Loading...
2005 11-17CITY OF MERIDIAN MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Thursday, November 17, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers 1. Roll -call Attendance: Keith Borup Wendy Newton-Huckabay David Moe Michael Rohm David Zaremba - chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of October 20, 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: Approve B. Approve Minutes of October 17, 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting: Approve C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 05-048 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a 96,000 square foot department store in a C -G zone for Kohl's Department Store by W.H. Moore — NWC of North Eagle Road and East Ustick Road: Approve with Amendments 4. Presentation: Blue Print for Good Growth by Karen Doherty: Rescheduled to December 1, 2005 5. Continued Public Hearing from November 3, 2005: AZ 05-048 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 14.81 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for McGee Property by Martin Artis — 3086 South Mesa Way and 1252 East Victory Road: Recommend Approval to City Council 6. Continued Pubic Hearing from November 3, 2005: AZ 05-049 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.15 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for Carrington Property by Mark & Karen Carrington — 2955 South Locust Grove Road: Recommend Approval to City Council 7. Continued Public Hearing from October 20, 2005: AZ 05-045 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 91.085 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — November 17, 2005 Page 1 of 3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. Reflection Ridge Subdivision by M & H Development, LLC — 4275 South Locust Grove Road: Continue Public Hearing to January 5, 2006 8. Continued Public Hearing from October 20, 2005: PP 05-048 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 255 building lots and 26 other lots on 91.085 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Reflection Ridge Subdivision by M & H Development, LLC — 4275 South Locust Grove Road: Continue Public Hearing to January 5, 2006 9. Continued Public Hearing from October 20, 2005: CUP 05-046 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for 255 single-family residential dwelling units with reductions to minimum lot sizes, frontage and setbacks. Also, the applicant is requesting a waiver of the standard block length in a proposed R-4 zone for Reflection Ridge Subdivision by M & H Development, LLC — 4275 South Locust Grove Road: Continue Public Hearing to January 5, 2006 10. Public Hearing: AZ 05-050 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.0 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for Reserve Subdivision by Dave McKinnon with Conger Management Group, Inc. — west of North Locust Grove Road and south of Chinden Boulevard: Continue Public Hearing to December 8, 2005 11. Public Hearing: PP 05-051 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 12 single-family residential building lots and 5 common lots on 5.0 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Reserve Subdivision by Dave McKinnon with Conger Management Group, Inc. - west of North Locust Grove Road and south of Chinden Boulevard: Continue Public Hearing to December 8, 2005 12. Public Hearing: PP 05-054 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 22 building lots and 1 other lot on 15.35 acres in an L -O zone for Touchmark Center Subdivision by Touchmark of the Treasure Valley — southwest corner of Touchmark Way and Franklin Road: Continue Public Hearing to December 8, 2005 13. Public Hearing: CUP 05-050 Request for a Conceptual Conditional Use for office uses on 15.35 acres in an L -O zone for Touchmark Center Subdivision by Touchmark of the Treasure Valley — southwest corner of Touchmark Way and Franklin Road: Continue Public Hearing to December 8, 2005 14. Public Hearing: AZ 05-052 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 7.87 acres from R1 to C -G zone for Sadie Creek Promenade Subdivision by Landmark Development Group, LLC — 3055 North Eagle Road: Continue Public Hearing to December 8, 2005 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — November 17, 2005 Page 2 of 3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. 15. Public Hearing: PP 05-053 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 24 commercial building lots 15.33 acres in a proposed C -G zone and an approved C -G zone for Sadie Creek Promenade Subdivision by Landmark Development Group, LLC — 3055 and 3085 North Eagle Road: Continue Public Hearing to December 8, 2005 16. Public Hearing: Request for a conceptual Conditional Use for retail, restaurant, drive-thru and office uses in a proposed C -G zone and an approved C -G zone for Sadie Creek Promenade Subdivision by Landmark Development Group, LLC —'3055 and 3085 North Eagle Road: Continue Public Hearing to December 8, 2005 17. Review Modification to Planning Department Application: Discussed Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — November 17, 2005 Page 3 of 3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. • CITY OF MERIDIAN MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Thursday, November 17, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers 1. Roll -call Attendance: Keith Borup Wendy Newton-Huckabay David Moe Michael Rohm _David Zaremba - chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes ofTeV!Ovkj tober 20, 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: B. Approve Minutes of October 17, 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting: V (0 0e, C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 05-048 Request fora Conditional Use Permit for a 96,000 square foot department store in a C -G zone for Kohl's Department Store by W. H. Moore WC of North Eagle Road anq East U tick Road: 4. Presentation: lue Print'fr Goo Gr wth by Karen Doherty: 5. Continued Public Hearing from November 3, 2045: AZ 05-048 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 14.81 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for McGee Property by Martin Artis — 3086 South Mesa Way and 1252 East Victory Road: � � o mw mk W C 0 Q(XI `t G l 6. Continued Pubic Hearing from November 3, 2005: AZ 05-049 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.15 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for Carrington Property by Mark & Ka en Carrington — 2955 South Locust Grove Road: 7. Continued Public Hearing from October 20, 2005: AZ 05-045 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 91.085 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for Reflection Ridge Subdivisio by M & H Development, LLC — 4275 South Locust Grove Road: 00V4vtoc / a fb j 61 r) . S-) do� Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda— �ovember 17, 2005 Page 1 of 3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. 8. Continued Public Hearing from October 20, 2005: PP 05-048 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 255 building lots and 26 other lots on 91.085 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Reflection Ridge Subdivision by M & H Develo ent LLC - 4275 S uth ocust Grove . ad: �uvi ,L5�o� 9. Continued Public Hearing from October 20, 2005: �UP 05-046 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for 255 single-family residential dwelling units with reductions to minimum lot sizes, frontage and setbacks. Also, the applicant is requesting a waiver of the standard block length in a proposed R-4 zone for Reflection Ridge Subdivision by M & H Development, LLC - 4275 South Locust Grove Road:cUofi(lU-t. P1 k �an- S 1 �0®C� 10. Public Hearing: AZ 05-050 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.0 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for Reserve Subdivision by Dave McKinnon with Conger Management Group, Inc. - west of North Locust Grove Road and south of Chinden o'nulgvard: r-0 �( _ 11. Public Hearing: PP 05-051 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 12 single-family residential building lots and 5 common lots on 5.0 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Reserve Subdivision by Dave McKinnon with Conger Management Group, Inc. - west of North Locust Grove Road and south of Chinden Boulevard: bq,f "'L P/0 12. Public Hearing: P 05-054 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 22 building lots and 1 other lot on 15.35 acres in an L -O zone for Touchmark Center Subdivision by Touchmark of the Treasure Valley - southwest corner of TouchmCk Way and F n Ii Roa gs coos13. Public Hearing:UP 05-050 equest for a Conceptual Conditional Use for office uses on 15.35 acres in an L -O zone for Touchmark Center Subdivision by Touchmark of the Treasure Valley - southwest comer of Touchmark Way aFr nklin Road: 1 D �T a v� �/ 8- 0 L e e. S, :2oos- 14. Public Hearing: AZ 05-052 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 7.87 acres from R1 to C -G zone for Sadie Creek Promenade Subdivision by Landmark Development Group, LL 3055 N rth Ea Road: (�o �� - - - j0 rQ 15. Public Hearing: P 05-053 R�quest for Preliminary kat approval of 24 commercial building lots 15.33 acres in a proposed C -G zone and an approved C -G zone for Sadie Creek Promenade Subdivision by Landmark Develo end Group, - q055 a d 3085 Nort�Eagge Road: r1 -h VVj O - Q- . SCho 16. Public Hearing. Request for a conceptual Conditional Use for retail, restaurant, drive-thru and office uses in a proposed C -G zone and an Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda— November 17, 2005 Page 2 of 3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. r� n 3 C � 12 5 2 N � � a r j t M ter 44 1 F � k 0 approved C -G zone for Sadie Creek Promenade Subdivision by Landmark Development Group, L 3 5 d 3085 North Eagle Road: (►� l �'►�'� ) e,c. 8� 9603 17. Review Modification to Planning Department Application: �� 5 C,0 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda— November 17, 2005 Page 3 of 3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. 2 6 j t M ter 44 1 F � k f S to uvzu�, .i g x44FF "k'id41 A z A *.fi R N�.. x II Public Works 660 E. Watertower Lane Affected are the Reserve Subdivision, Touchmark Center Subdivision and Suite 200 Sadie Creek Promenade Subdivision. After discussing the matter with the 898-5500 /fax 898-9551 City Attorney's Office and the Planning Department, we need to re -notice - Building the three projects in question. The earliest possible hearing date is 660 E. Watertower Lane December 8, 2005 (as a special meeting) or December 15, 2005, which is Suite 150 already long agenda. 887-2211 /fax 887-1297 y a g g - Wastewater The City Clerk's Office and Planning Department requests your input as 3401 N. Ten Mile Road to which meeting date these items should be re -noticed for. Thank you. 888-2191 / fax 884-0744 - Water 2235 N.W. 8th StreetC��'l( vl� C�1n.v� ��i� o v�,J 888-5242 /fax 884-1159 Lk;.IL VL��-C Q r,v2G�i n� C -fes .kms ti 151 L��c�, CITY MALL 33 EAST IDAHo AVENUE MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 (208) 888-4433 CITY CLERK - FAX 888-4218 CITY ATTORNEY / HR - FAX 884-8723 FINANCE & UTILITY BILLING - FAX 887-4813 MAYOR'S OFFICE - FAX 8848119 Printed on recycled paper / a F QkFd N�'4 CITY OC� ``�' .... IDAHO FC �ja ,eR � TREASURE VN-�Y SINCE 1003 MAYOR Tammy de Weerd MEMO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS Keith Bird Christine Donnell Date: November 14, 2005 Charles M. Rountree Shaun Wardle To: Planning & Zoning Commission and City Staff CITY DEPARTMENTS From: Sharon Smith`='Meridian City Clerk's Office Fire 540 E. Franklin Road RE: November 17, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission 888-1234 / fax 895-0390 Meeting Agenda Items — Publication Error Parks & Recreation 11 W. Bower Street 888-3579 / fax 898-5501 Frank at The Valley Times called our office this morning to alert us to the Planning fact that an error was made in the publication of the notices for the 660 E. Watertower Lane November 17, 2005 P & Z Commission agenda items. The notice for this Suite 202 meeting was to be published on October 31st and November 14th, 2005. 884-5533 /fax 888-6844 The Valley Times did not publish the first notice on October 31St. Frank Police caught the error today as the item published for the first time. He was 1401 E. Watertower Lane very apologetic about the situation — this has rarely been a problem with 888-6678 / 846-7366 The Valley Times. Public Works 660 E. Watertower Lane Affected are the Reserve Subdivision, Touchmark Center Subdivision and Suite 200 Sadie Creek Promenade Subdivision. After discussing the matter with the 898-5500 /fax 898-9551 City Attorney's Office and the Planning Department, we need to re -notice - Building the three projects in question. The earliest possible hearing date is 660 E. Watertower Lane December 8, 2005 (as a special meeting) or December 15, 2005, which is Suite 150 already long agenda. 887-2211 /fax 887-1297 y a g g - Wastewater The City Clerk's Office and Planning Department requests your input as 3401 N. Ten Mile Road to which meeting date these items should be re -noticed for. Thank you. 888-2191 / fax 884-0744 - Water 2235 N.W. 8th StreetC��'l( vl� C�1n.v� ��i� o v�,J 888-5242 /fax 884-1159 Lk;.IL VL��-C Q r,v2G�i n� C -fes .kms ti 151 L��c�, CITY MALL 33 EAST IDAHo AVENUE MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 (208) 888-4433 CITY CLERK - FAX 888-4218 CITY ATTORNEY / HR - FAX 884-8723 FINANCE & UTILITY BILLING - FAX 887-4813 MAYOR'S OFFICE - FAX 8848119 Printed on recycled paper ** TX CONFIRMATTO REPORT ** DATE TIME TO/FROM Oe 11/14 17:24 3362282 AS OF NOV 14 '0017:25 PAGE.01 CITY OF MERIDIAN MODE MIN/SEC PGS CMD# STATUS EC --S 00'28" 001 217 OK t x �+r CITY Or '. iDAI I la I 'fue �� V„ubv MAYOR Tammy do Weerd MEMO Cm COUNCIL NfixomR.i Keith Bird Christine Donnell Date: November 14, 2005 Charles M. Rountree Shaun Wardle To: Planning & Zoning Commission and City Staff CITY DErMUMRNTS From: Sharon Smi�Meridian City Clerk's Office Fire 540 E. Franklin Road RIE; November 17, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission 888-1234 / fax 895-0390 Meeting Agenda Items — Publication Error Parks & Recreation 11 W. Dower Street 888-3579 / fax 898-5501 Frank at The Valley Times called our office this morning to alert us to the Planning fact that an error was made in the publication of the notices for the 660 E. Watertower lane November 17, 2005 P & Z Commission agenda items. The notice for this SURE 202 889-553.3 /fax 888-6844 meeting was to be published on October 31" and November 140, 2005. The valley Times did not publish the first notice on October 31". Frank Police caught the error today as the item published for the first time. He was 1401 F. Watertower Lane very apologetic about the situation — this has rarely been a problem with 888-6678 / 846-7366 The valley Times. Public Works 660 E. Watertower Lane Affected are the Reserve Subdivision, Touchmark Center Subdivision and Suite 200 898-5500 /fax 898-9551 � Sadie Creek Promenade Subdivision. After discussing the matter with the City Attorney's Office and the Planning Department, we need to re -notice - Building the three projects in question. The earliest possible hearing date is 66D E. Watcrtower Lane,,December 8, 2005 (as a special meeting) or December 15, 2005, which is Suite 150 already Ion agenda. 887-2211 / fax 887-1297 Y a g g 3401 Wastewater Ten Mile Road City Clerk's Office and Planning Department requests your input as 868-2191 / fax 884-0744 to which meeting date these items should be re -noticed for. Thank you. Water 2235 N.W. 8th Street 888-5242 / fax 884-1159 CITY H,kLL 33 EAST Inatio AvENua 1V111tttDTAN, IDA1r0 83642 (208)888-4M CITY C1.Fim -FAX 88A -Q18 CITY ATTORNEY / HR- FAX 884.6723 FINANCE & UT1LrrY HILUNG -PAX 887-4818 MAYOR'S Orr.10E - FAX 664.8119 printed an recycled paper CITY IDAHO tiF cF R TREASURE VAUE'� BINCE 1003 MAYOR Tammy de Weerd CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS Keith Bird Christine Donnell Charles M. Rountree Shaun Wardle CITY DEPARTMENTS Fire 540 E. Franklin Road 888-1234 / fax 895-0390 Parks & Recreation 11 W. Bower Street 888-3579 / fax 898-5501 Planning 660 E. Watertower Lane Suite 202 884-5533 / fax 888-6844 Police 1401 E. Watertower Lane 888-6678 / 846-7366 Public Works 660 E. Watertower Lane Suite 200 898-5500 / fax 898-9551 - Building 660 E. Watertower Lane Suite 150 887-2211 / fax 887-1297 - Wastewater 3401 N. Ten Mile Road 888-2191 / fax 884-0744 - Water 2235 N.W. 8th Street 888-5242 / fax 884-1159 MEMO Date: November 14, 2005 To: Planning & Zoning Commission and City Staff From: Sharon Smith`='Meridian City Clerk's Office RE: November 17, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda Items — Publication Error Frank at The Valley Times called our office this morning to alert us to the fact that an error was made in the publication of the notices for the November 17, 2005 P & Z Commission agenda items. The notice for this meeting was to be published on October 31St and November 14th, 2005. The Valley Times did not publish the first notice on October 31 St. Frank caught the error today as the item published for the first time. He was very apologetic about the situation — this has rarely been a problem with The Valley Times. Affected are the Reserve Subdivision, Touchmark Center Subdivision and Sadie Creek Promenade Subdivision. After discussing the matter with the City Attorney's Office and the Planning Department, we need to re -notice the three projects in question. The earliest possible hearing date is December 8, 2005 (as a special meeting) or December 15, 2005, which is already a long agenda. The City Clerk's Office and Planning Department requests your input as to which meeting date these items should be re -noticed for. Thank you. CrrY HALL 33 EAST IDAHo AvENuE MERIDIAN, IDAHo 83642 (208) 888-4433 CITY CLERK - FAX 888-4218 CITY ATTORNEY / HR - FAX 884-8723 FINANCE & UTILITY BILLING - FAX 887-4813 MAYOR'S OFFICE - FAX 884-8119 Printed on recycled paper 0 0 Meridian Plannina and Zoning Meeting November 17, 2005. Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of November 17, 2005, was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman David Zaremba. Members Present: Chairman David Commissioner Wendy-Newton-Huckabay, Commissioner David Moe. Zaremba, Commissioner Keith Borup, Commissioner Michael Rohm, and Others Present: Ted Baird, Jessica Johnson, Craig Hood, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll -Call Attendance: Roll -call X Keith Borup X David Moe X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Michael Rohm X Chairman David Zaremba Zaremba: Good evening, everybody, and welcome to this regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for Thursday, November 17th, 2005. We will begin with the roll call of attendance. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: Zaremba: The next item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda and I have some news that we are actually going to require some discussion during the adoption of the agenda. Items 7, 8 and 9, referring to Reflection Ridge, the ACHD report has not -- actually, ACHD has not met about that subject yet and the report is not made and there is a request to continue that one. The anticipation is that the report probably will not be ready soon enough to have all the staff comments and to be to us by the requested date of December 15th. So, I'm suggesting that we continue that one to our next meeting, which is January 5th. We will actually vote on these when I open the hearings, but let me ask for a consensus. The ACHD report is very important to me and I think others have expressed that it is and it's important to staff in case anything gets changed. So, can we anticipate that we will continue Reflection Ridge to January 5th? Moe: Mr. Chairman, I would say so. That, quite frankly, with the other hearings that we are going to continue tonight, any sooner than that I think is going to -- Zaremba: Okay. All right. So, Reflection Ridge, when we get to it, that will go to January 5th, '06. My gosh. Okay. Items 10 and 11, which refer to Reserve Subdivision; 12 and 13, which refer to Touchmark Center Subdivision, and 14, 15 and 16, which refer to Sadie Creek Promenade Subdivision, I'm sorry to announce that there was a flaw in the legal notice required to get everybody. There is three different kinds of notices that have to go out and one of them was flawed, so we cannot hold a hearing on those items, because they have not been legally, properly noticed. In order to get the Meridian Planning & Zoning November 17, 2005 Page 2 of 37 notice done, they actually cannot be heard on our December 1 st meeting, they won't -- the notice won't make that. So, it has to at least be December 8th, if the Commission decides to have a special extra meeting, or December 17th, which is our regular meeting, which currently has six subdivisions on it and it would be an all nighter. So, let me get a consensus of the Commission of what you wish to do with those. I will say, referring to the 17th, I have not actually contacted the person that I was going to do a presentation that day, so I could easily cancel that presentation -- or just not schedule it. Let me get opinions from people. Commissioner Rohm? Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I think the 8th would be a good date for these three, if the balance of the Commission is willing to come in an extra night. Zaremba: Other opinions? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I have a question. It would just be for those three hearings or are we going to tack other hearings onto that? Zaremba: Yes. I'm sure there may be a fourth one that would add to that. And let me ask Mr. Hood. Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, there was one possibly we thought would go to the 8th, but I think that needs to be continued out, again, for the same reason that Reflection is. We don't have ACHD. So, it would just be those three that I'm aware of right now. Zaremba: Okay. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I just -- a couple things I want to talk about. Remember, we do have a special meeting on the 29th. Zaremba: Also. Moe: Then, we will meet that following -- Zaremba: And, then, our regular meeting. Moe: The regular meeting and, then, another meeting on the 8th. Rohm: But the pay is so good. Moe: And the 15th. You know, you're absolutely right. Unfortunately, with the notice not being done, I don't think it would be very fair to the applicants, because it wasn't Meridian Planning & Zoning November 17, 2005 Page 3 of 37 their fault, to extend it out any farther, but -- and I don't see, either on the 15th where we are already booked as well, so something would have to get moved. So, I'm not sure we have any other choice, other than to have a meeting on the 8th as well. Borup: Mr. Chairman, yeah, I agree with that. I mean no one loves extra meetings more than me, but I hate to see things getting all backed up anymore than they would be. Moe: And, besides that, this is so much fun. Zaremba: Well, I enjoy it. Newton-Huckabay: Well, I -- Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, you asked a question, but you didn't expression an opinion. Newton-Huckabay: That would be fine. Zaremba: Okay. So, the consensus of the Commission -- and, again, we will officially do this when we get to those items on the agenda, but Reserve Subdivision, Touchmark Center Subdivision, Sadie Creek Promenade Subdivision, will all be continued to a special meeting on Thursday, December 8th, beginning at 7:00 o'clock. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I do have one request in relation to that. To, please, endeavor not to add anything else onto that meeting on that night, even though it may -- Zaremba: Would be attractive? Newton-Huckabay: -- be an attractive option. Zaremba: That's excellent direction for staff. Borup: We will see. Zaremba: Carry it on to the director, if you would, please. Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: I would just like to keep -- those are all three subdivisions anyway, so it will take several hours as it stands. Zaremba: All right. That being said, unless I hear any other comments, we will consider the agenda adopted and acknowledge that some of those things will happen. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 17, 2005 Page 4 of 37 Thank you all for coming. I'm sorry we are not discussing them tonight, but we will get to them. At this point I'd like to ask our City Attorney, Mr. Baird, to make an introduction. Moe: Are we doing that prior to going through the Consent Agenda? Zaremba: Yes. Baird: I will make it quick. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, we have recently expanded our legal staff to add a part-time assistant city attorney. Emily Cane is over here. She is recently with the State Attorney General. She was specializing in environmental law, but she also does have a background in municipal law. So, we are very happy to have her. She will probably not be attending too many of these meetings, because we promised her we wouldn't be giving her night duty right at the start here. But she is available and you might see her at meetings or see her name on memos and whatnot. And while I do have the floor, I have also been asked to announce that there is an enhancement -- another staff enhancement in the Clerk's Office. Jessica Johnson has been appointed as the Liaison to the Planning Department. She actually has an office now at the office on Watertower. So, she's doing reports over there and trying to make a smoother transition between the Clerk's Office and the Planning Department, so Zaremba: Thank you very much. Welcome, Emily, and congratulations on the change and all that is very good. Thank you. Item 3: Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of October 20, 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: B. Approve Minutes of October 17, 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting: C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 05-048 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a 96,000 square foot department store in a C -G zone for Kohl's Department Store by W.H. Moore — NWC of North Eagle Road and East Ustick Road: Zaremba: Next item is the Consent Agenda and I have no comments on the Consent Agenda. Does anybody else? Everybody is amazed. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I do. Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: But it would not be on any of the meeting minutes. On Item C under the Findings of Facts and Conclusions, I have a question under the decision and order, which would Meridian Planning & Zoning • November 17, 2005 Page 5 of 37 be on page 2. C-3, where it discusses that the applicant shall work with the Planning Department staff to modify the south and west building elevations per the staff report, if you will remember in the meeting we were discussing both those elevations, as well as the trash enclosure area and I'm a little bit concerned that -- because there is going to be quite a bit of change to those two elevations, that this report is kind of bringing it to -- that those will be the only two items that are discussed. And I know we discussed with staff that they would have the ability to talk with the applicant to make those changes, but with nothing being said here with the trash enclosure screening and that, I'm just -- I'm curious if we are okay with this wording or if we are going to have any problems when it comes down to them working with staff. Because back on -- also on Exhibit F, page one, it just brings it up again that the applicant shall coordinate with the elevation modifications with the planning department staff and I know we did discuss other than just those two elevations, so -- so, my question would be where do we go from here with that? Zaremba: My question to the attorney, Mr. Baird, is that something we can hand write, in addition to the official copy I sign, or do we need to have a new copy? I agree with the comment. Baird: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, if you have language that you have in your minds that you think fulfills what your motion was, you can make that on the record tonight and go ahead and pass those Findings. Craig over there will probably make notes and update the official copy of it. I think if you can do that, it would avoid further delay on this. If it's -- I would ask also for Craig to chime in. If you think its necessary to bring back a printed form, we can do that, but -- Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, and legal staff, I think that we can make that -- if it's just a sentence or two that you would like to add that clarifies what we are supposed to look for -- I'm not aware of all the discussion, I was not here at that hearing, so if you want to add a sentence or two with screening trash enclosures or whatever modifications to those elevations you want to see to be more specific, I can sure write those in, get those to the clerk, and have the chair sign those at the end of this meeting and so it's up to you, I think, to prevent this from having to go back and come back in two weeks, that's probably the easiest way and, then, we can do that at City Council, we can just strike through and add things if they are minor, so -- Moe: Okay. Zaremba: I'll give Commissioner Moe a moment to compose such an addition. Moe: Oh, boy. I guess I would ask the rest of the Commission -- do you remember anything other than the screening that we are missing on this in regards to what we had discussed with staff? Zaremba: Variations in texture or materials I think were part of the discussion. Variations in the parapet were part of the discussion. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 17, 2005 Page 6 of 37 Moe: That would all be part of the elevation changes. Zaremba: But probably all part of the elevations. Moe: Yeah. Just basic -- I think the only one was the screening, that it wasn't shown, so-- Zaremba: And was it just screening of dumpster locations or some kind of screening -- we never came to a conclusion of how close residential was going to be to the west of this, but did we want to discuss screening of the loading docks, as well as -- I remember that being mentioned, but I don't remember a decision. Moe: I think what I would probably do -- I think that fairly easily, starting in that second sentence there, just in particular the Commission supports a modification to the west elevation's roof line, wall projections, and screening, since its visible from the eastbound Ustick Road traffic. Just so that there is screening and, then, it's a simple matter of working with staff on what all they want to have screened, other than the trash area. Does that work? Zaremba: Give them the option. Moe: Okay. Zaremba: That works for me. The chair would entertain a motion to accept the Consent Agenda with the modifications specified to Item C. Moe: As stated. Borup: So moved. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second? Let's see. Commissioner Borup, were you seconding? Borup: Uh-huh. Zaremba: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. The Consent Agenda is adopted. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 4: Presentation: Blue Print for Good Growth by Karen Doherty: Zaremba: Next item is a presentation and I'm sorry to announce that Karen Doherty, who was going to make this presentation, called me earlier today and said yesterday she had to have gallbladder surgery and she's not quit prepared to stand up and make a Meridian Planning & Zoning November 17, 2005 Page 7 of 37 presentation today. So, I have agreed with her that we would move that presentation to our next scheduled meeting of December 1st. And if that's agreeable by the Commission, then, I think I will also proceed with not having a presentation on the third Thursday next month. We will move this presentation to the first and that will be it for this month and next month. Zaremba: Okay. In that case, we are up to the Public Hearing that we are going to deal with. Let me state first, for those of you that don't come to our hearings very often, we do have some procedure. In all cases the applicant and our professional staff have spent some time together discussing the items that are before us and we will begin with a report from our staff that describes for us and you where the project is located and what the project is and any issues that they have uncovered in regards to the Comprehensive Plan or the current ordinances of the City of Meridian. They are not advocating for the project, they are just explaining what complies and what doesn't comply and giving us as much background as they can. Following that, the applicant has a turn to actually be advocating the project, to put it on its best footing, as well as to answer any issues that have been raised by the staff that have not already been resolved and bring to our attention anything else they wish for us to know. We ask that the applicant limit their remarks to about 15 minutes. That includes any staff they may bring with them of architects or engineers or otherwise. Then, following the applicant's presentation is the time for the public testimony and that's when we ask anybody who cares to to come forward and tell us what they think we need to know about the project or how it impacts them. And we do ask that you limit your testimony to three minutes each. Try and be concise if you can. The one exception to that is if there is a spokesman and, typically, that would be a president of a homeowners association or something like that, that is going to speak for other people who are not going to speak, then, we give that spokes person ten minutes to speak. Following all the public testimony -- and, I'm sorry, we do ask -- you know, since it's important enough for you to come down, we want to make sure that we hear you and we do ask that you only speak when you're at the microphone and when you come forward, please, give your name and address for the record. Okay. Then, following the public testimony, we do ask that the applicant has been taking notes while you speak and, then, we give the applicant the final ten minutes to clarify anything they can relating to any issues that have been brought up and anything that they can explain to us and, then, theoretically, we close the Public Hearing and deliberate amongst ourselves, maybe ask staff some questions and following that make a recommendation to the City Council, where there is, again, a Public Hearing. So, that's pretty much the procedure. We have this handy light system here and when the green light is on you have time to speak. When the yellow one comes on, please, begin to conclude. And when the red one comes on we do ask that you conclude at that point. So, now, let me ask a question both of staff and the city attorney. Let me start with Mr. Baird. The first two items, although, technically, unrelated, are right next to each other and are pretty much the same issue. Is there any reason why we can't open both hearings for five and six at the same time? Baird: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission -- Meridian Planning & Zoning November 17, 2005 Page S of 37 Zaremba: They are represented by the same person. Baird: Unfortunately, I'd recommend against that. Zaremba: Okay. Baird: In order to keep the record clean in case some information came up that you might want to deny one and approve the other, you're going to go in separate directions, so to keep the record straight, they need to be separate. However, I think that staff is going to be giving probably more of the presentation for the first one as a general background, so you will probably have a quicker staff presentation on the second hearing. I'm just presuming that. But for purposes of maintaining separate records, I think we have to have separate public hearings. Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from November 3, 2005: AZ 05-048 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 14.81 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for McGee Property by Martin Artis — 3086 South Mesa Way and 1252 East Victory Road: Zaremba: I see Mr. Hood nodding and I appreciate your input. So, I will not combine them. In that case, let me open the continued Public Hearing for AZ 05-048, relating to the McGee property and even though this is continued, it was continued for a noticing thing and we have had no prior discussion on it. So, we will begin with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. And since this has been continued, but the staff report wasn't presented, as I promised, I will be brief, but I do want to run over some of the facts around this property and the adjacent property that we will discuss more in detail next. The applicant for the McGee annexation has applied for an R-4 zone, which is a medium to low-density residential zoning district on 14.81 acres that's outlined there in the purple color. It is currently zoned RUT in Ada county. The site is located on the north side of Victory Road and on the east side of Mesa Way, which is a local street in Kachina Estates. Its on the left-hand side. I'm going to grab a pointer real quick. Sorry about that. So, this is Mesa, which is in Kachina Estates. There are five lot subdivisions -- or five -acre lots in Kachina Estates, primarily, and the subject annexation incorporates three of those lots. As you can see from the aerial, its currently rural residential. There are two existing single-family homes on the subject property. The third parcel is currently vacant or does not have a home on it. Just to kind of orient some more, there is a grange hall here across Victory. This is the platted part of Tuscany Subdivision in the city. And I guess that's -- it's pretty much low density residential around this today. It is rapidly transforming into more urban densities, as some of the adjacent subdivisions to the east and west both. The applicant has not submitted a preliminary plat with the subject application. However, they did submit a conceptual site plan, which you see here. As the chair mentioned earlier, it's the same representative of this 14.8 acres as it is the next property. What we have done here is outlined the subject area in red. It should be noted that the city is not approving this concept plan. We do require these now with our annexations if they Meridian Planning & Zoning November 17, 2005 Page 9 of 37 don't submit a detailed site plan or preliminary plat. There are some concepts that we do like or we need to change with this concept plan. We have called that out in the development agreement, some of the conditions in the development agreement, and I will touch on those right now or after I just briefly kind of describe what's going on with the concept plan. We do have one public street coming in off of Mesa Way, which does tie back into Victory. And, then, internal streets throughout. They are public streets -- or that's at least one of the conditions that we are looking at with the development agreement. I think the applicant's proposing public streets anyway. It's not fully clear, but they have enough right of way that they could be public streets. Some of the other conditions in the development agreement that we were looking at -- the Comprehensive Plan map does show a multi -use pathway along the Ten Mile Creek and so we have made that a condition of when this property does develop they need to construct that pathway. It's kind of up to them to get it from Victory to Mesa, but it, basically, needs to go through this property. Also that the street buffer on Victory Road be installed, that all 14.8 acres be included in that plat. They are showing the existing home sites to be not a part of that subdivision and there is a couple of reasons that the staff is not supportive of leaving those existing homes out of plats. One is for infrastructure. You don't get the right of way, you don't get the sidewalk, you have gaps in those types of infrastructure. Two -- and this is the next part of the development agreement condition -- is they have existing access points to arterial streets and we do try to limit those and so we can reevaluate access points when these come back in or are part of a plat. If they are left out, they are basically grandfathered in and not part of that. So, that is something that those two are two -- the two main reasons that we do want to see this whole thing come back in for development and preliminary and final plat approval. And, then, probably the last couple ones that I will touch on is that we do like the interconnectivity proposed here, so they do need to, you know, show that -- or provide access to the adjacent five acre parcel, so those can develop when those property owners are ready to develop those sites. So, with that I think I will conclude my comments. Staff is recommending approval with those conditions as outlined in the staff report for the development agreement and I will stand for any questions you may have. Zaremba: Commissioners, any question, please? Commissioner Moe. Moe: Yes, I do have one. Craig, I would be curious, realizing this is just conceptual, would staff be looking at some type of a stub street to the property to the east? Hood: Mr. Chair and Commissioners, the stub street with this property, particularly -- and this is, again, assuming this whole thing develops -- I say the whole thing, the whole 20 acres develops together. Just by chance, if this just came in by itself, we would look for that interconnectivity here, to both of these five -acre parcels -- adjacent five acre parcels. The interconnectivity is provided through this other parcel, if it comes in. So, we haven't gotten into that much detail with these and specifically said this is where you need to provide this stub street. Some of those policies we have when we review subdivisions, so we can include those as conditions of approval for the subdivision, so -- Moe: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 17, 2005 Page 10 of 37 Zaremba: Thank you. Any other questions? Okay. We are ready for the applicant, then, please. Cronin: Eric Cronin with Roylance and Associates, representing our clients. Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, as Craig had mentioned, we are looking for an R-4 zone. As far as areas around it, it is -- does meet the Comp Plan with R-4 and areas around it, as well as R-8. As far as the two existing homes on these 14 plus acres, those are to be included in the platted subdivision if that were to -- as we move forward into the preliminary plat stage. I don't really know if there is a whole lot more to say, other than what Craig has said. It's all planned to be annexed in and rezoned as an R-4 is what we would like to see. And with that I would entertain any questions you guys may have. Zaremba: You mentioned that the two existing house lots would be included in the plat, I think you said. And you're comfortable with them being included in the annexation as well; right? Cronin: Correct. Zaremba: Okay. That was my only question. Rohm: As long as you agree with the staff report, it sounds pretty good to me, too. Cronin: We ask that all the area included within this annexation be annex and rezoned all as one portion. Borup: How about other aspects? Is there any part of the staff report on the requirements for the development agreement you had any concerns or questions on? Cronin: If there were concerns, it would be on the existing home lot along Victory Road, as far as -- it sounded like Craig mentioned to it, when we get further into the preliminary plat stage, the question about access -- direct access onto Victory would be looked into further at that point. Zaremba: And the likelihood is that it would be eliminated at that point. That's the goal. Cronin: Yes. Zaremba: Once there is an option -- once the street goes from the north end of the property -- Cronin: Yeah. And I believe that they would still be able to get lot access from the interior roads without a problem. Zaremba: That's just kind of a warning with that issue. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 17, 2005 Page 11 of 37 Cronin: That's understandable, yes. Zaremba: Okay. Cronin: Any further questions? Zaremba: No other questions? Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I may add this -- Eric as well, but the way that the DA condition is worded or the language that we are proposing in there is that it would -- when this plats, there is no direct lot access. So, that's how it's worded. There really isn't much up for discussion in the future the way it's currently written in the staff report. So, just so that's clear. The other thing, Mr. Chair, I did note there was some confusion, but everything is being included. What they have left out of the plat -- the conceptual plat are the two home lots. So, all of the property on these three lots are being annexed. So, I just -- it's all being annexed. We don't need new legal descriptions or anything like that. That's all good. It's all just to be included within the plat, so -- thank you. Zaremba: Great. Thank you. Cronin: As a clarification, that -- their larger blocks out of -- you know, it looks like they are less dense, it's just we wanted to include what was the majority of the green space that already existed as to that lot as its own still. If you were to look at the aerial and put that on top of it. ° Zaremba: All right. Thank you. We will take public testimony and, then, call on you again. Let's see. I will go through the list of people that signed up, but let me first ask if there is anybody who is a spokesman for a group of people or other people. Apparently not. Okay. We, then, we will go individually. Martin Artis. If you will come up to the microphone, sir. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: If I can make one -- just one quick question of the applicant. Did you guys have a neighborhood meeting in regards to this project? Zaremba: Please. Cronin: Eric Cronin again. At the time of applicant -- or application, there was not a need to be -- have posted for a neighborhood meeting. Now, if we were to go further we would have to, as I believe the application process has changed. Moe: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 17, 2005 Page 12 of 37 Rohm: So, the answer is no? Cronin: The answer is no. None was held. Moe: Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you, Mr. Artis. Artis: My name is Martin Artis. I'm the investor in this project and I believe it's going to be a very fine project and an asset to Meridian. That's all the comment I have. Zaremba: Thank you. Aaron McGee. You're welcome to say from where you are that you have been spoken for. Mr. McGee has been spoken for. Mark Carrington is it? He's been spoken for as well. Anna Key Binford. Or Aneke Binford. I'll let you correct me when you get up. Binford: It is actually Aneke Binford. Zaremba: Okay. Binford: And I live at 3101 South Mesa Way, which is -- it's the road that runs through -- across Ten Mile. I just -- I don't know if you're aware that Mesa Way is a dead-end street. You probably do know that. It's Kachina Estates. It is a fully developed neighborhood. It's not like a little piece of ground with acreages around it. And you're looking at the other plat map that they had. Yeah. It looks like there are probably, what, five or six houses that are going to be set right on Mesa Way and to me it's just pretty inconsistent to be putting that many houses in a five acre subdivision. It seems like there would be no difference than someone in Banbury saying, hey, we have got a pretty big lot behind us, let's put a duplex on it. So, it just -- I don't understand how that can be consistent with an established neighborhood, to start chunking away and I think it would affect our property values as well. So, that's all I have to say. So, I'm opposed to that. Zaremba: Any questions, Commissioners? Okay. We will have some discussion on that point. Thank you. Matt Binford. He's been spoken for. Thank you. Okay. The first name, I believe, is Tony and the last name might be Mose or Moore? Its Moss and he's been spoken for. Thank you. Ralph -- is it Lamms? Is that close? Let me take the next one and if I get to the end and haven't called you, then, we will assume that was the one. Rich Yarrington. Yarrington: Richard Yarrington and I live at 2550 Mesa Way. And the only concerns I have is the street access for the people that come out onto Mesa Way. I think that they should probably be bigger lots and maybe done different, so they stay inside their own subdivision. You know, I'm not against them subdividing the property, but I'd like to see Meridian Planning & Zoning November 17, 2005 Page 13 of 37 those houses -- they come back out in their own subdivision and not through our access. And that's my feelings on it. I'm against that part of it. Zaremba: Thank you. Any questions? Okay. Vince Sullivan. He's been spoken for. Okay. That leaves the one other person -- I know the last name begins with an L. The rest of it I'm not all that sure of. Nobody's saying they signed up on this one? Okay. Okay. We have been through everybody that signed up and there is an opportunity, if you didn't sign up, but feel that you have something that you need to add, this is your chance. Okay. In that case, we will ask Mr. Cronin to come back up again. Cronin: Name again? Zaremba: Uh? Cronin: Do I have to state my name again? Zaremba: Please. Yes. Cronin: This is Eric Cronin again. As far as speaking to Aneke's comments, as far as Mesa, it exists as a local street right now and so direct lot access is available, if I'm correct, to Mesa Way. And as far as -- I don't believe it would decrease your home value adding homes along the road at all and so I -- that's about all I have to say, is it's a local roadway. It allows access from private drives. Zaremba: I would comment that this is a concept and when we -- we are not, at this -- for the comfort of other people, we are not at this point approving this as if it were a plat. The discussion, actually, is only whether to annex or not. And I think you are getting some anticipation of what comments may be made when you hold a neighborhood meeting about the plat and perhaps be ready to anticipate those subjects and discussion them with people. Cronin: As far as what Rich had to say, I know, typically, ACHD will like to see the interconnectivity of roadways and not leaving all these residents to have one outlet, which in this case it would just be Victory Road. There is a lot of houses to get there and if there is only one access point it kind of limits the safety issue as a -- to further subdivide. And so interconnectivity is one of the reasons that we are typically required to stub to vacant lots, as well as -- if there is a local street that we can have access to. Rohm: Those are good topics for a community meeting, aren't they? Cronin: Correct. And it will be further discussed. Of course. Rohm: Thank you. Zaremba: Any other questions from the Commissioners? Does staff, have any further comment? Meridian Planning & Zoning November 17, 2005 Page 14 of 37 Hood: I may just add, Mr. Chair, onto what you said for the neighbors that are here today, this plat will be the subject of another Public Hearing, so just so everyone knows this is just for the annexation, as you stated. So, some of those design issues can be discussed a little bit more as far as roadway design and location and lot sizes and things like that. This is just for the R-4 zone now. So, just -- so, when I was out of -- really, the minutes of the subdivision that we discussed at a later date, so -- Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: If I can just make one observation. This would be an excellent opportunity to make sure that you have the names and addresses of those people who want to make -- to be noticed who may not be in the 300 feet zone, that would want notified of your neighborhood meeting. Cronin: These individuals may not be within the 300 feet you're indicating? Newton-Huckabay: Right. But it would be -- I'm just saying it would be a good opportunity. Just an observation on that part. Zaremba: Well -- and, actually, let me expand on that and clarify my own understanding. There are legal notice requirements when the official plat -- or preliminary plat that you present comes before us for a Public Hearing. In our new ordinance we do have a requirement that before that happens you hold a neighborhood meeting. That's a separate subject. But I'm not sure there is a notice requirement for the neighborhood meeting. And to expand on what Commissioner Newton-Huckabay said, you know, other than you going around knocking on doors or putting out fliers, it might be wise for you to ask the collected people for their name and address, so you can tell them about your neighborhood meeting, because I -- correct me if I'm wrong, but that's not subject to the legal notice requirements. Hood: Mr. Chair? Zaremba: Yes. Hood: For the Members of the Commission and everyone else, we do require that the applicant either hand deliver or mail before five days before this meeting is held, everyone within 300 feet, a notice of that meeting. So, we do have provisions -- very specific provisions of how you notice people you're having a meeting, so -- Zaremba: We had a major revision of the ordinances a couple months ago and we are all learning the new details. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 17, 2005 Page 15 of 37 Borup: I think maybe what Commissioner Newton-Huckabay may be saying is if those of you that would like a written notice, if you'd leave your name and address on a paper back there, then, that could get to you. Cronin: Yeah. That would be fine with me. I mean they may be within that 300 feet, but if they are not, if I can get them after the meeting. Newton-Huckabay: Well, it's an opportunity, rather than to meet up again at your Public Hearing for your subdivision, to workout the details with the neighbors prior to that. Cronin: And we would be required to have a neighborhood meeting with these, correct? Zaremba: We are just suggesting that if they give you their addresses, then, you will notify them of your meeting. Cronin: Not a problem. Newton-Huckabay: My personal thought is that a subdivision on five acre lots, that not everybody's going to be within 300 feet. Cronin: Okay. Not a problem. I will request it after the meeting. Zaremba: Thank you. Baird: Mr. Chair? Zaremba: Mr. Baird. Baird: Just so we can go on record that we can't make it a requirement that you go beyond that 300 feet, so I don't want anybody here to be upset if they don't get a letter. I would also suggest, though, that everybody's name and address is on the sign-up sheet and the applicant can get a copy of that at the clerk's office to simplify the process, if you choose to do that. Newton-Huckabay: Yes. I would say that's why I prefaced my statements as an observation. Zaremba: Thank you all. All right. Thank you, sir. Commissioners, discussion or are we ready to close the Public Hearing? Rohm: I think we are ready to close it. Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 05-048. Meridian Planning & Zoning • • November 17, 2005 Page 16 of 37 Newton-Huckabay: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move that -- Newton-Huckabay: Did you ask for discussion? Zaremba: We can discuss before we make the motion or we can discuss the motion after it's made. If you'd care to comment, please, do. Commissioner Newton- Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I'm sorry, I personally had no comment. I thought that Commissioner Borup had one. Borup: Well, I changed my mind on that. But I was going to say other than I do have -- I don't know if there is any -- is there any concern that when it comes back for preliminary plat that they could be applying for reduced standards or do we need to go on record here that we expect it to be to all of R-4 specifications? Hood: Mr. Chair, I assume that's directed at me. Borup: Yes. Zaremba: Mr. Hood. Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Borup, they do need to comply with all the R-4 zoning district standards. Now, they can always apply for a variance if they wanted to do something else or they would also have to modify this development agreement, because it also says you need to comply with the R-4 standards. So, that -- nothing's ever set in stone, but, yes, they do -- Borup: And it would be before this Commission also. Okay. Zaremba: Well -- and I would also comment, just for the applicant's benefit, this Commission does listen to the neighbors' comments and we will be concerned about not having the smallest possible lots along that west boundary. So, just something to think about in the development stage. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 17, 2005 Page 17 of 37 Borup: That's all I had. Zaremba: Okay. Are we ready for a motion? Rohm: I think so. Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 05-048, to include all staff comments, for the hearing date of November 17th, 2005. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a second? Moe: Yes. I was working on that, but I wanted to make sure that we do note that there is a development agreement required as well. Newton-Huckabay: Is that in the staff report? Zaremba: It is in the staff report. Moe: Okay. Second. Zaremba: But a good point to emphasize that. So, we do have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carnes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 6: Continued Pubic Hearing from November 3, 2005: AZ 05-049 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.15 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for Carrington Property by Mark & Karen Carrington — 2955 South Locust Grove Road: Zaremba: Thank you all very much. Moving on. Item 6. 1 would open the continued Public Hearing for AZ 05-049 and, again, a comment that it is continued only because of a notice problem before and there was no earlier discussion and we will begin with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The subject annexation and zoning request is, again, to the R-4 zone for 5.15 acres. This property is also currently zoned RUT in Ada county. It is shown as low density residential on the city's comprehensive future land use map. This property is located on the west side of Locust Grove Road, just north of Victory there, again, within Kachina Estates Subdivision. There is one existing home and some out buildings on the subject site. This is Lot 7, Meridian Planning & Zoning November 17, 2005 Page 18 of 37 Block 1, of Kachina. To the north is a city approved Salmon Rapids Subdivision, which is single family homes. Sherbrooke Hollows and Sageland Subdivision are across Locust Grove Road from the subject site. Also annexed and city approved developments there with single family homes. Again, the conceptual preliminary plat that was submitted with the annexation. I would note that there are 2.3 dwelling units per acre. I failed to mention the conceptual dwelling units per acre on the previous plan, that was just at two -- 2.1, 1 believe it was. On this 5.15 acres they are showing 12 home sites. So, it puts them just over two dwelling units per acre. A lot of the development agreement requirements that staff is recommending are similar to the McGee property annexation application. I will just touch on a couple of them real quick. Staff is recommending that all of this -- this subject property, the 5.15 acres, also be included with a future development application, again, so we can get that entire landscape buffer that's required along Locust Grove Road and no direct lot access to this site -- the existing home site actually has a circular drive and another driveway on the north side of the property back to their garage or shop back there. So, it's, again, shown as not a part on the conceptual plat, but that was another one of the conditions that we had. I think that's pretty much it. Staff is recommending approval of the subject annexation request to R-4 for the site and I will stand for any questions you may have. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? I guess not. Thank you. We are ready for the applicant to present this one. Cronin: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board, Eric Cronin with Roylance and Associates again representing the client. We are asking for annexation and rezone of the 5.15 acres to R-4, as it meets the Comp Plan. And, however, I ask Council to strike what staff has recommended in the development agreement that indicates all 5.15 acres be included within a proposed future development, because with the addition of right of way and a landscape buffer, the existing dwelling on this acreage would become unusable and have to be demoed. Currently, there are access points along Locust Grove, but as -- if the back end were to develop without the home site as part of the future development with the McGee portion, the only access would be to this single home as it is now today, as it stands. So, as far as no additional trips would be created and allowing that portion not to be within allows it so that the house can remain as is and not have to basically be demolished, because there is no way with the added right of way, street buffer, to access the driveway or the garages from within the subdivision that we talked about previously in the McGee annexation. At this point, with the McGee annexation and rezone potential, preliminary plat, going for in development, it gives his back three plus acres a great opportunity to be included within a subdivision at this point, because it's all going through at the same time. To require it all to be within the -- included within the potential further development of the McGee property, would mean that the house would have to be stricken and if that's the case may not want to proceed that way and, therefore, the tax base that would be received from those back -- the back portion being developed would not be received to the City of Meridian. So, that is my suggestion to that and I will take any questions at this time, if there are any. I'm sure there are. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 17, 2005 Page 19 of 37 Zaremba: You don't have any issue with the other items that are listed for the development agreement that's specifically the one? Cronin: That direct lot access -- Zaremba: Uh-huh. Cronin: -- being terminated and the entire portion being further developed with McGee portion. Those are the two that I would like you guys to look further into. Zaremba: All right. Thank you. Commissioners, any questions? Newton-Huckabay: I have none at this time. Borup: Mr. Chairman, I just have a couple. Zaremba: Commissioner Borup. Borup: I'd like maybe some discussion on the right of way. You're saying a future right of way for Locust Grove, anticipating -- have you talked with ACHD and what they have -- what would be consistent with -- to the north, then? Is it 90 -- what's that right of way that you're talking about and what distances are we talking about? Cronin: I might have to ask Craig on this one. Craig, do you recall what the added right of way would be along Locust Grove? Borup: Then you said that it would be unusable with the right of way and the buffer, so what's the distance -- what's the remaining setback? Cronin: With the added right of way and, then, I believe it's a 25 -foot buffer on top of the right of way, that's not included in the setback. The comer portion of the Carrington residence is within two feet of the buffer distance. So, when you add your setbacks to that you're going to be infringing upon that and to get -- if you were to come through off of Victory through the -- all the way through the potential development into the back, there is no way to access any of his garages or any of that. Borup: Are you saying it's -- it's only about 27 feet from -- from what would be the new right of way? Cronin: His existing home? Borup: Yes. Cronin: Roughly. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 17, 2005 Page 20 of 37 Hood: I do have that dimension. It was a 48, so I don't know if that 27 -- if that's what you're working off of. But ACHD did note in their staff report that -- Borup: You're looking at 96. Hood: You're looking at 96. Forty-eight from center line, yeah. Borup: That's what I was wondering, if they were looking at a full 96 there. Well, like I say, I agree with -- you know, that it all should be annexed and it doesn't make sense to have -- I mean eventually I don't -- you know, don't know when, but Locust Grove is going to be fully widened. It's going to have to happen at some time. Another option may be is a reduced -- you know, a -- Rohm: Reduced buffer? Borup: Yeah. What's the terminology there? But to workout a reduction in that buffer width. I personally -- I mean in this case, unless there is some more information, it seems to me like a make -- maybe makes sense to have access to Locust Grove on this one house. The other two -- I mean the other one, I don't know that it does on Victory, but -- because it's got enough room. This one -- Cronin: Commissioner, we are asking for the entire area to be annexed and rezoned. I wasn't sure if I mislead you. Borup: Okay. Yeah. But I thought you said you didn't want to plat it. Cronin: Within the future development of the other 15 acres of the McGee, plus this back portion. We asked that that not be included -- have to be included within a further development, but it can be -- Borup: So, it's going to be annexed into the city, but not developed is what you're proposing? Cronin: We are asking that the entire five plus acres be annexed and rezoned into the city. Borup: Okay. Cronin: At that time we would like to do a property line adjustment which would allow for it to become an out parcel and the remainder to be able to be developed so its a separate parcel. Borup: So, that's the direction you're trying to go? Cronin: Correct. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 17, 2005 Page 21 of 37 Borup: You'll probably not going to have a lot of sympathy on an out parcel I don't think, but -- I know what the staff feels, I know what we have done in the past. Zaremba: Mr. Rohm appears to have something to add on that subject and, then, I do as well. Rohm: I think your point's well taken, that the existing dwelling does not conform with the setback, plus the right of way adjustment once the roadway is expanded and I think that that's the issue at hand here and as long as at the point of development those issues can be resolved, then, it's almost a moot point whether its part of the development -- property development or not. As long as we can find a way to bring it in without having to remove the home is your point; is that correct? Cronin: Bring it into the city -- Rohm: Well, right. Bring it -- annex it into the city and be a part of this development if, in fact, the home can remain without having the buffer -- Newton-Huckabay: They can keep their access. Rohm: Yeah. Keep your access and then -- and minimize the buffer to -- so that it doesn't infringe on the dwelling itself. That's kind of what your point is; correct? Cronin: Correct. Yeah. And so the only -- the only lot within the developed subdivision -- further developed subdivision would be the existing parcel -- or the existing dwelling, where all other portions that were developed within this back acreage would take access off of either Mesa or Victory Roads. Rohm: And I guess my only further comment is as you work through the development with the staff I'm sure that those things can be worked out. That's as I would see it anyway. Cronin: Okay. Zaremba: My opinion may be near the opinions that have already been expressed. My feeling is the right of way is going to happen at some point anyhow. It's in the city's best interest to preserve most of the buffer, but I certainly can see having an exception in the neighborhood of the portion that would not be set back far enough. I could see a temporary exception allowing the access to Locust Grove, but I would want to see, perhaps, added to the development agreement that should the use or even the building that is currently on the property every be changed, then, that access would be given up. And what I mean by that is in your mind in thinking the design for the rest of the three and a half acres now, do prepare for sometime in the future if -- it maybe 20, 30 years away before this house would fall down or whatever. But at that point the rest of the subdivision should be designed, so that the new development that happens there could Meridian Planning & Zoning November 17, 2005 Page 22 of 37 take internal access and that being said, I would leave in the staff conditions that when you present the plat that this be part of it, with request for some variations. Rohm: Right. Zaremba: That would be my opinion. Let me ask staff whether it made sense or is it workable? Hood: It made sense. I guess if I may, just a couple of things to facilitate that a little bit. We do have an alternative compliance section of our ordinance, so its written specifically for instances like this where you can't just plop a 25 -foot wide landscape buffer down and there are sometimes you have existing structures or something that gets in the way. Now, we do look for the intent of that to still be met, so that may mean you have to put more trees. It's not as wide, but you put more trees in a 10 or 15 -foot wide buffer or something like that. So, as far as -- as far as a buffer -- and the right of way, I guess, is another one that I could touch on real quick. I didn't draw a picture of it out, but the 96 -foot right of way that ACHD is looking for, they actually do a 38 foot right of way with a sidewalk and an easement. So, their ultimate on an arterial is actually ten feet less than that, as long as you provide that sidewalk on your property within an easement and that could also be within the buffer. So, now we have reduced that, you know, what would otherwise be a 40 plus, you know, setback from the existing property line, pretty significantly. So, I think at least including this as a lot and block in the subdivision, if now the remaining thing is access, we could maybe strike that bullet that says no direct access and we can discuss this some more with a plat. I mean that would be, you know, something that I think that we can live with. Again, what we don't want to see is this not be a part and, then, we don't get the sidewalk there and we don't get the right of way and, then, I don't think it's in the best interest of the city to annex it. So, I think we can work around a lot of these things. Just for clarification, I drove by there -- didn't spend a lot of time out there. There is not -- the home itself doesn't have a garage that uses a circular drive; correct? This is the drop off to the front door; right? The garage is actually detached and you use the north driveway. You do have a garage on the front? Okay. Thank you. And so I just -- but that can be addressed in the future and it is an arterial and having people, you know, use that for direct access i think is probably -- but I won't belabor that anymore. I think there are ways around it. Zaremba: On that subject, I think my suggestion would be to at least leave in a statement that at some point that direct access will go away. Whether it needs to go away immediate or not, but I would tie that to a use change or a new building permit or whatever -- whatever would trigger this building being torn down however long from now that is. Hood: Yeah. If you wanted to include that in the -- Mr. Chair, if you wanted to include that in the development agreement, that's up to you. That would also be something we would look at with the plat. I mean if we had this on there, I have seen them written in a couple of times where you can use this until, you know, the house needs a building Meridian Planning & Zoning November 17, 2005 Page 23 of 37 permit. The use probably isn't going to change. There is not a lot you can do in an R-4, besides single-family homes. I think that -- Zaremba: Well, the second subject was not a use change, but if there ever needed to be a building permit for a new building on that property. Hood: And with the plat, I mean we would look for something -- you know, it could be as simple as providing that driveway -- you know, it wouldn't have to be a full public street. I mean just a driveway access to the end of that cul-de-sac that's further to the west. Yeah. Something just -- no. The other driveway crossing. It wouldn't have to be a full 50 -foot right of way, but just something so access could be provided in the future, if that's how you so choose to go with the plat, that we do provide that, and I guess that would be my two cents. Zaremba: I see some topographical contour lines converging in a narrow path there. Is there a ditch or anything there? What is the topography? I'm looking at what would be the upper right cul-de-sac. I'm sorry. I have one of those, too. Thank you. I can see it when you do it. I can't see it when I do it. Is that any kind of a terrain that would prevent connecting from this property to that property at sometime in the future? Cronin: I couldn't answer that. Maybe Mark could. Zaremba: Okay. We do have others, including him, signed up to speak, so maybe -- Borup: The aerial doesn't look like it's that big of a problem. Zaremba: Okay. Cronin: Craig, could we see that aerial photo? I don't believe I see any -- Borup: That's the ditch right there, isn't it? It looks like it's fairly small. Zaremba: Okay. All right. Borup: Relatively. Zaremba: All right. Let's proceed with the other public testimony if we need and, then, we will call you back up again. And, again, if you have been spoken for, you're welcome to say so. Mark Carrington. You have been spoken for? Thank you. Aaron McGee. Spoken for. Thank you. Martin Artis. Spoken for as well. Tony Moss. Spoken for. All right. In that case, that's everybody who signed up to speak. If there is anybody else who would care to add something. Well, in that case do we have anymore questions for Mr. Cronin? Oh, I'm sorry. Come forward, please. State your name and address again. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 17, 2005 Page 24 of 37 Yarrington: I'm Rich Yarrington. I live at 2550 Mesa Way. That -- our irrigation system runs right behind his house, so it runs -- there is the lot right -- okay. The water runs down that line, like you just showed it. But the ditch runs behind his house and there is access -- it runs to two spots, so we have to have access to get into that lot back there to change the headgate. And that ditch is just almost -- its -- most of it's piped, but it's just right on top of the ground. Zaremba: Okay. That helps. Borup: That's the water access you have for your lots? Yarrington: Yeah. In the back. Borup: Okay. Yarrington: Up on top and below. Borup: And water has to still be delivered. It's not going to be interrupted, but -- Yarrington: It has to be split there. Borup: But the choice may be -- they may want to -- it may be a matter of relocating the headgates or something to -- Yarrington: It could, because they split it to go underneath these lots -- it splits right here -- Zaremba: There is a hand microphone right next to it, if you would grab that. Yarrington: It splits right there and goes underneath those lots up there to feed three houses on the top end and, then, we change it and it runs down the line there and, then, it does the rest of the lots in the back. Borup: So, it's buried somewhere all through the subdivision? Yarrington: Yes. It's buried there and it's buried down the side there. Borup: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I think the only point that needs to be made is that they will be required to deliver your water one way or another. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 17, 2005 Page 25 of 37 Yarrington: Okay. Zaremba: Well -- and that's actually state law. Newton-Huckabay: Right. Zaremba: You must get your traditional water delivery at what you have been accustomed to. Whether they change it as it goes through their property, it all has to get to you the way it always has. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: Okay. Are there any questions -- further questions for Mr.Yarrington? Newton-Huckabay: There was one other -- Zaremba: Oh, was there anybody else who would care to speak? I'm song. I don't mean to cut you off. Please come forward to the microphone. Sullivan: My name is Vince Sullivan and I live at 2602 Mesa Way and that's how I get my irrigation water to my property and so I'm concerned about that. And the creek that runs through, that's a natural creek right there. Right there. And I was concerned about that, too, what they are going to do about that. Is there maybe some environmental issues with that, with it being a year around creek. It's not irrigation. Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners, any other questions? Mr. Cronin, would you care to make any final remarks? Cronin: Eric Cronin, Commissioners, Members of the Board. I believe we spoke to these two questions that water would be delivered and any issues with Ten Mile Canal or Creek, excuse me, would have to be addressed at the time of platting at that point. I guess I do have one more question and I believe I need to speak at this point and that is if we do decide to go through -- or say it's annexed and rezoned, at the time of development, it sounds like from the opinions I have heard from you guys of the board, that that portion that includes the existing dwelling would have to to be a portion of any further development that goes on and with that would the -- or the added right of way and landscaping buffer and all that stuff -- and added sidewalk, would that have to be completed at the time of final platting? That's just a question. Zaremba: We will ask staff. I believe the answer is yes, but -- Hood: Yeah. Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, and Eric, yeah, that's -- prior to occupancy of those homes in the final plat you have to post surety and that will need to be constructed before we allow those homes to be occupied. So, yeah, its a condition of the final plat. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 17, 2005 Page 26 of 37 Cronin: Okay. Zaremba: But, again, during the plat discussion we can have alternate compliance and that kind of -- I mean it isn't that you have to do exactly what the -- I mean you have some constrictions there that I think everybody is willing to work around. My sense is that the Commission supports the staff in asking that it be one plat, but that's with some flexibility in that one plat. Cronin: Understand. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Are you alluding to a certain level of compliance or are you speaking generally? Are you -- Zaremba: There is a provision -- Newton-Huckabay: Well, I understand that, but -- Zaremba: -- alternate compliance, but until there is a plat before us, I don't think there is much to discuss. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. It just almost sounded to me that you were -- okay. Zaremba: I'm not being specific, I'm just -- Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Zaremba: I'm just repeating that there are options that encourage me to stick with the staffs request that the plat cover all of the property. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: I guess that's how -- Commissioner Moe. Moe: Yeah. I do have a question and you may not even know the answer. I'm just curious; do you know the property owner to the west of this property? Cronin: I do not, no. Moe: Okay. I'm just looking at that property and noticing up to the north of it that that subdivision is planned to have a stub street go in there, so I'm just kind of -- I'm a little bit concerned with the preliminary design for your project here. It's going to be a little bit strange for -- if that property was to develop, how a roadway would go through there. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 17, 2005 Page 27 of 37 I'm just -- something when you guys start finishing up your planning, you might take that into consideration a little bit, because that's going to be a little weird. Thank you. Zaremba: So, what you're saying is on the other thing that we were looking at, there appears to be a stub street about here? Moe: Yes. Borup: Even closer. Moe: Closer -- closer to the -- to the subject property. Zaremba: Yeah. You're right. Right off the end of the property line. Okay. Newton-Huckabay: Good observation. Zaremba: Okay. Just something to be aware of in your future engineering. Cronin: Understandable. I guess I would close, unless there is any other questions. I would request annexation and rezone and with at all possible excluding -- or as a further development agreement as required, excluding the existing dwelling portion outside of any further development. Borup: Understood. Zaremba: Thank you. Cronin: Thank you. Hood: Mr. Chair? Zaremba: Mr. Hood. Hood: If I may, just for reference, the development agreement provisions on page seven, the one that the applicant specifically brought up this evening -- and I'm song the bullets aren't labeled. Maybe that's something when we get to have ten or 12 bullets, that may not be a bad idea. But it's going to be bullets eight, nine, and ten that they have -- that they have brought up anyways, just so you know where we are at there on page seven of the staff report. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: So, Craig, you were just suggesting that we strike the existing driveways to Locust Grove may be utilized until the internal streets within the plat are Meridian Planning & Zoning November 17, 2005 Page 28 of 37 constructed and approved by the transportation authority. At such time direct access to Locust Grove shall be prohibited. We are taking that out of it or do we need to restate that? Borup: I think that's what we need to discuss. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. But that's the bullet that -- the only one that's going to be modified. Moe: As I understood it when we were discussing earlier, Craig made the point that the no direct access to Locust Grove would be allowed a would be the point to strike. Hood: Yeah. Just to clarify for the Commission, I guess the way that the condition is worded and the intent behind that, is that this home can continue on as it is today and when this develops and the final plat gets had, that there is no more direct lot access. So, it's not what the applicant wants to see, but that's this -- this says that you can use that -- those driveways until such time as this develops and access at that time has to be provided somewhere else. So, that's -- and, then, it may be -- maybe the one that I would, you know, request it get -- be modified, that bullet eight, although -- and city code does allow for alternative compliance, we may just want to -- the way it reads kinds of make it sound like you have to construct a landscape buffer in compliance with city code. That could be interpreted to be a 25 -foot wide landscape buffer. So, you would like some flexibility in there, that unless otherwise alternative compliance is granted, construct, or even strike the thing -- I mean we can cover it with the preliminary plat. So, I'm not so concerned about that one. Baird: Mr. Chair and Members of the Commission -- Zaremba: Mr. Baird. Baird: -- you could easily modify Item No. 8 to read on the first line: In accordance with the city code, comma, including any applicable alternative compliance provisions, and, then, the rest of it. So, adding those words would express -- if you do have the intent to allow that, that would make it clear if you choose to leave that condition in. Zaremba: That works for me. Thank you. Back on what I believe is the 10th bullet that Commissioner Newton-Huckabay was talking about. My comment would be to -- somehow we need to keep the future no direct lot access to Locust Grove, but I would be willing to tie that instead of to the plat, tie it to any future building permit for a modification to any existing building or something like that. Rohm: Redevelopment. Zaremba: Can we do that? Rohm: Yeah. