Loading...
2009 05-07IDIAN MERIDIAN PLANNING AND:ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA ' City Council Chambers 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idsho Thursday, May 7, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. "Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony, aU presentations before the Mayor and City Council ane expected to be truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter." 1. Roll-call Attendance: _O Tom O'Brien X Wendy Newton-Huckabay~ X Michael Rohm _X Joe Marshall ~X David Moe -chairman , 2. Adoption of the Agenda: Approve 3. Consent Agenda: ~I A. Approve Minutes of April 16, 2009 Planning and .,Zoning Commission Meeting: Approve B. Findings of Fact and .Conclusions. of Law for Approval: GUP 09-002 Request for Conditional Use Permit approval far adrive-thru ; . , establishment in a C-G zone within 300 feet of another drive-thru c establishment for Idadiv Credit Union by ZGA Architects Planners LTD - NWC of Meridian Road and Corporate Driver Approve 4. Public Hearing: RZ 09-001 Request for Rezone of 7.65 .acres consistirt~ of 25 single-family residen#ial lots and 2 common lots (Lots 1 and 2 and a . portion of Lot 3, Block 2; portions of Lots 1 & 10 and .Lots 2-9, Block 1: Dove Meadows Subdivision No. 1; portions of Lots 11 & 12 and Lots 13= 24, Block 1, Dove Meadows Subdivision No. 2) from L-O #o R-8.for Dove Meadows by City of Meridian Planning Department -various properties in . Dove Meadows Subdivision Nos. 1 and 2 zoned L-O: Recommend Approval to City Council 1 5. Public Hearing: CUP 09-004 Request for Conditional Use Permit fora ;~ daycare center in an R-4 zoning district for Piter Patter Club by Patter Patter Club, LLC - 2371 N. Monaco Way: Approve Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - May 7, 2009 Page 1 of 3 - ~. All materials presented at public meetings shall pecome property of the City of Meridian, Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents ahd/orhearing, ~ ' please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. • • 6. Public Hearing: ZOA 09-001 Request for Zoning Ordinance /Unified Development Code (UDC) Text Amendment to modify and clean up specific sections of the UDC for Outdoor Storage and Parking Unified Development Code Text Amendment by City of Meridian Planning Department -See application for details of all sections proposed for amendments: Recommend Approval to City Council Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - May 7, 2009 Page 2 of 2 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. E IDIAN~~--- s;anNa C~ MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, May 7, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. "Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony, all presentations before the Mayor and City Council are expected to be truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter." 1. Roll-call Attendance: Tom O'Brien ~ Wendy Newton-Huckabay ~~ Michael Rohm _~~Joe Marshall _~ David Moe -chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: ~~p I~~p~ 3. Consent Agenda: 11 A. Approve Minutes of April 16, 2009 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: ~~p~~ B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 09-002 Request for Conditional Use Permit approval for adrive-thru establishment in a C-G zone within 300 feet of another drive-thru establishment for Idadiv Credit Union by ZGA Architects & Planners LTD - NWC of Meridian Road and Corporate Drive: ~ pry ~. 4. Public Hearing: RZ 09-001 Request for Rezone of 7.65 acres consisting of 25 single-family residential lots and 2 common lots (Lots 1 and 2 and a portion of Lot 3, Block 2; portions of Lots 1 & 10 and Lots 2-9, Block 1, Dove Meadows Subdivision No. 1; portions of Lots 11 & 12 and Lots 13- 24, Block 1, Dove Meadows Subdivision No. 2) from L-O to R-8 for Dove Meadows by City of Meridian Planning Department -various properties in D ve Meadows Subdivision Nos. 1 and 2 zoned L-O: ~~4YY1-'1'~~ d- ~1~ rp Vim. f6 Cr`-f[~ ~ ~~ ,~ 5. Public Hearing: CUP 09-004 Request for Conditlonal Use Permit for a daycare center in an R-4 zoning district for Pitter Patter Club by Pitter Patter Club, LLC - 2371 N. Monaco Way: ~p~,.~ U ~ 6. Public Hearing: ZOA 09-001 Request for Zoning Ordinance /Unified Development Code (UDC) Text Amendment to modify and clean up specific sections of the UDC for Outdoor Storage and Parking Unified Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - May 7, 2009 Page 1 of 2 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. • • Development Code Text Amendment by City of Meridian Planning Department -See application for details of all sections proposed for amendments: ~ ~ ~, , r , . e ~ ~ L } y ° p r ~ ~ ~ Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - May 7, 2009 Page 2 of 2 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. ~~ E IDIAN-^" MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, May 7, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. "Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony, all presentations before the Mayor and City Council are expected to be truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter." 1. Roll-call Attendance: Tom O'Brien Wendy Newton-Huckabay Michael Rohm Joe Marshall David Moe -chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of April 16, 2009 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 09-002 Request for Conditional Use Permit approval for adrive-thru establishment in a C-G zone within 300 feet of another drive-thru establishment for Idadiv Credit Union by ZGA Architects & Planners LTD - NWC of Meridian Road and Corporate Drive: 4. Public Hearing: RZ 09-001 Request for Rezone of 7.65 acres consisting of 25 single-family residential lots and 2 common lots (Lots 1 and 2 and a portion of Lot 3, Block 2; portions of Lots 1 & 10 and Lots 2-9, Block 1, Dove Meadows Subdivision No. 1; portions of Lots 11 & 12 and Lots 13- 24, Block 1, Dove Meadows Subdivision No. 2) from L-O to R-8 for Dove Meadows by City of Meridian Planning Department -various properties in Dove Meadows Subdivision Nos. 1 and 2 zoned L-O: 5. Public Hearing: CUP 09-004 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a daycare center in an R-4 zoning district for Pitter Patter Club by Pitter Patter Club, LLC - 2371 N. Monaco Way: 6. Public Hearing: ZOA 09-001 Request for Zoning Ordinance /Unified Development Code (UDC) Text Amendment to modify and clean up specific sections of the UDC for Outdoor Storage and Parking Unified Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - May 7, 2009 Page 1 of 2 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. • • Development Code Text Amendment by City of Meridian Planning Department -See application for details of all sections proposed for amendments: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - May 7, 2009 Page 2 of 2 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. ~ Broadcast Report ~ Date/Time 05-04-2009 11:11:54 a.m. Transmit Header Text City of Meridian Idaho Local ID 1 2088884218 Local Name 1 Line 1 Local ID 2 Local Name 2 Line 2 This document :Failed (reduced sample and details below} Document size : 8.5 "x11 " Pie-asp. Posp~-~-~o~r fl~,~blia ~o~,`.