install any mains necessary to provide service; applicant shall coordinate main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub -grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2 The applicant shall coordinate fire hydrant placement with the Public Works Department during plan review. 2.3 The applicant shall provide a 20 -foot easement for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way (include all water services and hydrants). Submit an executed easement (supplied by Public Works), a legal description, which must include the area of the easement (marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2" x 11" map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. 2.4 Sewer, water, pressurized irrigation, and any life safety development improvement shall receive final approval prior to occupancy. Other required development improvements such as fencing, micro -paths, and landscaping may be bonded for prior to obtaining certificates of occupancy. 2.5 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process. 2.6 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 2.7 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES Permitting that may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency. 2.8 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.9 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material. 3. FIRE DEPARTMENT 3.1 Acceptance of the water supply for fire protection will be by the Meridian Fire Department and water quality by the Meridian Water Department for bacteria testing. 3.2 Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department. a. Fire Hydrants shall have the 41/Z" outlet face the main street or parking lot aisle. b. The Fire hydrant shall not face a street which does not have addresses on it. C. Fire hydrant markers shall be provided per Public Works specifications. d. Fire Hydrants shall be placed on corners when spacing permits. e. Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10'. f. Fire hydrants shall be place 18" above finish grade. g. Fire hydrants shall be provided to meet the requirements of the IFC Section 509.5. h. Show all proposed or existing hydrants for all new construction or additions to existing buildings within 1,000 feet of the project. 3.3 All entrance and internal roads and driveways shall have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside radius. Exhibit B Page 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNI*EPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAW DATE OF AUGUST 17, 2006 3.4 Operational fire hydrants, temporary or permanent street signs and access roads with an all weather surface are required before combustible construction is brought on site. 3.5 For all Fire Lanes, provide signage "No Parking Fire Lane". 3.6 The roadways shall be built to Ada County Highway Standards cross section requirements and shall have a clear driving surface, available at all times, which is 20' wide. Streets with less than a 29' street width shall have no parking. Streets with less than 33' shall have parking only on one side. These measurements shall be based on the face of curb dimension. The roadway shall be able to accommodate an imposed load of 75,000 GVW. 3.7 Commercial and office occupancies will require a fire -flow consistent with the International Fire Code to service the proposed project. Fire hydrants shall be placed per Appendix D. 3.8 Maintain a separation of 5' from the building to the dumpster enclosure. 3.9 Provide a Knox box entry system for the complex prior to occupancy. 3.10 The applicant shall work with Planning Department staff to provide an address identification plan and a sign which meets the requirements of the City of Meridian sign ordinance at the required intersection(s). 3.11 All aspects of the building systems (including exiting systems), processes & storage practices shall be required to comply with the International Fire Code. 3.12 Provide exterior egress lighting as required by the International Building & Fire Codes. 3.13 Where a portion of the facility or building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction is more than 400 feet (122 m) from a hydrant on a fire apparatus access road, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building, on-site fire hydrants and mains shall be provided where required by the code official. For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2 the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183). a. For Group R-3 and Group U occupancies, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m). b. For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m). 3.14 There shall be a fire hydrant within 100' of all Fire Department connections. 4. POLICE DEPARTMENT 4.1 The Police Department has no concerns related to the site design submitted with the application. 5. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT 5.1 It has been determined that the Right -of -Way and Development Services Department does not have ay site specific requirements for you at this time due to the fact that street improvements Exhibit B Page 3 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNf*EPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEOG DATE OF AUGUST 17, 2006 were approved under the Centre Pointe Subdivision (PP -06-020, FP -06-035). 5.2 A traffic impact fee may be assessed by ACRD and will be due prior to the issuance of a building permit. Contact ACHD Planning & Development Services at 387-6170 for information regarding impact fees. 6. SANITARY SERVICES COMPANY 6.1 Please contact Bill Gregory at SSC (888-3999) for detailed review of your proposal and submit stamped (approved) plans with your certificate of zoning compliance application. Exhibit B Page 4 i Yo- k ` r r,. ��' 't�' "�ts>�Sk.S'w y—; Y "d i •',,'�. b 5 �, n^j"; �� ry=-C�St 4.'� .=r� ?'