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 17, 2005 Page 29 of 37 Zaremba: So, that it could, actually, develop the rest of it, but if this use -- I don't mean if this use changes, if they ever -- Rohm: Redevelopment of that lot. Zaremba: Yeah. Is there a way to put that? Mr. Baird appears to have an opinion. Baird: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, if you're going to do that, I'd recommend that you attach it to a specific event. The term redevelopment I think could be interpreted in a number of ways, so if it's a building permit, if it's -- oh, I can't think of some of the possible other events. Zaremba: My suggestion would be a building permit for any modification to any building on this piece of property. Baird: And I know staff has seen these before. They might have some opinion on how that could also be worded. Mr. Hood. Hood: I would just concur with legal that redevelopment is a -- not a very well defined term. So, it's up to you if you want to tie it to any -- the only concern -- and maybe that's your intent, is if they build another accessory structure that's larger than a garage and they need a building permit, that's the building permit. A ten -by -ten shed -- or anything over 200 square feet requires a building permit. So, they need that and if you word it that way, then, now the access goes away, so just -- Zaremba: Remodeling the house, tearing it down, rebuilding it, that would require a building permit. Hood: Correct. Borup: Well, that could include re -roofing, too. A building permit. Zaremba: You need a permit -- Hood: Electrical work. Plumbing. I mean there are a lot of building permits that you could pull that it wouldn't necessarily be a redevelopment, quote, unquote, of this property, just general maintenance stuff could still require a building permit. So, I don't know what the intent is and that's why this is the cleanest and best way, but -- Zaremba: What I'm aiming for is to allow the continued use of the property the way it is, until something changes. Now, the maintenance issue, like plumbing and roofing, I would not want to trigger this, but adding a room and adding another out building or tearing the house down to build something else, I would want to have trigger it. Meridian Planning & Zoning • November 17, 2005 Page 30 of 37 Hood: And, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, what I would -- what we -- the problem we run into is tracking these things. None of those things require the planning department to review this. It's a building permit you pull through the building department and we are requiring -- relying on them to catch these types of things, so enforcement gets to be a big issue there and it's just a nightmare, to tell you the truth. I mean there is just no way they can keep little notes of all these little things around the city that they are supposed to be looking for and they have their general duties and codes they are trying uphold at the same time, so -- Borup: That seems problematic to me to try to tie it to a building permit. You know, even an addition. But demolition of the building and building something new or re - platting of this lot -- there is enough -- you know, the lot's large enough that you could get, I don't know, three or four lots in there. Three lots, maybe. So, it sounds like that's what you're saying should trigger it and -- Zaremba: Yeah. I would want it be something -- Borup: A new building or a re -plat. Zaremba: -- to trigger this, but still something that's likely to happen within 30 or 40 years. Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I did have one more thing that -- this just may be a better thing that we not include in the development agreement and talk about this some more at the plat, because there are plat notes that we can add to the phase that say except for driveway accesses that are approved by ACHD or put some sunset time on a driveway or whatever, you can put those types of notes on the plat -- and we got to be kind of careful, because it is a surveying document, but the direct lot access notes are on plats on a regular basis. So, that may be a better time to have this discussion. ACHD can get us more detailed comments. There is a street that's not too far away. Excuse me. So, just to have detailed comments from them on where -- what -- it's their policy, too. We just may want to lose that condition altogether and discuss this some more at a later date. Rohm: I think that's the right answer. The preliminary plat is going to resolve all of the issue associated with the existing dwelling and for annexation purposes we don't have to come up with a solution tonight. Zaremba: Well -- and that's a good point. I think the applicant has heard this discussion and is well notified that these will be issues when there is a plat. Rohm: Exactly. Zaremba: I'm comfortable with that. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 17, 2005 Page 31 of 37 Rohm: So, with that being said, a question of staff. If we were to strike both bullet eight and bullet ten from your staff report, then, the balance of it would be in compliance with what the -- Zaremba: Eight was being modified. Newton-Huckabay: We don't need to strike eight. We could restate it. Rohm: Eight, in my opinion, is very similar to ten, in that in the plat that will be -- that buffer issue will be addressed in the plat as well, will it not? Borup: Yeah. It's going to have to be. Rohm: It will be. So, I think to strike it now and to resolve it at -- during plat is the right answer for that as well. Borup: As long as it's all annexed -- it all be annexed together. Rohm: It's annexed. But as it's being platted, all of those issues, including that buffer and -- will be addressed at that time. Zaremba: That's true. We are moving towards proceeding. The Public Hearing is still open. That would need to be closed. Newton-Huckabay: I have a question. Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: What -- if there was a compelling need to put comment eight in there in the first place and we have very simple language to make it -- alternate compliance a possibility, I think that leaving it in there isn't going to harm anything at this point. I don't know that -- I don't know at what point it might get redundant, but I certainly wouldn't want it to get lost, because I think it's a critical issue that -- and, Craig, I guess I would defer to your expertise there. I don't -- Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I -- Borup: Let's just leave it in. Hood: That's up to the motion maker and if it gets a second -- I have no preference. We will review it again when it comes through the preliminary plat, unless the motion says we do not want to see any landscape buffer on Locust Grove and put that in the development agreement. I mean we will address it again with the plat. So, either way. Newton-Huckabay: You have no preference? Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 17, 2005 Page 32 of 37 Hood: I mean -- right. It's probably a little cleaner if you -- you know, if you leave something in and it leaves a record of the discussion that's been had and the alternative compliance was discussed regarding the landscape buffer, but -- Rohm: Personally, I don't think anybody in this room is void of that. I think they all know that that will have to be addressed at such time that the preliminary plat is presented. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I recommend we close the Public Hearing on AZ 05-049. Borup: Second. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Newton-Huckabay: And I guess I'll make the motion. I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number AZ 05-049 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 17th, 2005, with the following modifications to be included within a development agreement. On page seven, bullets which would -- if they were numbered would be eight -- eight and ten. To number eight will read that a street buffer constructed in accordance with the city code include applicable alternative compliance provisions be installed along Locust Grove Road prior to occupancy of any new dwelling unit. And end of that comment. And, then, we will strike comment number ten altogether, that starts with that when a preliminary plat is submitted and ends with Locust Grove Road shall be prohibited. Borup: Second. Newton-Huckabay: End of motion. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. Thank you all very much. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 7: Continued Public Hearing from October 20, 2005: AZ 05-045 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 91.085 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for Meridian Planning & Zoning November 17, 2005 Page 33 of 37 Reflection Ridge Subdivision by M & H Development, LLC — 4275 South Locust Grove Road: Item 8: Continued Public Hearing from October 20, 2005: PP 05-048 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 255 building lots and 26 other lots on 91.085 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Reflection Ridge Subdivision by M & H Development, LLC — 4275 South Locust Grove Road: Item 9: Continued Public Hearing from October 20, 2005: CUP 05-046 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for 255 single-family residential dwelling units with reductions to minimum lot sizes, frontage and setbacks. Also, the applicant is requesting a waiver of the standard block length in a proposed R-4 zone for Reflection Ridge Subdivision by M & H Development, LLC — 4275 South Locust Grove Road: Zaremba: Okay. I would like to open the continued Public Hearing for AZ 05-045, PP 05-048, and CUP 05-046, all relating to Reflection Ridge Subdivision and entertain a motion to continue those again to our regular meeting of January 5th, 2006. Rohm: So moved. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 10: Public Hearing: AZ 05-050 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.0 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for Reserve Subdivision by Dave McKinnon with Conger Management Group, Inc. — west of North Locust Grove Road and south of Chinden Boulevard: Item 11: Public Hearing: PP 05-051 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 12 single-family residential building lots and 5 common lots on 5.0 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Reserve Subdivision by Dave McKinnon with Conger Management Group, Inc. - west of North Locust Grove Road and south of Chinden Boulevard: Zaremba: I'd like to open the Public Hearing for AZ 05-050 and PP 05-051, relating to Reserve Subdivision, and entertain a motion to continue those to a special meeting of December 8th, 2005. Borup: So moved. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 17, 2005 Page 34 of 37 Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: I'd like to open the Public Hearing for AZ 05-052 -- did I skip one? Borup: Yes, you skipped 12 and 13. Item 12: Public Hearing: PP 05-054 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 22 building lots and 1 other lot on 15.35 acres in an L -O zone for Touchmark Center Subdivision by Touchmark of the Treasure Valley — southwest corner of Touchmark Way and Franklin Road: Item 13: Public Hearing: CUP 05-050 Request for a Conceptual Conditional Use for office uses on 15.35 acres in an L -O zone for Touchmark Center Subdivision by Touchmark of the Treasure Valley — southwest comer of Touchmark Way and Franklin Road: Zaremba: I'll go back. Strike that. I will open the Public Hearing for PP 05-054 and CUP 05-050 relating to Touchmark Center Subdivision. Open those public hearings and entertain a motion to continue those to our special meeting of December 8th, 2005. Moe: So moved. Borup: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 14: Public Hearing: AZ 05-052 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 7.87 acres from R1 to C -G zone for Sadie Creek Promenade Subdivision by Landmark Development Group, LLC — 3055 North Eagle Road: Item 15: Public Hearing: PP 05-053 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 24 commercial building lots 15.33 acres in a proposed C -G zone and an approved C -G zone for Sadie Creek Promenade Subdivision by Landmark Development Group, LLC — 3055 and 3085 North Eagle Road: Item 16: Public Hearing: Request for a conceptual Conditional Use for retail, restaurant, drive-thru and office uses in a proposed C -G zone and an Meridian Planning & Zoning November 17, 2005 Page 35 of 37 approved C -G zone for Sadie Creek Promenade Subdivision by Landmark Development Group, LLC — 3055 and 3085 North Eagle Road: Zaremba: I will open the public hearings AZ 05-052, PP 05-053, and CUP 05-049, all relating to Sadie Creek Promenade Subdivision and entertain a motion to continue those to our special meeting of December 8th, 2005. Newton-Huckabay: So moved. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 17: Review Modification to Planning Department Application: Zaremba: The last item on our agenda, No. 17. Review modification to planning department application and we will have a staff report. Hood: A very brief staff report. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. I'll just read through a little bit of the new code here regarding the application processes UDC -5A-3132. It says: Prior to commencement of any substantive changes to the application requirements, the director shall submit the changes to the Planning and Zoning Commission at a Public Hearing. The director has determined that what we have done, basically, with the new applications that mirror our new MDC is we have helped them clean up items, some things that are spelled wrong, some things we just didn't carry over from the old applications. A few of them are significant. You do have a memo on -- should have a memo from Sonya Waters for today's date just listing, basically, all of our Commission and administrative review applications. Again, just clean-up stuff, but the director did want you to become aware that we are cleaning those up in an effort to perfect them. So, probably a couple few of them will be back to you in the future with some other changes, but they are pretty -- they are just pretty standard changes and, hopefully, makes the process a lot smoother, just some things that were inadvertently left off from the initial draft. So, I will stand for any questions you have. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Borup: They look good to me. Zaremba: Okay. Any action you need us to take, other than to say At A Boy? Hood: Not that I'm aware of. I think that was more of a -- just an FYI type thing, so -- Meridian Planning & Zoning November 17, 2005 Page 36 of 37 Newton-Huckabay: At -A -Boy. Rohm: At -A -Boy. Zaremba: Thank you very much. Okay. And reminder that we are having a special meeting on Tuesday, the 29th, starting at 6:00 p.m. and we may or may not be provided with something to eat. I'm not sure. I think we are. Hood: Yeah, you will. Goodwood I have heard is what has been -- is that okay with everyone or -- Newton-Huckabay: Well, that sure beats Pizza Hut. Moe: I think now that we have a liaison, I'm sure she's going to take care of it. Zaremba: Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: There is a really very proper English word there, the liaison to something. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I move we adjourn. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Thank you and good night. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:30 P.M. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 17, 2005 Page 37 of 37 (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED: DAVID ZAREM - CHAIRMAN U Q- 1 105 DATE APPROVED Hac TX COITION REPORT AS OF NOV 17 '05*23 PAGE.01 CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY OF MERIDIAN MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Thursday, November 17, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers 1. Roll -call Attendance: Keith BorupWendy Newton-Huckabay David Moe Michael Rohm _David are mba - chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: A• Approve Minutes ofctober 20, 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: tvffrbVi. B. Approve Minutes of Octobe 17, 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting: ke�4112, C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 05.048 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a 96,000 square foot department store in a C -G one for Kohl's Department Store by W.H. Moore —VWC of rNorth Eagle Road an Eatick Road:th4• Presentation: lue Prin foroGoGrQwth by Karen Doherty: 5- Continued Public Hearingfrom November 3, 20J5: AZ 5-048 A est for Annexation and Zoning of 14.81 acres from RUT to R-4 zoneforMcGee Property by Martin Arris — 3086 South Mesa Way and 1252 East MwVMkVictory Road: �j% j 6. Continued Pubic Hearing from November 3, 2005: AZ 05-049 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.15 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for Carrington PropAirty by Mark & Kaen Carrington — 2955 South Locust Grove Road: ` 4CO.mftAk p vovaL lci C fc, 7. Continued Public Hearing from October 20, 2005: AZ 05-045 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 91.085 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for Reflection Ridge Subdivisi b-�j.M & H DeveI pment, LLC — 4275 South Locust Grove Road: �0YI AvL N ,j S) a�ZP Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — ovember 17, 2005 Page 1 of 3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings please contact the City Clerk's Office at 8884433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. DATE TIME TO/FROM MODE MIN/SEC PGS CMD# STATUS 21 11/17 2104 PUBLIC WORKS EC --S 01'02" 003 006 OK 22 11/17 2106 8848723 EC --S 01'02" 003 006 OK 23 11/17 2108 8841159 EC—S 01'03" 003 006 OK 24 11/17 2109 2088840744 EC --S 01'04" 003 006 OK 25 11/17 21:11 POLICE DEPT EC --S 01'03" 003 006 OK 26 11/17 21:12 8985501 EC --S 01'01" 003 006 OK 27 11/17 21:14 LIBRARY EC --S 01'19" 003 006 OK 28 11/17 21:16 IDAHO STATESMAN EC --S 01'02" 003 006 OK 29 11/17 21:17 3886924 EC --S 01'01" 003 006 OK 30 11/17 21:19 P—AND—Z EC --S 01'02" 003 006 OK 31 11/17 21:21 ALL AMERICAN INS EC—S 01'02" 003 006 OK 32 11/17 2122 FIRE DEPT EC --S 01'01" 003 006 OK CITY OF MERIDIAN MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Thursday, November 17, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers 1. Roll -call Attendance: Keith BorupWendy Newton-Huckabay David Moe Michael Rohm _David are mba - chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: A• Approve Minutes ofctober 20, 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: tvffrbVi. B. Approve Minutes of Octobe 17, 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting: ke�4112, C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 05.048 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a 96,000 square foot department store in a C -G one for Kohl's Department Store by W.H. Moore —VWC of rNorth Eagle Road an Eatick Road:th4• Presentation: lue Prin foroGoGrQwth by Karen Doherty: 5- Continued Public Hearingfrom November 3, 20J5: AZ 5-048 A est for Annexation and Zoning of 14.81 acres from RUT to R-4 zoneforMcGee Property by Martin Arris — 3086 South Mesa Way and 1252 East MwVMkVictory Road: �j% j 6. Continued Pubic Hearing from November 3, 2005: AZ 05-049 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.15 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for Carrington PropAirty by Mark & Kaen Carrington — 2955 South Locust Grove Road: ` 4CO.mftAk p vovaL lci C fc, 7. Continued Public Hearing from October 20, 2005: AZ 05-045 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 91.085 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for Reflection Ridge Subdivisi b-�j.M & H DeveI pment, LLC — 4275 South Locust Grove Road: �0YI AvL N ,j S) a�ZP Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — ovember 17, 2005 Page 1 of 3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings please contact the City Clerk's Office at 8884433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 TX Collo TION REPORT Nok AS OF NOV 17 '055339 PAGE.01 CITY OF MERIDIAN DATE TIME TO/FROM MODE MIN/SEC PGS CMD# STATUS 11/17 21:24 SERVER G3 --S 01'16" 003 006 OK 11/17 2126 208 387 6393 EC --S 00'58" 003 006 OK 11/17 2127 ADA CTY DEUELMT EC --S 00'59" 003 006 OK 11/17 2129 2088885052 EC --S 00'59" 003 006 OK 11/17 21:31 LAKEVIEW GOLFCOU G3 --S 00'01" 000 006 INC 11/17 21:31 LAKEVIEW GOLFCOU 63--S 00'34" 000 006 INC 11/17 21:33 LAKEVIEW GOLFCOU 0--S 00'02" 000 006 INC 11/17 2134 LAKEVIEW GOLFCOU G3 --S 00'01" 000 006 INC 11/17 2135 IDAHO ATHLETIC C EC --S 00'58" 003 006 OK 11/17 2136 ID PRESS TRIBUNE EC --S 00'58" 003 006 OK 11/17 2138 2088886701 EC --S 00'58" 003 006 OK THIS DOCUMENT IS STILL IN MEMORY CITY OF MERIDIAN MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Thursday, November 17, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers 1. Roll -call Attendance: Keith Borup It Wendy Newton-Huckabay David Moe Michael Rohm C David remba - chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of qctober 20, 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: t rbVv B. Approve Minutes of Octobe 17, 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting:O �p lI Qi C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 05-048 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a 96,000 square foot department store in a C -G zone for Kohl's Department Store by W.H. Moore —N�lWwC of North Ea , Road an Q East " ick Road: 4. Presentation: lue Prinff ffor GooOVe- Gr wth by Karen Doherty: fSGDIa d./p �Qfi, , l) a tom... 5. Continued Public Hearing from November 3, 2005. AZ 05-048 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 14.81 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for McGee Property by Martin Artis — 3086 South Mesa Way and 1252 East Victory Road: [�,p.p CO �14�(U IYt( '►111 f 0 d0.