~...e~'~~.s( ~, ~~iYl E IDIAN~-- MERIDIAN PLANNING AND 2ONINO t r~ ~ H ¢ REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Couneli Chambers 33 E. Broadway Aventre, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, May 7, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. "4lthough ills Gity of Meridia» rw longer requires sworn testimony, ati prase»tatiars befor+~ the Mayor and City Cou»cil era expected fo be truH~ifut and ho»esf to best of the abifny of the prr3senfer." 1. RoN-call Attendance: Tom O'Brien Wendy Newton-Fludcabay Michael Rohm Joe Marshall David Moe -chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minwtes of April 16, 2009 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 08.002 Request for Conditional Use Permit approval for adrive-thru establishment in a C-G zone within 300 feet of another drive-thru establishment for Idadiv Credk Union by ZGA Architects & Planners LTD - NWC of Meridian Road and Corporate Drive: 4. Public Hearing: RZ 09-001 Request for Rezone of 7.85 acres oonsiating of 25 single-family residential tots and 2 common lots (Lots 1 and 2 and a portion of Lot 3, $iock 2; portions of Lois ! ~ !0 and Lois 2-g, 81odc t, Dove Meadows Subdivision No. 1; portlons of tots 11 & 12 and Lots 13- 24, Block 1, Dove Meadows Subdivision No. 2) from L-O to R-8 for Dove Meadows by Ctty of Meridian Planning Deparhnent -various properties in Dove Meadows Subdivision Nos. 1 and 2 zoned L-O; 6. Public Hearing: CUP 09-004 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a daycare center in an R-4 zoning district far Fitter Patter Ctub by Fitter Patter Club, LLG - 2371 N. Monaco Way: 6. Publtc Roaring: ZOA 08-001 Request for Zoning Ordinance 1 Unified Development Code (UDC) Text Amendment to modify and dean up specific sectrons of the tJDC far Outdoor Storage and Parking Unified Meridian Piannfng sold Zoning Gommiselon Meetlng Agenda - May 7.20 Page t of 2 At! rtraterlats presented at pubYc msetlrtgs ahetl becane property of the City oT IlAOr)dhn. Arryorre des~(ng aocommodaYAn for disabtl(tlea rekded 1o dowtnerka andJOr trearcing, please contact the CRy CIxKs Orttce at 88&4439 et least d8 hours prior to the publk meeWty. Total Paaes Scanned : 2 Total Paaes Confirmed : 32 No. Job Remote Station Start Time Duration Pages Line Mode Job Type Results 001 244 3810160 10:21:59 a.m. 05-04-2009 00:01:44 2/2 1 EC HS CP9600 002 244 9,8467366 10:21:59 a.m. 05-04-2009 00:00:24 2/2 1 EC HS CP26400 003 244 208 855 9560 10:21:59 a.m. 05-04-2009 00:00:27 212 1 EC HS CP21600 004 244 208 888 2682 10:21:59 a.m. 05-04-2009 00:00:24 2/2 1 EC HS CP28800 005 244 9,8840745 10:21:59 a.m. OS-04-2009 00:00:24 2/2 1 EC HS CP28800 006 244 2083876393 10:21:59 a.m. 05-04-2009 00:00:22 212 1 EC HS CP28800 007 244 Ada County 10:21:59 a.m. 05-04-2009 00:01:12 2/2 1 G3 HS CP14400 Broadcast Report ~' ~ Date/Time 05-04-2009 11:12:01 a.m. Transmit Header Text City of Meridian Idaho Local ID 1 2088884218 Local Name 1 Llne 1 Local ID 2 Local Name 2 Line 2 No. lob Remote Station Start Time Duration Pages Line Mode Job Type Results 008 244 9,8885052 10:21:59 a.m. 05-04-2009 00:00:23 212 1 EC HS CP26400 009 244 9,8886573 10:21:59 a.m. OS-04-2009 00:01:38 2/2 1 EC HS CP9600 010 244 9,8881983 10:21:59 a.m. 05-04-2009 00:00:27 2/2 1 EC HS CP26400 011 244 2083776449 10:21:59 a.m. 05-04-2009 00:00:41 212 1 EC HS CP14400 012 244 9,4679562 10:21:59 a.m. 05-04-2009 00:00:22 212 1 EC HS CP26400 013 244 2088886701 10:21:59 a.m. 05-04-2009 00:00:36 212 1 EC HS CP14400 014 244 9,8884022 10:21:59 a.m. 05-04-2009 00:01:10 212 1 EC HS CP14400 015 244 9,3886924 10:21:59 a.m. 05-04-2009 00:00:00 0/2 1 -- HS FA 016 244 9,8841159 10:21:59 a.m. 05-04-2009 00:00:24 212 1 EC HS CP24000 017 244 9,8840744 10:21:59 a.m. 05-04-2009 00:00:29 2/2 1 EC HS CP26400 Abbreviations: HS: Host send PL: Polled local MP: Mailbox print TU: Terminated by user HR: Host receive PR: Polled remote CP: Completed TS: Terminated by system G3: Group 3 WS: Waiting send MS: Mailbox save FA: Fall RP: Report EC: Error Correll AGENDA NAME 5-7-D PZ Cvrnm r: REVISED (YES/N,O) REVISED DATE: ~~ BACK TABLE FOR P & Z OR C/C DOOR OF CHAMBERS j~ CLERKS STATION CITY COUNCIL SEATS/ PZ3ox~ ~.- CLERKS WALL CALENDAR REPOST /N LOBBY REFAX WEBSJTE WEBLINK E-MAIL Initial: Date: Time: • • Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting May 7, 2009 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of May 7, 2009, was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman David Moe. Members Present: Chairman David Moe, Commissioner Wendy Newton-Huckabay, Commissioner Joe Marshall, and Commissioner Michael Rohm. Members Absent: Commissioner Tom O'Brien, Others Present: Machelle Hill, Bill Nary, Pete Friedman, Sonya Wafters, Scott Steckline, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call X Wendy Newton-Huckabay Tom O'Brien X Michael Rohm -Vice Chairman X Joe Marshall X David Moe -Chairman Moe: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to welcome you to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission for May the 7th. I'd like to call this meeting to order and ask the clerk to call roll, please. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: Moe: Thank you very much. Next item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. Commissioners, there are no changes to the agenda, so if I could get a motion to accept the agenda? Marshall: So moved. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Rohm: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed. That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 3: Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of April 16, 2009 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: • • Meridian Planning and Zoning May 7, 2009 Page 2 of 23 B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 09-002 Request for Conditional Use Permit approval for adrive-thru establishment in a C-G zone within 300 feet of another drive-thru establishment for Idadiv Credit Union by ZGA Architects & Planners LTD - NWC of Meridian Road and Corporate Drive: Moe: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda. On that we have got two items. Item No. 1 is the approved minutes of the April 16th, 2009, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and the second item is the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for approval of CUP 09-002. Any questions, comments, Commissioners? Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Moe: Okay. Could I get a motion to approve the Consent Agenda? Marshall: So moved. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe: Before I open our first public hearing tonight, good to see that we have got some folks in the audience tonight. Thank you very much for coming. Basically, I want to just kind of give you a rundown for the format that we go through here. I will open the public hearing. At that time the staff will give a brief overview of the hearing. After they are done, then, I will, then, ask the applicant to come forward. The applicant will have 15 minutes to, basically, explain their position on their project, whether they -- they are asking for additional help or whether or not they are in approval of everything. After the applicant is done there are sign-up sheets in the back for anyone that wants to come forward and speak on this hearing. You would get three minutes time at that time. Once everyone on the list has been taken care of I will, then, ask one more time if there is anyone else in the audience that would like to speak to this hearing and they, too, would also get three minutes. After that's all done I will, then, ask the applicant to come back up and, basically, answer any questions that may have been asked during the public hearings or rebut any other information that was talked about. So, after that time, then, the Commission, then, would vote and decide how to go from there. Item 4: Public Hearing: RZ 09-001 Request for Rezone of 7.65 acres consisting of 25 single-family residential lots and 2 common lots (Lots 1 and 2 and a portion of Lot 3, Block 2; portions of Lots 1 & 10 and Lots 2-9, Block 1, Dove Meadows Subdivision No. 1; portions of Lots 11 & 12 and Lots 13- 24, Block 1, Dove Meadows Subdivision No. 2) from L-O to R-8 for Dove Meridian Planning and Zoning • • May 7, 2009 Page 3 of 23 Meadows by City of Meridian Planning Department -various properties in Dove Meadows Subdivision Nos. 1 and 2 zoned L-O: Moe: So, having said that, then, I would now like to open the public hearing on RZ 09- 001 for Dove Meadows, start with the staff report, please. Wafters: Thank you, Chairman, Commissioners. The first application is a rezone of 7.53 acres of land from L-O, limited office, to R-8, medium density residential. The property is located north of Fairview off of Hickory Way, midway between Locust Grove and Eagle Road. The properties consist of 25 single family residential lots and two common lots in Dove Meadows Subdivision No. 1 and 2. Surrounding uses are single family residential properties and a church, Capitol Christian. A future land use map designation for these properties is medium density residential, which is consistent with the proposed R-8 zoning. A little history on these properties. All of these lots have been developed with single family homes. The residential use of these properties was authorized under a previously approved planned development, which allowed residential uses in the L-O district. Because residential use of these properties lawfully existed prior to the effective date of the current UDC, 9/15 of '05, the use and structures are considered nonconforming per UDC 11-16-1, as residential uses are prohibited in the L-O district. As such, the use is allowed to continue as long as the use remains lawful, is not expanded or extended subject to the provisions listed in UDC 11-1B-4. The nonconforming structures maybe be enlarged, repaired, or modified, provided that the additions or modifications to the structure conform to the requirement listed in UDC 11-1 B-5. The purpose of the amendment is to remove the nonconforming status of the properties and zone them the same as the rest of the lots in residential sub -- or, excuse me, Dove Meadows Subdivision, zoned R-8. No written testimony has been received on this application. Staff is recommending approval of the rezone with the conditions in the staff report. Staff will stand for any questions the Commissioners may have at this time. Moe: Thank you. Any questions of staff? Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Moe: Okay. None? I'm going to confuse everyone, because the city was not only the -- talking about it, they were the applicant for this as well. So, there will be no applicant coming forward now, but we do have a couple of folks that were signed up. First would be Carol Hall is it? Do you want to come forward? Okay. From the audience she's fine. Donald? And I assume from the audience he's fine as well, so -- all right. Well, that was easy enough. Well, at that point now, if there is anyone else in the audience that would like to speak to this hearing now, you're more than welcome to come forward. None of the scouts? All right. Well, I gave you a shot. So, Commissioners? Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Moe: Commissioner Rohm. • • Meridian Planning and Zoning May 7, 2009 Page 4 of 23 Rohm: I move that we close the public hearing on RZ 09-001. Marshall: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on RZ 09-001. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe: Mr. Rohm, you're doing so well. Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman? Moe: Yes. Rohm: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number RZ 09-001 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of May 7th, 2009, with no modifications. Marshall: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve RZ 09-001. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 5: Public Hearing: CUP 09-004 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a daycare center in an R-4 zoning district for Pitter Patter Club by Pitter Patter Club, LLC - 2371 N. Monaco Way: Moe: At this time I'd like to open the public hearing on CUP 09-004 for Pitter Patter Club and start with the staff report, please. Wafters: Thank you, Chairman Moe, Members of the Commission. The next application before you is a Conditional Use Permit for a day care center for 12 to 20 children in an R-4 district. The property is located at 2371 North Monaco Way, half a mile north of Cherry Lane, a quarter mile west of Linder Road. The applicant has submitted a site plan showing the floor plan of the existing 1,040 square foot house. The fenced rear yard area, landscaping, and parking areas. Two off-street parking spaces are required to be provided, based on the square footage of the home. Two spaces are proposed in an enclosed garage and two spaces are proposed on a parking pad outside the garage, which complies with and exceeds UDC requirements. A six foot tall solid wood fence encloses the rear yard where the play area is proposed. The proposed hours of operation for the daycare center are 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., which may change depending on demand, but not later than 11:00 p.m. Monday through Meridian Planning and Zoning May 7, 2009 Page 5 of 23 Friday. The UDC specific use standards for daycare facilities allow daycares in residential districts to operate between 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. There have been ten letters of testimony in support of this application received from neighbors by the city. No letters in objection to the application have been received. Staff finds that the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use, that the use will be harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan and that the daycare will provide a much needed service in this area and will contribute to the variety of uses in the city. The daycare should be compatible with other uses and should not adversely affect other properties in the general neighborhood if the applicant complies with the conditions of approval. While staff recognizes the traffic and noise will increase with the approval of a daycare facility in this area, staff does not believe the amount generated will be detrimental to the general welfare of the public. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of the subject Conditional Use Permit application with the conditions in the staff report. Staff will stand for any questions the Commission may have at this time. Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of staff at this time? Marshall: No. Moe: Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward, please. And, please, state your name and address for the record when you come up, please. Jansson: Hi. My name is Juanita Jansson and I'm with Pitter Patter Club, LLC. And what else did you say? I'm sorry, I'm a little nervous. Moe: Your address. Jansson: The address is 2371 North Monaco in Meridian. Moe: Okay. Jansson: And the purpose would be to service the neighborhood. We have lived there since 1985. We had the home built. And so where they -- one of the few that are still there since, then, you know. And we are not living in the residence now, but it's still -- I'm still the owner. Have never sold or anything. I have been the sole owner of that home. I have watched all the kids from the neighborhood grow up there and my kids -- now I have my own grandkids and I have always served -- I was always the neighborhood cookie lady after work, you know, and so I'm used to having kids and being so close to a school I thought it would be a good location to serve the community. As far as traffic is concerned, we plan on servicing the neighborhood which was people -- working mothers in the neighborhood. So, it's not like we are going to bring a whole lot of traffic from the outside, we plan on catering within, so that would kind of eliminate the traffic. Excuse me. Again, like I said, we are right around the corner from an elementary school, which is Linder, and we'd like to open as soon as possible and we would be -- we would be marketing to newborns all the way to kindergarten. Meridian Planning and Zoning • • May 7, 2009 Page 6 of 23 Moe: Okay. Jansson: And that's it. Moe: As far as the staff report itself, are you in agreement with everything within the staff report? Jansson: Yes. Moe: Okay. Any other questions, Commissioners? Rohm: Did you say that you -- there is nobody living in the home? Jansson: No, I'm not -- no, I don't live in the home. Rohm: So, it will just be used for daycare and -- Jansson: Correct. That would be correct. Rohm: -- then, when there is no -- at the end of the day it will be unoccupied at night? Jansson: Correct. At the end of the day we would clean up and disinfect everything and get prepared for the following day and so we lock up at the end of the day. That's correct. Rohm: Thank you. Moe: Any other questions, Commissioners? Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Moe: Okay. Thank you very much. Jansson: Okay. Thank you. Moe: On the sign up sheet Nicole. Okay. From the audience she signed up, she's one of the applicants, basically. Okay. Next on the list would be Glen Olsen. Name and address, please. Olsen: Glen Olsen. 2368 North Glennfield Way. Moe: Thank you. Olsen: We -- I own the home immediately behind the daycare -- or the home that's proposed. I have a document that I got the signature of my -- of myself and the Meridian Planning and Zoning • • May 7, 2009 Page 7 of 23 neighbors directly adjoining the property that asked that the Commission reject the proposal, so I have that and with signatures -- Moe: Would you, please, give it to the clerk. Olsen: My main concern -- I don't know, do I need to speak into something? Moe: You're fine. Olsen: My main concern is based on the neighborhood -- we don't have a neighborhood association. That has expired and is gone and so if there were covenants I, obviously, think that this probably would not go through. But my concern is not necessarily that the daycare be provided, but that -- well, there is several concerns, but I do think that it will alter the character of the neighborhood. It's not doing well as it is and the neighborhood's kind of going downhill and I think this would add to that. That's kind of my overall opinion. According to Ada County's web site it's an 11 -- it's a 1,040 square foot home with one bathroom and there is up to 20 children that could be provided into that home. I don't think that would probably be adequate without some significant remodeling and changes to the home. Also, the Meridian city web site refers to the code where daycares are allowed Conditional Use Permits and it refers to off- street parking for the safety of the children. It also refers to a pick up and turn around areas and I have that, but I'm sure you're familiar with those rules. But I have the cite if you'd like to look at it. It's 11-4-3.9. And so my concern is that the property is not very big and that the impact on my property becoming -- and the adjoining property essentially becoming a commercial building, with dropping off -- and I know they are looking to service the neighborhood, but Linder Elementary draws from a huge area where people would be dropping off -- and I don't believe that the off-street parking for four cars if you're pulling in and out of that neighborhood would be sufficient to take care of the same -- and care for the safety of 20 -- up to 20 children being dropped off there. Also it's in and out. Those cars would be backing up and if it were in and out one way, but if you have little children coming in or being picked up that an in and out driveway, essentially, for four cars isn't going to be adequate, unless there is some way to get those cars to get out of there without backing in some shape or form and maybe the staff has had other experience, but looking at the home at least from that standpoint if it's going to max out up to 20 children, I think you're asking for problems. But that's my opinion. Also, the other aspect of it was that -- well, those were my main concerns. Obviously, it's the property behind me and I would rather not that that take place, but my -- the reasons for that are I think it will reduce my property value, make my home harder to sell than it is, and neighbors adjoining on both sides of the property agree with that based on the document. So, that's, essentially, my concerns with approval of this conditional use. Moe: Any questions? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Meridian Planning and Zoning • • May 7, 2009 Page 8 of 23 Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Olsen, are you the only one of the three who signed that document that are here? Olsen: No. I signed it and the two neighbors adjoining and their addresses are on the form. Newton-Huckabay: Right. But they aren't here this evening? Olsen: One is here, yes Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Olsen: And I believe she's next on the list. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Moe: I would ask the question -- I understand that there were two neighborhood meetings that no one attended. I'm wondering were you aware of those meetings? Olsen: We got the letter notifying me of the -- and I just made a note that this hearing would be held, I didn't read far enough if that was in the letter that was sent out if there was a meeting. But I knew this was being held and this is what I planned for. So, if I missed it it was not because I intended to. I would have been there had I read probably the letter farther. Moe: Okay. Any other questions? Rohm: Just a comment. Olsen: Yes. Rohm: Probably should have read the letter. Olsen: And no question, but I also know that that's why I'm here. Rohm: Well -- and so noted. Moe: Thank you very much. Olsen: Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. I'm sorry. Meridian Planning and Zoning • May 7, 2009 Page 9 of 23 Newton-Huckabay: I don't have a question for you, Mr. Olsen -- Olsen: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: But can you go back to like a map? I maybe seem dense here. Where is -- I'm trying to put this -- where is the school? I'm trying to get my bearings, so -- Wafters: I believe it's just south and east of there, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. That big lot. Friedman: No. That's a park. Wafters: Is that a park? I'm not absolutely sure. Newton-Huckabay: Oh. How about if I look at that map. Okay. Friedman: I don't think so, because there is no access into it. Wafters: No, that's not it. It may not show on this map. Rohm: It's not right below the word site just due south? Wafters: No. I believe that's a common area. Marshall: That's got --that's got lots all the way around it. It's got to be a park. Rohm: Oh. Wafters: The applicant can probably answer that question for you. Newton-Huckabay: Where is Chateau Drive? Moe: Yeah. Can you come up and show us -- or tell us where the school site is? Wafters: No. Go right up and point to it. Jansson: This is not on. Wafters: It's not on? Moe: Now nothing's on? Wafters: I'm sorry, I didn't know that wasn't on either. Is it still not on? • • Meridian Planning and Zoning May 7, 2009 Page 10 of 23 Jansson: You wanted to know where the school was? Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. Please. Jansson: Okay. Can you scroll down a little bit? The school is right -- Friedman: Well, that's about as -- unfortunately. Jansson: Okay. So, if you come back out from the home out this way and you turn around right in here. Here is the school. You turn in here and the school sits right -- Friedman: It is there. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. All right. Jansson: Were the arrow's at that's where the school's at. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Marshall: It is on that site. You were right. Wafters: Didn't have a big enough view of the map. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. So, this is Chateau Drive. Jansson: So, basically, it's from here -- Marshall: There underneath the site. Wafters: It's tucked back in there, isn't it? Friedman: Yeah. Newton-Huckabay: You were right, we were wrong. Marshall: That surprises me that it's completely surrounded by lots. Rohm: Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Moe: Thank you very much. Jansson: Thank you. Moe: Next on the list -- is it Callie? Would you like to come forward, please. • • Meridian Planning and Zoning May 7, 2009 Page 11 of 23 Eckhart: Excuse me. My name is Callie Eckhart and I live at 2381 North Monaco. My house is directly affected. I am to the north of them. I would like to voice several concerns of mine regarding the daycare. One is with the down turn of the economy, obviously, home values have gone down. I know me personally my house value has dropped significantly and I can't afford for another -- another thing to hit me to lose more property value on my home, so -- sorry, you'll have to excuse me, I'm a little nervous, so -- my husband and I are first time home buyers and we chose this area specifically thinking, you know, this was what we could afford and the nicest neighborhood and we never -- we never thought we'd come across, you know, a vacant home being turned into a daycare that was our neighbor. So, it's kind of a shock for us that it's going to be a commercial building. So, that's -- that's my main concern is our home value is going to drop significantly, so -- I used to live by a daycare and we chose to move, because of everything. Traffic, the noise, the -- everything that's involved. So, I know what it's like. I personally know what it's like and I chose to move away from it and never thought I would unwillingly have to live next to a daycare that's going to provide services for up to 20 children again, so -- as well as my daughter's room, who is 11 months old, is probably less than five feet away from where their two off-road parking spots are. So, 6:00 a.m. -- possibly 6:00 a.m. Right now it's 7:00 -- could change. My daughter is going to be woken up every day, so a big concern of mine. As well as they have only been a few months. I don't know if it's changed significantly or not, but it's a high traffic road. Like was said, the school's near by. There is a lot of traffic that goes up and down that road. I don't like it, but it is a safety concern of ours as well. The reason I didn't show up to the two meetings is I'm a working mom and it just -- it didn't fall under my schedule. I don't have a flexible schedule to work with. So, would have been there and I know Nicole and -- one of the applicants. They are great people, but Ijust -- I just wasn't able to attend those meetings. So, it's nothing that I wasn't, you know, just blatantly ignoring the fact that they would like to talk about it, so -- I was able to come to this meeting. I just -- you know, I figure if this is a concern of theirs -- or, you know, that they want to start this as a career -- I know that there is tons of commercial spaces available, you know, if this is really like a life long dream of theirs. You know, there is lots of opportunities for good deals on commercial spaces. I just don't want it next door to me in a subdivision. You know, I lived in a -- I moved to a subdivision to be a subdivision, not in a commercial area. So, I just -- I ask that you take into consideration, you know, my home value, my neighbor's home values, my daughter, and the kids' safety. So, I appreciate it. Moe: Thank you very much. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Moe: Any questions? Okay. Thank you very much. Eckhart: Thank you. • • Meridian Planning and Zoning May 7, 2009 Page 12 of 23 Moe: Carolyn Hall has signed up and, then, crossed out. You were signed up on this as well. Okay. Not a problem. Okay. From the audience -- wrong form. That's it, then. If there is anyone else that would like to speak, you're more than welcome to come up. I don't see anyone that wants to come up. So, Commissioners, questions? Comments? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Hill: Mr. Chair, applicant rebuttal. Moe: Thank you very much. Sorry about that. Would the applicant like to come forward, please, and discuss what you heard them talk about. And, again, please, state your name and address for the record. Jansson: Okay. Juanita Jansson. 42371 North Monaco. So, the first question or concern that our back door neighbor addressed was the number of children. Now it sounds like -- like 20 may be a huge number, but when we are talking infants, it's not like they make a lot of noise. And even if they cry it's not going to go outside the doors. As far as six year olds, when they go out to play in the backyard in the first place it's fenced. Secondly, they will be monitored and it will be a time frame. It's not like they are going to be outside all day long. It's no different than the school. They will go out for a little bit and, then, they will come back in and so that's going to be monitored -- it's going to be regulated. It's not like they are just going to be outside making a lot of noise all day long. It's -- again, as far as the noise is concerned, I believe it's no different than living next to Linder Elementary. From Pitter Patter to the school you can hear the school at any given time during recesses, lunch, and breaks you can hear the children to all the neighbors and I don't know how far out you can hear it, but you can hear the school. So, the fact that the daycare being there I don't think that would increase the noise anymore than hearing the school. And plus at the school you have different recesses and breaks and lunches. You have two or three different lunches, because of the -- you know, the school's growing and they have the first lunch and second lunch. So, with Pitter Patter with the children -- when the children come out, again, it's going to be just -- you know, I mean right now I couldn't tell you exact minutes, but it's going to be limited, so it's not -- again, it's not like they are going to be outside all day long making noise. As far as -- excuse me. As far as the parking is concerned, there is plenty of parking and we meet the requirements for the parking as far as off the road and, then, there is also -- it's no different than when you walk -- when you park your car in the front of the house, because you forgot your purse or you forgot your bill book and you get out of your car and run in the house to -- you know, to grab your things and get back in the car. It takes, what, five minutes, maybe ten minutes to get off and you say good morning and drop your children off and, you know, let us take them and so it wouldn't be that -- that far as far as impact on the traffic. And, again, that's assuming that someone wanted to park, you know, in front of the house. There is plenty of parking. It wouldn't take very long. But the parking is there. We do meet all the requirements for the parking and so I don't think parking is an issue. Again, if you look on the map you will see that -- can luse -- can I point? So, the house sits -- where the • • Meridian Planning and Zoning May 7, 2009 Page 13 of 23 house sits there is -- where the house sits there is plenty of -- there is a circular drive on Tracy where someone can either come in here -- I'm not doing this right. It's -- and the parking in here, they can reverse and there is -- it's okay. But there is -- what I'm saying there is plenty of room, it's not like it's going to impact or be in the way or anything like that. The parking, people coming in, it's only the morning hours when -- usually working mothers, working parents that come and drop the children off and usually that's when the morning traffic is minimal, is usually mothers or fathers dropping their children off. There isn't a whole lot of traffic. And I know from experience, again, because I have lived there since 1984 or'85 when the house was built. So, I know that -- I know exactly how that operates. As far as the house being vacant, it's because it was -- I had the renters move out and we came in and worked on it and did a lot of work and that's why the house has been vacant. But for the neighbor, again, it goes right back to the noise. I don't think the noise is going to be anymore -- any louder than listening or hearing the children from elementary, the noise that everybody's used to that live there. I mean if you live anywhere in that school area, you know you always hear the laughter of the children on the playground and that's a sound that you get used it and it's like it doesn't affect you. And so a daycare next to a neighbor, you know, most of the children will be small, so it would be minimal. So, I think I have addressed everything. Moe: Okay. Thank you. Anymore questions, Commissioners? Thank you very much. Jansson: You're welcome. Moe: Well, Commissioners, any comments? Rohm: Before we have some comments, let's just go ahead and close the hearing. Can we do that? Moe: That would be fine. Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman? Moe: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move that we close the public hearing on CUP 09-004. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on CUP 09-004. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: And I have some additional thoughts. Meridian Planning and Zoning May 7, 2009 Page 14 of 23 n U Moe: There you go. And I figured you might. • Rohm: Yeah. How about that. My personal opinion on these daycares within our community, the city code that we have has specific statutes, so that the daycare can be put in the community that we live and it's there so that we can have community minded daycare centers that will serve within that subdivision and my personal opinion is they have met all the requirements of the application and I think that the majority of the people that they will serve will come directly from within their own area and it would be a good addition to the city. Moe: Thank you, sir. Marshall: Also considering that Monaco appears to have a fairly high traffic level already relative to a residential road, I can't see that -- I'm just not convinced that it's going to cause a considerable traffic issue. You already have a number of cars on there, you're not adding significantly to that number. It appears that it meets all code as far as parking and I agree that it's only a few minutes to pick up and drop off kids. You have got, essentially, two spots in the driveway and out on the road looking at that. And having that elementary school within fairly close proximity, you're going to hear those kids at the elementary school as it is. I hear them in my subdivision and they are considerably further away than this. I -- to be honest, I'm convinced that