�`%� � x 5. Y S. i A y}� CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNI*PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAW DATE OF AUGUST 17, 2006 C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code CUP Findings: The Commission shall base its determination on the Conditional Use Permit request upon the following: 1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. The proposed building and uses on this site can accommodate and meet all dimensional and development regulations of this district. Parking stalls are required at the ratio of one space per 500 square feet of gross floor area in commercial districts (UDC 11-3C-6). Per this requirement, 28 stalls are required. There are 81 parking stalls proposed on this site, with designated handicap accessible stalls. This provision exceeds the City's minimum parking stall ratio. The Commission finds that the project should have ample parking. The Commission finds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the required yards (setbacks), parking, landscaping and other features required by the ordinance. Staff recommends the Commission rely on Staffs analysis, and any oral or written public testimony provided when determining if this site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use. 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in accord with the requirements of this Title. The Commission finds that the designated Comprehensive Designation for this property is Mixed -Use Regional. The property is currently zoned C -G, with a requirement for CUP approval of each building/use. The proposed use is generally harmonious with the requirements of the UDC (see Sections 8 and 10, above for more information regarding the requirements for this use.) 3. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. The Commission finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the general design, construction, operation, and maintenance of a retail building should be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing and intended character of the area. 4. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. The Commission finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the proposed uses will not adversely affect other property in the area. The Commission should rely upon any public testimony provided to determine if the development will adversely affect the other property in the vicinity. Exhibit D Page 1 :g'Y94{d�S 'Y 7"v",,if i� 1 Y a! •.'`5 -; .'}'". "!. iE } '.f.f iS,utt. s T t .a\ =�'.rx a�.ryr"{, fi y M31"^t"R' a f A f tt 14 .uSfr 4 '" K til t>f ,:l. A4, '�'"'#p�,�'`'v"F°}"k' pdry 4 $ st s$ 'F' # s*%"'�. E£ RYt S •yc ..�.± r. ,^< r k�.+ld P,�. u ; t YYYYYY 4 ^ ,� -� n�A'. xd�"i } d ""''°Y� .v Y .a �z 54'; P'^+ +Svi ., }{:'k Y h" CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNI*EPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAWU DATE OF AUGUST 17, 2006 i' 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools, parks, police and fire protection, drainage s r V structures, refuse disposal, water, and sewer. The Commission finds that sanitary sewer, domestic water, refuse disposal, and irrigation are ,. currently available to the subject property. Please refer to any comments prepared by the Meridian Fire Department, Police Department, Parks Department, Sanitary Services Corporation and ACRD. Based on comments from other agencies and departments, The Commission finds that the proposed use will be served adequately by all of the public facilities and services listed above. 6. That the ro osed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. services If the applicant will be financing any improvements required for development. The '; approved, Commission finds there will not be excessive additional requirements at public cost and that the .. proposed use will not be detrimental to the community's economic welfare. 7. That the use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment and Al proposed conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. The Commission recognizes that traffic and noise will increase with the approval of retail uses in this location; however, The Commission does not believe that the amount generated will be detrimental to the general welfare of the public. The Commission does not anticipate the use will create excessive noise, smoke, fairies, glare, or odors. The Commission finds proposed that the proposed uses will not be detrimental to people, property or the general welfare of the area. a1� 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. The Commission finds that there should not be any health, safety or environmental problems with this subdivision that should be brought to the Commission's attention. The associated Commission finds that the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural, scenic or historic feature of major importance. Exhibit D Page 2 , g'y Ft3ky{ ft lo e J Y'�r V t — A e, x � p. �".1k+tb t 4` OW t T k 0 August 28, 2006 AZ 06-032 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING August 31, 2006 APPLICANT Conger Management Group ITEM NO. 4 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from July 20, 2006: Annexation and Zoning of 29.31 acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for Trilogy Subdivision - south side of Chinden Boulevard and east of Black Cat Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Emailed: See ITD Comments See Previous Item Packet / See Attached Minutes See Memo for Continuance See Attached Comments See Attached Comments See Attached Comments Date: Phone: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. e August 28, 2006 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING August 31, 2006 • PP 06-032 APPLICANT Conger Management Group ITEM NO. 5 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from July 20, 2006: Preliminary Plat approval of 148 single-family Jots & 14 common/other lots including 2 private streets lots on 28.17 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Trilogy Subdivision - south side of Chinden Boulevard & east of Black Cat Rd AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See AZ Packet COMMENTS Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. a e August 28, 2006 • AZ -06-030 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING August 31, 2006 APPLICANT Gemstar Development, LLC ITEM NO. 6 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from August 3, 2006: Annexation and Zoning of 8.03 acres to an R-8 zone for Northborough Subdivsion - north of Ustick Road and east of Linder Road AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIDE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: COMMENTS See Previous Item Packet / See Attached Minutes See Attached Staff Report See Attached Comments INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See Attached Letter from Lester & Betty Vogel Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. AP 44^^ y," t k, 'Y «yx t k, 'Y August 28, 2006PP-06-030 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING August 31, 2006 APPLICANT Gemstar Development, LLC ITEM NO. % REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from August 3, 2006: Preliminary Plat approval of 35 residential lots & 4 common lots on 8.03 acres in the proposed R-8 zone for Northborough Subdivision - north of Ustick Road and east of Linder Road AGENCY COMMENTS } CITY CLERK: See AZ Item Packet CITY ENGINEER: Y. CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: 7-` CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: " . CITY PARKS DEPT: tU 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. p � e>, } +f'} .. a�• `�.ek . .'