� (,IC,/ 6. Continued Pubic Hearing from November 3, 2005: AZ 05.049 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.15 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for Carrington Pir!pby Mark & Ka en Carrington — 2955 South Locust Grove Road: 0oftxvA 1(AW doUaL 10 C/c 7. Continued Public Hearing from October ctober 20, 2005: AZ 05-045 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 91.085 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for Reflection Ridge Subdivisib M & H Development, LLC — 4275 South Locust Grove Road: �0 '' 4%)L N / I ► l -p � A n S-), � a00C p Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — ovember 17, 2005 Page 1 of 3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings please contact the City Clerk's Office at 8884433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. 9 • MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING November 17, 2005 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 4 REQUEST Presentation - Blue Print for Good Growth by Karen Doherty 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. 0 9 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING November 17, 2005 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 3-A REQUEST Approve Minutes of October 20, 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: COMMENTS Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. LJ MERIDIAN PLANNING 8, ZONING MEETING 0 November 17, 2005 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 3-B REQUEST Approve Minutes of October 17, 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT. CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Emailed: Date: Phone: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING 0 November 17, 2005 CUP 05-048 APPLICANT W.H. Moore ITEM NO. 3-C REQUEST Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval - Conditional Use Permit for a 96,000 square foot department store in a C -G zone for Kohl's Department Store - NWC of North Eagle Road and East Ustick 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 attached Findings Date: Phone: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. E CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER 0 a ' In the Matter of Conditional Use Permit for a 96,000 sq. ft. Department Store in a C -G Zone for Kohl's by W.H. Moore Case No(s). CUP -05-048 For the Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing Date of. November 3, 2005 A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of 11/03/05 incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of 11/03/05 incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of 11/03/05 incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of 11/03/05 incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the "Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975," codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code (I.C. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has, by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted August 6, 2002, Resolution No. 02-382 and Maps. 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-5A. 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP -05-048 - PAGE 1 of 4 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this Decision, which shall be signed by the Commission Chair and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk upon the applicant, the Planning Department, the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. 7. That this approval is subject to the Legal Description, Site Plan, Building Elevations, and the Conditions of Approval all in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of 11/03/05 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 as evidenced by having submitted the plans dated 10/7/05 is hereby conditionally approved; and, 2. The applicant's CUP building elevations as evidenced by having submitted the "Exterior Elevations" sheet from P&R Architects dated 9/29/05; and, 3. The following modifications to site specific conditions were made at the Planning & Zoning Commission hearing: a. Applicant shall work with Planning Department staff to modify the south and west building elevations per the staff report. In particular, the Commission supports a modification to the west elevation's roof line, wall projections, and screening since it is visible from eastbound Ustick Road traffic (an entryway corridor). 4. The site specific and standard conditions of approval are as shown in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of 11/03/05 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 conditions use permits that also require platting, the final plat must be recorded within this eighteen (18) month period. For projects with CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP -05-048 - PAGE 2 of 4 multiple phases, the eighteen (18) month deadline shall apply to the first phase. In the event that the development is made in successive contiguous segments or multiple phases, such phases shall be constructed within successive intervals of one (1) year from the original date of approval. If the successive phases are not submitted within the one (1) year interval, the conditional approval of the future phases shall be null and void. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11 -5B -6.G.1, the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the use not to exceed one (1) eighteen (18) month period. Additional time extensions up to eighteen (18) months as determined and approved by the Commission may be granted. With all extensions, the Director or Commission may 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 11/03/05. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP -05-048 - PAGE 3 of 4 9 0 By action of the Planning & Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the I1o' day of �`��(�� , 2005. COMMISSIONER MICHAEL ROHM COMMISSIONER DAVID MOE COMMISSIONER WENDY NEWTON-HUCKABAY COMMISSIONER KEITH BORUP COMMISSIONER DAVID ZAREMBA (CHAIR) Attest: 4 ara Green, Deputy City Clerk VOTED VOTED VOTED VOTED VOTED CHAIRMAN IVVID ZAREMBA Copy served upon Applicant, The Planning Department, Public Works Department and City Attorney. BDated: I i - � I' oS 4ity Clerk's Office CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP -05-048 - PAGE 4 of 4 • • CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR HEARING DATE OF 11/03/05 STAFF REPORT TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing Date: 11/3/2005 P&Z Commission Brad Hawkins -Clark, Principal City Planner Michael Cole, Development Services Coordinator Kohl's Department Store File No. CUP -05-048 Conditional Use Permit for a 96,000 sq. ft. Department Store in a C -G Zone for Kohl's by W.H. Moore 1. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST The applicant, Winston H. Moore, is requesting a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to construct a 96,090 - square foot Kohl's Department Store on approximately 8.33 acres within the CentrePoint Marketplace development at the northwest corner of Ustick Road and Eagle Road/SH-55. The application states Kimco Development is a joint partner with W.H. Moore Company for the Kohl's building. This is the first detailed CUP application and would be the first building constructed within the CentrePoint Marketplace project. The 58 -acre site was approved for annexation with a Development Agreement (DA) in March 2004 under the name Blue Marlin (see File No. AZ -03-025). The DA (Instrument No. 105048798) requires that any future use be approved either through a site specific CUP application or a Planned Development. A concept plan for the overall site was submitted with the application for information purposes (not for formal approval). The Commission should note that, while the Landscape Plan shows Eagle Road landscape buffers, the legal description for the Kohl's site does not touch Eagle Road. Therefore, this CUP and staff report will not apply to the Eagle Road buffers. It also means that Kohl's must be addressed off of Ustick Road and not Eagle Road. A Variance application, submitted concurrently with this CUP application and before the City Council on November 1, 2005, proposes three new approaches to N. Eagle Road/State Highway 55, including two restricted access and one full access driveways. On September 29, 2005, the Idaho Transportation Department (I TD) approved two right-in/right-out and one full access approach permits. The Variance application pertains to the full 58 acres while the Kohl's CUP application pertains to approximately 8.33 acres at the south end of the site. The City Council has final decision authority on the Variance application while the P&Z Commission has final decision authority on the CUP application. 2. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending approval with conditions of the subject CUP application (CUP -05-048). We are recommending that the Commission require the applicant to revise the building's west and south elevations (facing Eagle and Ustick Roads) to comply with Section 11-3A-19 of the Unified Development Code (UDC) and to add a new 8 -foot wide walkway in the parking lot. While the Ada County Highway District (ACHD) Commission will not hold a hearing on this application until November 9, 2005, the ACHD staff report has been issued and thev do not believe it is necessary for the Citv of Meridian to continue the CUP public hearine because all roadwav improvements are being made in accordance with their standards. ACHD is requiring the applicant to close the first east -west driveway that is north of Ustick in the southwest comer of the site. Staff supports this modification to the site plan. 3. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS a. Site Address/Location: Kohis-CUP CUP -05-048 PAGE 1 i 1! CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR HEARING DATE OF 11/03/05 NW corner of Ustick Road and Eagle Road/SH55 Township 4N, Range 1E, Section 32 b. Owner Winston H. Moore 1940 Bonito Way Meridian, Idaho 83642 c. Applicant: Winston H. Moore 1940 Bonito Way Meridian, Idaho 83642 d. Representative: Jonathan Seel, W.H. Moore Company e. Present Zoning: General Retail and Commercial (C -G), Meridian f. Present Comprehensive Plan Designation: Mixed Use -Regional — 2002 Comprehensive Future Land Use Map g. Description of Applicant's Request: 1. See Exhibit A (prepared by Quadrant Consulting) for a copy of the detailed site plan which depicts the building, parking and access locations. Exhibit B shows the proposed landscape plan. h. Applicant's Statement/Justification: The application notes that Kohl's is a family -focused, value -oriented specialty department store with 637 stores in 40 states. They employ over 100,000 people nationwide and would employ approximately 150 people in the Meridian store, generating property tax revenues of nearly $100,000 to the City. The applicant notes the ideal location for a retail department store. They also note the intersection widening improvements currently being constructed by W.H. Moore Company and Brighton Corporation at Ustick and Eagle and that a new public road along their west boundary will improve traffic movement in the area. 4. PROCESS FACTS a. The subject application will in fact constitute a conditional use permit as determined by City Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of the Meridian City Code Title 11, Chapter 5, Article A (Table 11-5A-1), a public hearing is required before the Planning & Zoning Commission on this matter. b. Newspaper notifications published on: October 17th 2005 and October 31St 2005 c. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: October 10 2005 d. Applicant posted notice on site by: October 22nd 2005 5. LAND USE a. Existing Land Use(s): Bare land b. Description of Character of Surrounding Area: Large lot residential, highway -oriented services, rapidly urbanizing c. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning 1. North: Future pad sites within CentrePoint Marketplace, zoned C -G. 2. West: An outparcel, zoned RUT (Ada Co.); and Champion Park Subdivision, zoned R-8. (The approved Planned Development site plan for Champion Park shows an indoor Kohls-CUP CUP -05-048 PAGE 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR HEARING DATE OF 11/03/05 storage facility adjacent to the subject parcels.) 3. South: Three undeveloped parcels, zoned C -G with a Development Agreement. 4. East: Future pad sites within Centrepoint Marketplace, zoned C -G. d. History of Previous Actions: In July 2002, the owner and City entered into a "Consent to Annexation Agreement" where the City agreed to supply water and sewer service to the 58 acres and owner agreed to annex when contiguous to city limits. Also, File AZ -03-025, Annexation and Zoning for Blue Marlin. Same property was annexed and zoned to General Retail and Commercial (C -G) with a Development Agreement. e. Existing Constraints and Opportunities 1. Public Works Location of sewer: Extension of mains in Ustick Road Location of water: Extension of mains in Ustick Road Issues or concerns: None 2. Vegetation: Agricultural/Irrigated 3. Flood plain: N/A 4. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: The Layton Lateral courses the southern part of property 5. Hazards: None identified 6. Size of Property: 8.33 acres 7. Description of Use: One, 96,090 s.f. department store (Kohl's) and associated parking and landscape improvements. f. Subdivision Plat Information — N/A g. Landscaping — 1. Width of street buffer(s): Per the Future Land Use Map, both Ustick Road and Eagle Road are designated as "Entryway Corridors." As such, the UDC (Table 11-2B-3) requires a 35 -foot wide street buffer adjacent to both roadways. The landscape plan (Sheet L1.1) proposes a 35 -foot wide buffer along Eagle Road. However, the legal description for the Kohl's site does not place it contiguous to Eagle Road. As such, this CUP annlication will not annly to Eagle Road. If the applicant proposes to construct the Eagle Road buffer as an off-site improvement with the Kohl's CUP, the landscaping standards required in the UDC shall apply. 2. Width of buffer(s) between land uses: Table 11-2B-3 requires a 25 -foot wide buffer between commercial uses on C -G -zoned land and residential uses. The property to the west, Champion Park Subdivision, is zoned R-8, and becomes contiguous to the CentrePoint site approximately 460 feet north of the Ustick Road right-of-way. (There is an outparcel between Champion Park and the Kohl's site at the southwest comer of the site which was not a part of either the Blue Marlin or Champion Park annexation.) Champion Park was approved with a PD use exception and their site plan currently shows storage units along their east boundary. (Note: Staff was informed on Friday, 10/28/05, that an application to amend the Champion Park PD to remove the storage uses and construct patio homes is being submitted on October 31s`.) 3. Percentage of site as open space: The UDC does not require open space or site amenities for single commercial uses. Kohls-CUP CUP -05-048 PAGE 3 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR HEARING DATE OF 11 /03/05 4. Other landscaping standards: The landscape buffer along Ustick Road should be constructed in accordance with UDC Chapter 3, Article B. h. Planned Development Characteristics — N/A i. Conditional Use Information: 1. Non-residential square footage: 96,090 2. Proposed building height: 30 feet 3. Percentage of site devoted to building coverage: 25.9% 4. Percentage of site devoted to landscaping: 11.51% 5. Percentage of site devoted to paving: 62.9% 6. Percentage of site devoted to other uses: N/A 7. Number of Residential units: N/A j. Amenities — While no amenities are required under the UDC for single commercial uses, the applicant notes that the front of the building includes an entry plaza with landscape and hard paved surfaces. k. Off -Street Parking (residential uses) — N/A 1. Proposed and Required Residential Standards — N/A m. Proposed and Required Non -Residential Parking — One off-street parking space required for every 500 square feet of gross floor area. Also, one Type A and one Type B parking space required for the loading area (per UDC 11-3C-8). The proposed building floor area is 96,090 s.f., which requires 192 parking spaces. 412 parking spaces are proposed. There are no Type A or Type B spaces shown. n. Summary of Proposed Streets and/or Access (private, public, common drive, etc.): The applicant is proposing three new access points to Eagle Road/SH55 to serve the entire CentrePoint Marketplace project at the following locations: ■ Driveway #1 - 1,700 feet north of Ustick ■ Driveway #2 (main access, aligned with Baldcypress) - 1,375 feet north of Ustick ■ Driveway #3 — 700 feet north of Ustick As noted above, ITD issued right-in/right-out permits for Driveway #1 and #3 and a full movement access permit for Driveway #2, until such time as median barriers are installed on Eagle Road. In addition, the recorded DA between the applicant and the City requires either a public or private street be constructed parallel to Eagle Road/SH55 that may connect to the north boundary and may also connect to Eagle Road, if allowed by ITD. In addition, the applicant is proposing three new access points to Ustick Road at the following locations: ■ Driveway #1 — 400 feet west of Eagle (right-in/right-out with center median) ■ Driveway #2 — 600 feet west of Eagle (full access) ■ Driveway #3 —1,100 feet west of Eagle (full access public street with proposed traffic signal) Kohis-CUP CUP -05-048 PAGE 4 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR HEARING DATE OF 11/03/05 Ustick Road, from Leslie Drive to Ally Street (on east side of Eagle Road), including the Eagle Road intersection, has just been widened and improved to 5 lanes. The intersection was widened to include dual left turn lanes. The applicant's CUP site plan shows a new public, commercial street extending north of Ustick Road, beginning approximately % mile west of Eagle Road/SH55. The site plan (Sheet S-1) shows this roadway as a 40 -foot street section, continuing as a public street along their west boundary to approximately 120 feet north of the Kohl's north property line. The concept plan shows the road eventually stubbing to the north property line. Their plan shows private, internal driveways connecting to this public street; such driveways run east -west and connect to Eagle Road/SH55. For a detailed report on both ITD's and ACHD's actions and comments, please see the letters/reports submitted with the application. 6. AGENCY COMMENTS MEETING On October 14th 2005, staff held an agency comments meeting. The agencies and departments present included: Meridian Fire Department, Meridian Meridian Public Works Department, and the Sanitary Services Company. Staff has included all comments and recommended actions as Conditions of Approval in Exhibit F. 7. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS The subject site is designated `Mixed Use -Regional' on the Future Land Use Map. In Chapter VII of the Comprehensive Plan, this designation is defined in part as an area that is situated in highly visible or transitioning parts of the City where innovative and flexible design opportunities are encouraged. The MU -R has no upper limit on the square footage of non-residential uses and is intended to allow a broad range of uses. Staff also finds the following 2002 Comprehensive Plan text policies to be applicable to this application: ■ "Require all new parking lots to provide landscaping in internal islands." (Chapter V, Goal III, Obj. D, #3, page 43) ■ "Eagle Road is the major north -south arterial in Ada County. The capacity of this arterial should be protected by minimizing the number and location of private driveway access connections to this important roadway. The City should recognize, adopt, and help implement the Eagle Road Access Control Study, prepared by ACHD in 1997." (Chapter VI, page 71) ■ "The capacity of arterial ... roadways can be greatly diminished by excessive driveway connections to the roadways. The City should cooperate with ACHD to minimize access points on arterial ... roadways as development applications are reviewed." (Chapter VI, page 72) ■ "Develop methods, such as cross -access agreements, frontage roads, to reduce the number of existing access points onto arterial streets." (Chapter VI, Goal II, Obj. A, #12, page 79). ■ "Identify transitional zones to buffer commercial and residential uses, to allow uses such as offices and other low intensity uses." (Chapter VII, Goal I, Obj. B, #7, page 102) ■ "Restrict curb cuts and access points on ...arterial streets." (Chapter VII, Goal IV, Obj. D, #5, page 107) 8. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE a. Allowed Uses in the Commercial Districts: UDC Table 11-2B-2 lists retail store uses as permitted uses in the C -G zoning district. 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 Kohls-CUP CUP -05-048 PAGE 5 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR HEARING DATE OF 11/03/05 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 Off -Street Parking Standards (from UDC 11-3C-5): ■ The following standards shall apply for off-street vehicle parking for nonresidential uses: In all Commercial Districts and Traditional Neighborhood Districts the requirement shall be one ,(1) space for every five hundred (500) square feet of gross floor area. TABLE 8-4G-3: REQ UIRED LOADING SPACES BY GROSS FLOOR AREA GROSS FLOOR AREA IN SQUARE FEET REQUIRED TYPE AND NUMBER OF SPACES 0 to 36,000 1 Type B 36,001 to 100,000 1 Type A and 1 Type B Each additional 75,000 or fraction thereof 1 additional Type A ■ Type A spaces shall be not less than twelve feet (12') in width and thirty-five feet (35') in length. Type B spaces shall be not less than fifteen feet (15') in width and sixty-five feet (65') in length. All spaces shall have fourteen feet (14') of vertical clearance. ■ Parking and loading areas shall be designed so vehicles shall not back out into the street. ■ No off-street loading space shall be located closer than fifty feet (50') to an abutting rural or residential district unless wholly enclosed within a sound attenuating structure, such as masonry block. No off-street loading space shall face an abutting residential district. ■ Any off-street loading space located within fifty feet (50') feet of a residential district shall not operate between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. ■ All lighting provided to illuminate a parking area shall comply with the lighting standards provided in Article A STANDARD REGULATIONS IN ALL DISTRICTS of this Chapter. d. Structures Subject to Design Standards (11 -3A -19.B.5): All structures on property adjacent to an entryway corridor (Ustick Road) are subject to the design standards listed in this section. e. Outdoor storage/refuse areas (11-3A-12): Outdoor utility meters, HVAC equipment, trash dumpsters, trash compaction and other service functions shall be incorporated into the overall design of buildings and landscaping so that the visual and acoustic impacts of these functions are fully contained and out of view from adjacent properties and public streets. 9. ANALYSIS 9a. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation The CUP application substantially complies with the Unified Development Code. However, there are several areas of clarification and some modifications required to both the site plan and building elevations in order for staff to recommend fill approval of the application. Below are Kohls-CUP CUP -05-048 PAGE 6 9 0 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR HEARING DATE OF 11/03/05 several special considerations for the P&Z Commission to review at the public hearing: Kohls-CUP CUP -05-048 PAGE 7 9 0 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR HEARING DATE OF 11/03/05 SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS 1. Loading Space Parking_ UDC 11-3C-8 requires off-street loading spaces for commercial uses. The Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) application shall clearly demonstrate that both a Type A and Type B space are available on site, located near the refuse/service area behind the building. 2. Elevations: The applicant has submitted building elevations of the proposed structure (see Exhibit C). The application lists the proposed building materials, including a concrete tilt - up wall, EIFS textured coating, white aluminum storefront and accent reveal lines. UDC 11-3A-19 requires all structures on property adjacent to an entryway corridor to comply with the design standards listed in this section. Staff's interpretation of the UDC is that the applicant may choose to place the "primary entrance" on an elevation other than the public street side. However, the public street elevations (Ustick Road and the new road on west boundary) must still meet the other standards listed in 11-3A-19 (except for the primary entrance standards). The west and south elevations will need to be modified to comply with the following ordinance standards (staff analysis in italics): a) Facades: Facades visible from a public street shall incorporate modulations in the facade, roof line recesses, and projections along a minimum of twenty percent (20%) of the length of the facade. Modulation/Projection: The south elevation is approximately 290 feet in length. 20% of the building length is 58 feet. The elevation does currently have two main projections that are approximately 38 feet and 12 feet long respectively. There are three other column projections that are each approximately three feet wide, for a total of nine feet. Cumulatively, these projections meet the 20% standard. The west elevation is approximately 320 feet in length. 20% of the building length is 64 feet. The elevation shows four column projections that total approximately 12 feet. The wall does modulate to accommodate the dock/berth area. Staff recommends the Commission review the west elevation to determine if the dock modulation meets the intent of the ordinance. If not. additional prroiections and/or modulations will be re u Roof Line Recess: There is one proposed recess/indentation in the south elevation roof line, which occurs near the west wall at the mezzanine. In addition, the 38 foot projection extends above the main roof line, creating the effect of a roof line recess. The Commission will need to determine if the one recess and the pLoiection extension meet the intent of the UDC's standard to provide roof line recesses. There are no roof line recesses on the west elevation. This elevation must be modified to comply with UDC 11 -3A -19.C. La. b) 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. The roof line along the south elevation currently shows one of the above options — two or more roofplanes (c) but the west elevation does not show any. The Kohls-CUP CUP -05-048 PAGE 8 9 0 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR HEARING DATE OF 11/03/05 mezzanine roof is at a different height than the main structure roof, creating two different roofplanes. The building does have a parapet that is approximately seven feet in height (18feet to roofand 25'-8" to top ofparapet). However, the parapet height matches the roof line height variation and should not be allowed to meet the second requirement here. Staff recommends the applicant modify the west and south elevations to provide either overhanging eaves or create more variation in the main building's parapet height. Alternatively, this standard could be met by constructing a second projection to match the 38 foot wide projection at the east end of the south elevation. c) Mechanical equipment: All ground -level and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be screened to the height of the unit as viewed from the property line. Given the height of the proposed parapet (approx. seven feet), staff believes any roof -mounted mechanical equipment will be screened and this standard will be met. However, this will need to be confirmed at the time of CZC application. d) Color and Materials: Exterior building walls shall demonstrate the appearance of high-quality materials of stone, brick, wood or other native materials. . .Smooth -faced concrete block, tilt -up concrete panels, or prefabricated steel panels are prohibited except as accent materials. The proposed structure is tilt -up construction. The UDC does allow "textured architectural coated concrete panels" as permissible material. The west and south elevations call -out a "colored coating" material on the concrete panels, which is acceptable. However, since these elevations will be clearly visible from the Ustick entryway corridor, staff recommends an additional material and/or color which compliments the east elevation be added to the west and south elevations (e.g. porcelain tile, different EIFS color). 3. Refuse/Service Area Screen: Neither the Site Plan or Landscape Plan call -out how or if the refuse/service area on the west side of the building will be screened. UDC 11-3A-12 requires the visual and acoustic impacts of these functions are fully contained and out of view from adjacent properties and public streets. The applicant's CZC application must clearly demonstrate how this standard is met. 4. Irrigation Pump House: No irrigation pump station or facility is shown on the Site Plan. However, if one is proposed for the site, it must be located outside of any required street buffer. Impervious surfaces are prohibited in said buffers. 5. New Street Buffer -West Boundary: The applicant is not showing any landscaping on the west side of the new public street along the west boundary. Landscaping is shown on the east side only. Staff is recommending the applicant construct both 10 -foot wide street buffers along the full length of the new street with the site improvements in order to provide for consistent plant growth patterns and to improve the aesthetics at thismain entrance to the development. 6. Parking Lot Extension: The asphalt surface at the east end of the parking lot is currently shown at approximately 10 feet beyond the landscape planters. This surface will need to Kohls-CUP CUP -05-048 PAGE 9 0 0 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR HEARING DATE OF 11/03/05 be extended to at least 20 feet and provide for two-way vehicular movement to the north and south parking aisles. 7. Pedestrian Walkways: UDC 11 -3A -19.C.4 requires the following for building located adjacent to an entryway corridor 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. The Site Plan (Sheet S-1) will need to be modified to provide an 8 -foot wide pedestrian walkway from the Ustick Road sidewalk to the sidewalk at the front of the building. Staff recommends locating said walkway at the west side of the middle driveway and connecting it to the sidewalk in front of the building. 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. The parking aisles are greater than 200 feet in length from the buildings main entrance. The aisles are approximately 450 feet long (from entry patio to the easternmost parking space). No walkway is currently shown. While the UDC is somewhat unclear here, the intention was to provide one 8 -foot walkway for every 200 feet of aisle separation so that the walkway can be accessed from multiple parking rows. The intent was not to require an 8 -foot walkway in every parking row. The Site Plan must be modified to construct one. 8 -foot wide walkway in the center parking row. 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 east elevation (primary) does show two awnings that extend over the entry doors. It is difficult to determine the length of these awnings. Staff's interpretation of this standard is that these awnings must be at least 20 feet wide, measured from the building face to the outer edge of the awning. The applicant shall ensure this dimension is complied with at the time of CZC application submission. 9b. Staff Recommendation: Based on the above analysis, staff finds the CUP application substantially conforms with the adopted DA, Comprehensive Plan policies and UDC standards. As noted under "Special Considerations," we recommend the south building elevation be amended to comply with the entryway corridor standards and a pedestrian walkway be added to the Site Plan. We recommend approval of the CUP application with the conditions shown in Exhibit F. Kohls-CUP CUP -05-048 PAGE 10 • 0 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR HEARING DATE OF 11/03/05 10. EXHIBITS A. Site Plan (by Quadrant Consulting, dated 10/7/05) B. Landscape Plan (by The Land Group, dated 10/07/05) C. Building Elevations (by P&R Architects, dated 9/29/05) D. Legal Description E. Required Findings from UDC (CUP) F. Conditions of Approval 1. Planning Department 2. Public Works 3. Fire Department Kohls-CUP CUP -05-048 PAGE 11 • 0 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR HEARING DATE OF 11/03/05 Exhibit A: Site Plan (Quadrant Consulting) T r r' E / I r� r it8 — _ FAtr�nDHu Kuu. r r� _ aci ac w W.H. MOORF COHPANY PROPOSED KOHL'S DEPARTMENT STORE •■ ..i m ow NORTHWEST CORNER - USttCK AND EAGLE RDADS !! Qu O d f O Tl t navc �. � �. Ili• O OCT -� ... _. e _ ._ ... � _ .. ulting, Inc. IEJI Jfi-®1 Aug (uq Yi-®!o Kohl's CUP Application Exhibit A Page 1 9 0 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR HEARING DATE OF 11/03/05 Exhibit B: Landscape Plan (The Land Group) Kohl's CUP Application Exhibit B Page I 2! A J lip 01 111tio, KOHL'S Meridian, Idaho 0 CC Ila Ji i KOHL'S Meridian, Idaho 0 9 0 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR HEARING DATE OF 11/03/05 Exhibit B: Landscape Plan (The Land Group) %IATCHL(NE P.4 A I CHL (NF 'AD 4 02 AC. ISI236 MA ILNLINL t 4, cat r Iff C) 'flit IN 1 11 'I I N. ;I Y. I I 1.I I m 11 1, 1111,j 1 0 4 ON V yeaI Willi KOHL'S Meridian, Idaho Kohl's CUP Application Exhibit B Page 2 'AD 1 6 AC. P ND 5 'D 2 2 AC . A AD 2 '7 AC. 247' Q 6 AC. 1 3 kc. TENANT Sir'N VY/ S DANFL MA ILNLINL t 4, cat r Iff C) 'flit IN 1 11 'I I N. ;I Y. I I 1.I I m 11 1, 1111,j 1 0 4 ON V yeaI Willi KOHL'S Meridian, Idaho Kohl's CUP Application Exhibit B Page 2 • • CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR HEARING DATE OF 11/03/05 Exhibit C: l Wilding Elevations (P&R Architects) «y w i Kohl's CUP Application Exhibit C Page 1 Z�FP Igo 0 n s a ey_ o a c � aO85� @O m QIFity�§sD� WINE, + 7AJ 0 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR HEARING DATE OF 11/03/05 Exhibit D: Legal Description Bate: October 7, 2005 Page: I of 2 EXMIT "A" A parcel of land being a portion of the tract of land as described in Warranty Beed Instrument No. 99021196 and a portion of a tract of land as described in Warranty Deed Instrument No. 104134508, Ada county records, said parcel being situated in the Southeast %4 of the Southeast '/4 of Section 32, Township 4 North, Range I East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, is more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Southeast corner of said Section 32, thence along the South line of said Section North 89°44'39" West 1,118.13 feet; thence leaving said South line North 00°15'21"East 59.96 feet to the north right-of-way line of East Ustick Road being the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence North 00'15'21" East 512.46 feet; thence, South 89°59'26" East 105.26 feet; thence, South 00°00'08" West 137.66 feet; thence, North 89059'56" East 289.65 fee; thence, North 00°00'04" West 65.17 feet; thence, South 89°59'53" Fast 205.85 feet; thence, South 00°00'04" East 28.58 feet; thence, South 46°31'46' East 100.17 feet; thence, North 89059'56" East 184.69 feet; thence, South 00°00'52" West 362.26 feet to a point on said north right-of-way line being 44.00 feet north of the South line of said Section 32; thence, along said north right-of-way line the following four courses: North 89044'39" West 83.38 feet; thence, South 99018'14" West 361.19 feet to a point being 38.00 feet North of the South line of said Section 32; thence North 89°44'39" West 395.41 feet; thence North 42°46'09" West 30.04 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNNING. Said parcel contains 363,017 square feet or 8.33 acres more or less. Kohl's CUP Application Exhibit D Page 1 9 0 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR HEARING DATE OF 11/03/05 (' �a:s� m r°t0 0 ro� 0 al_o N L3 ttlOff15'2/'E �^ 51246' �o I o �� m 560'WOB W m a I 137.66' � r I � r w n z I g o m m m� p N r4 �w€ m 38' p N ll A colo N �3y a I 1 -21 u: ii w z Vl j m z m m O O wlm�m m m z S a1O n 8 4l D = W I m 1 no�• O m � I N 2 m m �^ �9 m t�/1 Obi � 00 A O a � o I sooroo'sz°w o I 362.26' ^tri m v z � �gobA o % w 8m O O B G I (n m P qhg R� rt v R/W OV08 31OV3 H18ON E00/Eo0® Kohl's CUP Application Exhibit D Page 2 XVJ E5'01 IVA 5002/10/L CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR HEARING DATE OF 11/03/05 Exhibit E: Required Findings from UDC (Conditional Use Permit) The Commission shall review the particular facts and circumstances of each proposed conditional use in terms of the following, and may approve a conditional use permit if they shall find evidence presented at the hearing(s) is adequate to establish: 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 Commission finds that the site is 8.33 acres and is large enough to accommodate all required parking, landscaping, loading and other standard regulations required by the UDC. 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 proposed Kohl's Department Store meets the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan as listed in Section 7 of this report. Some of the standards of the UDC are not currently being met by the applicant's site plan and building elevations. Specifically, the site plan needs to reflect new pedestrian walkways and the south building elevation needs to be amended to comply with entryway corridor design standards. If the applicant makes these changes, this finding will be met. 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 the proposed retail use complies with the uses permitted in the C -G zone and those uses allowed under the Development Agreement. The building height, parking layout, landscape buffer widths and other dimensional standards shown in the application comply with the UDC. The property adjacent to Kohl's west boundary (beginning approximately 450 feet north of Ustick Road) is zoned R-8 and is proposed as medium density residential uses. In the future, the applicant will need to construct a buffer between land uses to address this less intensive use. 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 the proposed development will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity if the applicant complies with all CUP conditions and constructs all improvements and operates the use in accordance with the UDC standards. Traffic volumes will significantly increase. However, both ACHD and ITD have approved the application and placed special conditions on the applicant. These standards include lighting, screening, landscaping and other areas intended to mitigate potentially harmful effects. 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. Kohl's CUP Application Exhibit E Page 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR HEARING DATE OF 11/03/05 The Commission finds that sanitary sewer, domestic water and irrigation are available to the subject property. The applicant recently completed a public-private partnership to improve Ustick Road to five lanes and ACHD is planning to install a traffic signal at the west boundary of the site. The commercial land use should not have any impact on the school system. Please refer to other comments prepared by the Meridian Fire Department. 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. The Commission finds that the applicant will pay to extend the sanitary sewer and water mains into the site. No additional capital facility costs are expected from the City. An estimated 150 local jobs are anticipated to be created by Kohl's Department Store. The additional commercial structures will improve the tax base for the City of Meridian. The applicant and/or future property owners will be required to pay highway impact fees. 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. The Commission finds that the proposed development will not involve uses that will create nuisances that would be detrimental to the general welfare of the surrounding area. The Commission recognizes the fact that traffic and noise will increase with the approval of this subdivision; however, we do not believe that the amount generated will be detrimental to the general welfare of the public. The Commission finds the future buffer between land uses along the west boundary and the Ustick Road street buffer will help to mitigate noise, fumes and glare created by the additional traffic. 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 the Layton Lateral is a significant irrigation water source which courses just north of the proposed Kohl's site. The applicant will be required to comply with all state and local ordinances regarding conveyance of water and maintaining historic points of access. The Ada County Historic Preservation Council's Site Inventory does not show any structures or places listed for the subject property. We are unaware of any other scenic or historic features. Kohl's CUP Application Exhibit E Page 2 • 0 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR HEARING DATE OF 11/03/05 EXHIBIT F: Conditions of Approval 1. Planning Department 1.1 SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS—CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP -05-048) 1.2 The site plan prepared by Quadrant Consulting (Sheet S-1), dated October 7, 2005, is approved, with the conditions listed herein. Applicant shall meet all of the requirements of the Annexation and Zoning (AZ -03-025) and Development Agreement recorded for the subject property. 1.3 UDC 11-3C-8 requires off-street loading spaces for commercial uses. The Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) application for this project shall clearly demonstrate that both a Type A and Type B space are available on site, located near the refuse/service area behind the building. As long as the two spaces are dedicated, striping of the spaces is not required. 1.4 The applicant shall modify the west and south elevations to provide either overhanging eaves or create additional variation along the main building's parapet height. This standard may be met by constructing a second projection on each elevation to match/compliment the approximately 38 - foot wide projection at the east end of the south elevation. The applicant shall coordinate the elevation modifications with the Planning_Department staff. 1.5 Any roof -mounted mechanical equipment will be screened from view from any public right-of- way. The applicant shall submit drawings at the time of CZC submission that demonstrate this condition is complied with. 1.6 The Kohl's building construction shall substantially comply with the elevations and materials on the drawing sheet by P&R Architects, dated 09-27-05 (revised 10-03-05), including the amendments required by this CUP. Construction materials used on the structures shall be approved by the City of Meridian Building Department and in accordance with the most recent Building Code. 1.7 An additional material and/or band color which compliments the east elevation shall be added along the full south and west elevations (e.g. porcelain tile, an additional EIFS color, etc.). 1.6 Provide an 8 -foot wide pedestrian walkway from the Ustick Road sidewalk to the sidewalk at the front of the building. The walkway shall be distinguished from the vehicular driving surfaces through the use of pavers, colored or scored concrete, or bricks. Locate the walkway beginning at the west side of the middle driveway and connect it to the sidewalk in front of the building. 1.7 The applicant shall comply with the outdoor lighting standards shown in UDC 11-3A-11. 1.8 Provide a walkway at least eight feet (8') in width for pedestrian movement away from the main building entrance to the parking lot. The Site Plan must be modified to construct at least one, 8 - foot wide walkway in the center parking row in front of the building. 1.9 The two awnings on the east elevation shall extend at least 20 feet beyond the entry doors, measured from the building face to the outer edge of the awning. The applicant shall submit a drawing at the time of CZC application submission to demonstrate compliance with this condition. Kohl's CUP Application Exhibit F Page 1 0 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR HEARING DATE OF 11/03/05 1.10 Construct 10 -foot wide street buffers adjacent to the east and west sides of the new street along the west boundary with the overall site improvements. Complete prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. 1.11 Comply with UDC 11-3A-12 regarding a screen for the refuse/service area. 1.12 No irrigation pump station or facility is shown on the Site Plan. However, if one is proposed for the site, it must be located outside of any required street buffer. Impervious surfaces are prohibited in said buffers. 1.13 The asphalt surface shall be extended a minimum of 20 feet east of the landscape planters shown at the east end of the parking lot and provide for two-way vehicular movement to the north and south parking aisles. 1.14 The legal description for the Kohl's site does not place it contiguous to Eagle Road. As such, this permit does not approve nor apply to the Eagle Road landscape buffers. If the applicant proposes to construct the Eagle Road buffer as an off-site improvement with the Kohl's CUP, the landscaping standards required in the UDC shall apply. 1.15 The applicant shall comply with all ACHD site specific conditions, including closure of the driveway in the southwest comer of the site that connects to the new north -south public street. 2. Public Works Department 2.1 The applicant is proposing to sewer service to this site via extensions of mains located in Ustick Road. The applicant shall install mains to and through this development; applicant shall coordinate main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub -grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2 Water service to this site is being proposed via extension of mains in Ustick Road. The applicant shall be responsible to install water mains to and through this development, coordinate main size and routing with Public Works. 2.3 Provide a 20' easement for all public water/sewer main outside of public right of way (include all water services and hydrants). The description shall be consistent with the graphically depicted easements on the plat. 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 The submitted site plan shows no new hydrants being installed, coordinate with Rich Greene for the location of required hydrants. 2.5 Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project shall be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9-4-8. Wells may be used for non- domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. 2.6 All development improvements, including but not limited to sewer, fencing, micro -paths, pressurized irrigation and landscaping shall be installed and approved prior to obtaining Kohl's CUP Application Exhibit F Page 2 0 • CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR HEARING DATE OF 11/03/05 certificates of occupancy. 2.7 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to signature on the final plat per Resolution 02-374. 2.8 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 2.9 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES Permitting that may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency. 2.10 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.11 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.12 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material. 2.13 The engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3 -feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. 3. Meridian 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 %a" outlet face the main street or parking lot aisle. b. The Fire hydrant shall not face a street which does not have addresses on it. c. Fire hydrant markers shall be provided per Public Works spec. d. Locations with fire hydrants shall have the curb painted red 10' to each side of the hydrant location. e. Fire Hydrants shall be placed on comers when spacing permits. f. Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10'. g. Fire hydrants shall be place 18" above finish grade. h. Fire hydrants shall be provided to meet the requirements of the IFC Section 509.5. 3.3 All entrance and internal roads shall have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside radius. 3.4 Provide at least a 20' wide Fire Lane for all internal roadways all roadways shall be marked in accordance with Appendix D Section D103.6 Signs. 3.5 Fire lanes and streets shall have a vertical clearance of 13'6". This includes mature landscaping. 3.6 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. 3.7 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 The new commercial lot will have an unknown impact on Meridian Fire Department call volumes. The Meridian Fire Department has experienced 2612 responses in the year 2004. According to a Kohl's CUP Application Exhibit F Page 3 0 0 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR HEARING DATE OF 11/03/05 report completed by Fire & Emergency Services Consulting Group our requests for service are proj ected to reach 2800 in the year 2005 and 3800 by the year 2010. 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 Maintain a separation of 5' from the building to the trash dumpster enclosure. 3.11 Provide a Knoxbox entry system for the complex prior to occupancy. 3.12 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). 3.13 The Fire Dept. has concerns about the ability to address the project and have the addresses visible from the street which the project is addressed off of. Please contact Vicki Heugly (898-5500) to address this concern prior to the public hearing. 3.14 Provide exterior egress lighting as required by the International Building & Fire Codes. 3.15 There shall be a fire hydrant within 100' of all fire department connections. 3.16 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). For Group R-3 and Group U occupancies, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m). For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m). 4. Sanitary Service Company 4.1 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. Kohl's CUP Application Exhibit F Page 4 0 0 AZ 05-045 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING November 17, 2005 APPLICANT M & H Development, LLC ITEM NO. 7 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from October 20,2005: Annexation and Zoning of 91.085 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for Reflection Ridge Subdivision - 4275 South 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: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: COMMENTS See previous item packet / attached minutes See attached Memo for Continuance Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. a. I: b � �kk 0 0 AZ 05-045 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING November 17, 2005 APPLICANT M & H Development, LLC ITEM NO. 7 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from October 20,2005: Annexation and Zoning of 91.085 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for Reflection Ridge Subdivision - 4275 South 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: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: COMMENTS See previous item packet / attached minutes See attached Memo for Continuance Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. s MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING November 17, 2005 APPLICANT M & H Development, LLC ITEM NO. 8 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from October 20, 2005: Preliminary Plat approval of 255 building lots and 26 other lots on 91.085 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Reflection Ridge Subdivision - 4275 South 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: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: COMMENTS See previous Item packet / attached minutes See attached Memo for Continuance Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. # � hnw.�.''"< CUP 05-046 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING November 17, 2005 APPLICANT M & H Development, LLC ITEM NO. 9 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from October 20,2005: Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for 255 single-family residential dwellingurds with reductions to minimum lot sizes, frontage and setbacks. Also the applicant Is requesting a waiver of the standard block length in a proposed R-4 zone for Reflection Ridge Subdivision - 4275 S. Locust Grove AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: See previous Item packet / attached minutes CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See attached Memo for Continuance CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. #�" S.. NG i..,, bl..;�ft•i;Yi: rF& S`��:;. i dJ, `42«t''ydT Tt� 1�*. ;:3�G.}a�`, r., r ;V�'e;�£+'S»� P.. '. 4 r ; auAja\t'.,-'(J;,,°' � y x nj$4 r ] ry c '� .k....�. °�n - €r'^A� # 3, F �� § t a .},$[,.,u„'`r .s.�� i°.�" z' M,. x gni £. �#o- c 3 Y a ; S ° �^s^`„z_ y #dH 'Tr r , SFr 1 2'3�xf;P - &j=% % s.f... c+J. tib. 6 3 `taY +5 ufg R F y 0 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING • November 17, 2005 AZ 05-050 APPLICANT Dave McKinnon / Conger Management Group ITEM NO. 10 REQUEST Public Hearing - Annexation and Zoning of 5.0 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for Reserve Subdivision - west of North Locust Grove Road and south of Chinden Blvd 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 No comment INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See attached letter from Dave McKinnon Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. i { 0 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING • November 17, 2005 AZ 05-050 APPLICANT Dave McKinnon / Conger Management Group ITEM NO. 10 REQUEST Public Hearing - Annexation and Zoning of 5.0 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for Reserve Subdivision - west of North Locust Grove Road and south of Chinden Blvd 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 No comment INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See attached letter from Dave McKinnon Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. i i o 0 z 3 . PP 05-051 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING November 17, 2005 °.k APPLICANT Dave McKinnon / Conger Management Group ITEM NO. REQUEST Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat approval of 12 single-family residential building lots and 5 common lots on 5.0 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Reserve Subdivision - west of North Locust Grove Road and south of Chinden Boulevard AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: j) CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See attached staff report �F 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: PJ SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: See attached comments V NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See attached letter from pave McKinnon Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. S k Zi- t 4, } w F 6 l 4 axh a IN, °� ` xx'' r'.'£`*r �i'y4 $°`k'lf } '� 1 i i KCF .'�f�iAh •:'S �2y Ai,.3 '� ..y i.z t, ,v�F �4 ,,.y.y N 4= k; �k }1.. 5i y�'� 3 J n'bf i 'd+Abt 9 3''4TtS'v''f'i tom'( �i 4' 4 5 '`:' d`' 1 t '� _d, ,{ m .C' 4 .„•%i „�: r.. xF- S u.' 5gws �( d¢ F 4 d v+ 4",A 3r'M 2 41 r� MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING APPLICANT Touchmark of the Treasure Valley PP 05-054 November 17,2W5 ITEM NO. 12 REQUEST Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat approval of 22 building lots and 1 other lot on 15.35 acres in a L -O zone for Touchmark Center Subdivision - southwest corner of Touchmark Way and Franklin Road AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: COMMENTS See attached staff report No comment See attached comments See attached comments OTHER: See attached Affidavit of Posting Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. V gip.: `ej {I MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING November 17, 2005 CUP 05-050 APPLICANT Touchmark of the Treasure Valley ITEM NO. 13 REQUEST Public Hearing - A Conceptual Conditional Use for office uses on 15.35 acres in a L -O zone for Touchmark Center Subdivision - southwest comer of Touchmark Way and Franklin Road AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: COMMENTS See attached staff report No comment Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. h ^? S ,p;, AZ 05-052 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING November 17,2005 APPLICANT Landmark Development Group, LLC ITEM NO. 14 REQUEST Public Hearing - Annexation and Zoning of 7.87 acres from RI to C -G zone for Sadie Creek Promenade Subdivision - located at 3055 North Eagle Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: . . . . . . . . . . . CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See attached staff report CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: No comment CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: A, CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: No comment NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: .... ........... Ernalled: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shag become property of the City of Meridian. "T" % ow 3"A 4", "A nw i w 4 PW ;'At Az, _7 yy- A 7 :J," "4 Ap 3�& Aj, E, PP 05-053 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING November 17, 2005 APPLICANT Landmark Development Group, LLC ITEM NO. 15 REQUEST Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat approval of 24 commercial building lots on 15.33 acres in a proposed C -G zone and an approved C -G zone for Sadie Creek Promenade Subdivision - located at 3055 and 3085 North 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: COMMENTS See attached staff report No comment See attached comments Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at publk meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. • MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING r� L November 17, 2005 5 '1 0 APPLICANT Landmark Development Group, LLC ITEM NO. 16 REQUEST Public Hearing - Conditional Use for retail, restauarant, drive thru and office uses in a proposed C -G zone and an approved C -G zone for Sadie Creek Promenade Subdivision - 3055 and 3085 North 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: COMMENTS See attached staff report No comment No comment Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING November 17, 2005 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 17 REQUEST Review of the Application Checklist AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meotings shall become property of the City of Meridian. • INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FROM: SONYA WAITERS, ASSISTANT CITY PLANNER SUBJECT: REVISIONS TO LAND USE APPLICATIONS DATE: 11/17/2005 CC: CITY CLERK 0 Some revisions have been made to the land use application forms that correspond with the new Unified Development Code. After using them for awhile, we have discovered some errors that need to be corrected. The changes are mainly due to incorrect application references, clarifications, information that was inadvertently left off from our old applications, and other miscellaneous insignificant changes. We revised the following list of applications/checklists: City Council Review checklist Certificate of Zoning Compliance checklist Sign Permit application & checklists Private Street checklist Design Review checklist Accessory Use checklist Final Plat checklist Short Plat checklist CUP Modification checklist Development Agreement Modification checklist Time Extension checklist Commission & Council Review application Administrative Review application Annexation/rezone checklist CUP checklist Final Plat Modification checklist PUD checklist Preliminary Plat checklist Rezone checklist Vacation checklist We don't believe that these changes are substantive enough to require a public hearing, however, we wanted you to be aware of the revisions prior to posting them on our website. Thanks for your consideration, Sonya Watters 0 0 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FROM: SONYA WATTERS, ASSISTANT QTY PLANNER SUBJECT: REVISIONS TO LAND USE APPLICATIONS DATE: 11/15/2005 CC: CITY CLERK Some revisions have been made to the land use application forms that correspond with the new Unified Development Code. After using them for awhile, we have discovered some errors that need to be corrected. The changes are mainly due to incorrect application references, clarifications, information that was inadvertently left off from our old applications, and other miscellaneous insignificant changes. We revised the following list of applications/checklists: City Council Review checklist Certificate of Zoning Compliance checklist Private Street checklist Design Review checklist Accessory Use checklist Final Plat checklist Short Plat checklist CUP Modification checklist Development Agreement Modification checklist Time Extension checklist Commission & Council Review application Administrative Review application Annexation/rezone checklist CUP checklist Final Plat Modification checklist PUD checklist Preliminary Plat checklist Rezone checklist Vacation checklist We don't believe that these changes are substantive enough to require a public hearing, however, we wanted you to be aware of the revisions prior to posting them on our website. Thanks for your consideration, Sonya Watters