-� $ ': =r,{, 2 I s�aN Yi s �.,.k 8 ��WS ��+{ _ „y.t''9,�r sr m ] £21 ll i 3 • 0 August 28, 2006 AZ 06-041 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING August 31, 2006 APPLICANT Larry C. Harpe ITEM NO. 8 REQUEST Public Hearing - Annexation and Zoning of 8.95 acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for Harpe Subdivision - 4715 N. Locust Grove Road AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: COMMENTS See Attached Staff Report No Comment See Attached Comments No Comment See Attached Comments INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See Attached Affidavit of Sign Posting Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ."cl g i 1 � E t d,-^--k'tu k?� =N> y��04 �z e"'i-.`N< • 0 August 28, 2006 AZ 06-041 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING August 31, 2006 APPLICANT Larry C. Harpe ITEM NO. 8 REQUEST Public Hearing - Annexation and Zoning of 8.95 acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for Harpe Subdivision - 4715 N. Locust Grove Road AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: COMMENTS See Attached Staff Report No Comment See Attached Comments No Comment See Attached Comments INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See Attached Affidavit of Sign Posting Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ."cl g i 1 � E t d,-^--k'tu k?� g a e"'i-.`N< .. r £ .#' tromp '}p EY�f+ `3Y.1"«. �5• p `4 ! { . d M. e Fn z Y�� "➢ e • August 28,2W6 PP 06-042 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING August 31, 2006 APPLICANT Larry C. Harpe ITEM NO. 9 REQUEST Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat approval of 24 residential lots and 3 common lots on 8.95 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Harpe Subdivision - 4715 N. Locust Grove Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Emailed: See AZ Packet Date: Staff Initials: Phone: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. k{E S"'ti �� y'r'k•"h. �' tH}." s #" i TWI •..' t .tomo S {{'.� ; it 9'i- xK an3rr}0" rw, k F r u x+ y k >� 4 � �%�y�•�? '9eSkg y_ }; fie.; ` 5 �'��,� h k,',.9 �':-= C'a tr,•�, _ .r F • • August 28, 2006 CUP 06-024 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING August 31, 2006 APPLICANT W.H. Moore Company ITEM NO. 10 REQUEST Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit for the construction of an 11,029 square foot multi -tenant retail building for Grandview Marketplace, Retail Building #2 - NWC of Overland Road & Eagle 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: See Attached Emails See Attached Comments See Attached Comments OTHER: See Attached Affidavit of Sign Posting Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. e e August 28, 2006 PP 06-037 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING August 31, 2006 APPLICANT Moose Creek Construction ITEM NO. REQUEST Public Hearing- Preliminary Plat appproval for six single-family residential building lots and one common lot on 1.96 acres Within the R-4 zone for Moose Creek Subdivision - 4275 N. Jones Creek Lane AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Attached Staff Report CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: No Comment CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: See Attached Comments SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: See Attached Comments CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: See Attached Comments NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: See Attached Comments SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: See Attached Comments IDAHO POWER: I INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See Attached Affidavit of Sign Posting / See Attached Packet from Terri Jones Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: iV- Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. 4 .. F { 4 t eb z} a , f e u Ti A `.a r, a �T rs s e • August 28, 2006 AZ 06-035 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING August 31, 2006 r APPLICANT The Regency at River Valley, LLC ITEM NO. 12 REQUEST Public Hearing - Annexation & Zoning of 12.06 acres to C -C (1.50 acres) and R-40 (10.56 acres) zones for Regency at River Valley - east of Eagle Rd and north of Fairview Avenue AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: r CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Attached Staff Report CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: ' CITY SEWER DEPT: No Comment CITY PARKS DEPT: �r. MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: See Attached Comments SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: �b~ CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: See Attached Comments NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: See Attached Comments SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: See Attached Comments IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: + OTHER: See Attached Comments from ITD Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: k Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Y fl _.:. 1- u x 1 + ., F xa.M' r ...E 7- rk fiM„+'q:+ 7 .t+`r g, 7 S 0 August 28, 2006 CUP 06-022 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING August 31, 2006 APPLICANT The Regency at River Valley, LLC ITEM NO. 13 REQUEST Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit approval to construct a multi -family _development consisting of 204 multi -family dwelling units on 12.06 acres in a proposed R-40 zone for Regency at River Valley - east of Eagle Rd & north of Fairview Ave. AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Emailed: COMMENTS See AZ Packet Date: Staff Initials: Phone: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.