it would serve the greater good of the community. Moe: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, any thoughts? Newton-Huckabay: Yes. I have some thoughts, actually. Going through the letters that we received in favor of the daycare, I noticed that all of them are either on Chateau -- there is one that is actually on Monaco that we received. If I was going to embark on this endeavor, the people that I would be politicking the most with would be those people whose property touched mine. All three of which are not in favor of having a daycare center next to them. I would put burden on all of you for not showing up at -- reading the letter, going to the meeting, getting together. I think that was negligent by all three people. I usually don't have an issue with daycare centers in neighborhoods, but it seems to me that the vast percentage of applications that we get are residences where the person lives in it and wants to watch children in their home. Listening to Mr. Olsen and Mrs. Eckhart, I find myself thinking if one of my neighbors on either side of me chose to do this, I would not be very happy, irregardless of what condition my neighborhood was in or what the value of my home was, that just wouldn't be what I moved into my home for. Now, had I moved into a home and it's the second one in the subdivision or at some kind of an intersection, something like that, I think that something like that might be more reasonable. But I find that the majority of the folks in favor of this wouldn't be living next door to it. I think that for myself I have to give a little bit more Meridian Planning and Zoning May 7, 2009 Page 15 of 23 weight for those three people who would live next door to it and I -- I don't know that this would be appropriate. If it was a residence and you were talking two or three to six children I would have a little bit different opinion, but I don't think that I would be in favor of this Conditional Use Permit. I understand that it does meet all the criteria of the code, but at the end of the day it is a conditional use and I don't feel like it fits the spirit of the neighborhood. Moe: Okay. Thank you very much. I guess what I would point out, again, is it does meet all the criteria and, basically, one of the main things that this body does is we have to review to verify that it does meet all conditions. Your point in regards to the sign up -- the ten letters and whatnot, them not, basically, being right next door and whatnot, I anticipate that some of those are going to be residents that live nearby that are planning to possibly use this facility, like Mr. Rohm spoke about the fact that the neighborhood itself would benefit by having a daycare there. So, therefore, I, actually, think that it's probably a good idea that the daycare be approved. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Commissioner. Newton-Huckabay: I'd like to ask a question of staff. By the mere fact that something meets all of the criteria of the code in a Conditional Use Permit, does it -- for example, when we have an annexation we may deny that based on the fact maybe it's not in the best interest of the city. Do we have that same leeway on a Conditional Use Permit? Is there some component of form, fit, and function in that area? Wafters: Chairman Moe, Commissioners, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, yes, there are a set findings with the Conditional Use Permits that we have to be able to make to approve a Conditional Use Permit. Staff did review those findings and believes that we -- we can meet those findings in this instance. Friedman: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, yeah, and there is also a bit of difference between, for example, an annexation and a Conditional Use Permit, because an annexation is, essentially, a contract whether or not -- up or down vote whether we feel it's appropriate if it comes into the city and so forth. Conditional use permits going way back are those activities that have been legislatively identified as being just permitted, but require an additional level of review and the ability to attach conditions to. So, it's not like you have a single family home that's permitted by right. Now, if you were to find that there was an absolute threat to the public health, safety, and welfare, you could recommend -- or you could in this case vote for denial. You also have the ability to limited -- by code limit the hours, limit the number of clients that may be allowed in one of these daycare centers also. Or if the majority of the Commission does feel strongly that it -- even though it complies with the provisions of the code -- I suspect you would have to have very strong reasons and findings to demonstrate how you feel it does not meet those specific standards. And Mr. Nary can correct me if I'm wrong on any of that. Meridian Planning and Zoning • • May 7, 2009 Page 16 of 23 Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I'm not going to correct Mr. Friedman. He's correct. The only issue -- the difference -- the significant difference here probably for Commissioner Newton-Huckabay is at an annexation it is an absolute right of the city to choose whether or not it is compatible with the city in general, whether it is appropriate for the city at this particular time. With a conditional use the presumption that the court looks at is that in the exercise of your scrutiny of the ordinance that it is -- it is more heavily favored that it is allowed in that area subject to whatever conditions you think are appropriate to make it compatible with the neighborhood. Now, those conditions as Mr. Friedman just stated would be hours of operation, level of service that they can provide, number of patrons they can use in that -- how that would impact those neighborhoods. The value of people's homes is not something the Supreme Court in the state of Idaho has recognized as anything for this body or the City Council to consider in making that decision. So, although the folks that live in those houses that are immediately adjacent may believe it may impact their -- their value of their property, the Supreme Court has not said that there is any way to gain that evidence or any way to use that as criteria for conditions. So, all the court's looking at is philosophically what they are saying is the city has already made a legislative decision that a use like this could be used in this area subject to whatever conditions are necessary and appropriate to make it compatible in conformance with the rest of the neighborhood. So, those are things like building heights that you deal with sometimes, hours of operations if it's a business, those types of things. So, it's a difference from both a legal perspective, as well as a philosophical perspective as to what you're evaluating today. What you're looking at is what conditions, if any, beyond what the staff has suggested that you think are appropriate to meet whatever the nature and quality of that current neighborhood is, what you may need to maintain that. So, long lawyer answer, but really the difference is it's not quite as simple as an annexation where you could make a choice that it doesn't fit the city at this time. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Moe: Thank you very much, Mr. Nary. Newton-Huckabay: Well, I guess it's just kind of like wearing Army boots with an evening gown, you can do it, but it just doesn't look good. I would like to, then, if the options are, then, limit -- 20 is a large amount of children in a residential daycare center. Rohm: Well, we can certainly put a limit less than the application, so if you've got a number that -- that you feel comfortable with, you know, I'm willing to listen to additional thoughts in that area. Marshall: I would like to ask if there is a code regulating the number of staff, the square footage, limiting the number of children within a daycare facility and what code -- I believe there is some state code along those lines and what that is. Friedman: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, our -- the code does set the hours of operation. We have put a limit on the children in the various types of daycare centers, • • Meridian Planning and Zoning May 7, 2009 Page 17 of 23 but as far as the operational aspects of it, the numbers of staff ratio to client, health and sanitation and so forth, those are all regulated by -- by the state through the Department of Health and Welfare and through their licensing procedures and, of course, other than family home daycares they are required to be licensed. Nary: Mr. Chairman? Marshall: Do we have any idea what that is? Nary: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, you have closed your public hearing and now you're asking for additional facts, so you might want to consider reopening your hearing. If your concern is the number, the provider may be able to provide you some of that. Currently in the state of Idaho the day care operation 12 or more children not related to the applicant is required to be licensed by the state. The legislature in this current session has considered a cap of seven to be, then, licensed by the state and that was approved by the house and was sent back to the senate and hasn't been voted on yet, so it's still pending. So, 12 is the number that is current in the state, but if you want more specifics as to what does that mean when they -- when they license it -- but, again, you may want more facts from the applicant, because right now if you were to just pick a number it would probably be argued that it's somewhat arbitrary, since you really don't have any evidence in front of you as to whether ten would be more appropriate than 20 or 15 is adequate, whether that's adequate for what the applicant's asking for, I don't know. So, you might want to do that. Moe: Well, I guess I would ask -- I would ask Commissioners is does that really matter at this time, because we know for a fact that they have to be licensed, so, therefore, they are going to have to meet the criteria to begin with. So, I don't know that the count, not unless you really do want to, you know, reduce it down, it's going to have to meet the guidelines anyway. Marshall: I think those things need to be explored only if we want to explore limiting that beyond what's been provided here. Rohm: And I suppose my final thoughts on it are that if, in fact, the state licensing states that they can have that number, then, far be it from me to say otherwise, just from personal feeling. And that's not to disagree with Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, because I do believe it is a little bit like wearing a pair of Army boots with an -- Newton-Huckabay: Evening gown. Rohm: -- evening gown. But that being said, I still think that it's -- overall it's going to be in the best interest of the community to approve this and that's where I'll end my comments. Moe: Okay. Having said that -- I mean if, in fact, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, you would like more information, you're more than welcome to reopen the public hearing • • Meridian Planning and Zoning May 7, 2009 Page 18 of 23 and we can get that information to continue. I have no problem with that whatsoever, if that's what you would like to do. Nary: Mr. Chairman? And, Mr. Chair, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay and other Commissioners, I did look up here while I was sitting here. They do have that staff -- or that state statute that was signed by the governor, was approved by both the house and the senator and it does require that facilities over seven that .are not related to the provider, require a state license. So, if that helps you. But it was approved by both houses and signed by the governor. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Moe: Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Chairman Moe, it appears to me that the question of number of children is not necessarily going to impact Commissioner Marshall's or Commissioner Rohm's decision on this and it would only be feasible to reopen the public hearing if it would. Moe: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: So, I would say someone can make a motion and we will vote our conscience. Moe: Okay. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay has made her comments, so can I hear from any other? Marshall: Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve file number CUP 09-004 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of May 7th, 2009, with no modifications. Rohm: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve CUP 09-004 for Pitter Patter Club. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Newton-Huckabay: Opposed. Moe: That is one opposed. That motion has been approved. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 6: Public Hearing: ZOA 09-001 Request for Zoning Ordinance /Unified Development Code (UDC) Text Amendment to modify and clean up specific sections of the UDC for Outdoor Storage and Parking .Unified Development Code Text Amendment by City of Meridian Planning • • Meridian Planning and Zoning May 7, 2009 Page 19 of 23 Department -See application for details of all sections proposed for amendments: Moe: Thank you. The next public hearing I'd like to open is ZOA 09-001 for a request for zoning ordinance for an outdoor storage and parking, Unified Development Code text amendment by the Planning Department. Friedman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. The proposed UDC amendments are primarily clarifications to the standards for off-street parking, storage, and landscaping in the UDC. They are to clean up some areas that we have found to be problematic or areas where we have been making interpretations and so we are memorializing those and formalizing those. Essentially, what we are addressing are some of the screening requirements in the industrial districts where it just doesn't make sense to require screening where you might have abutting industrial uses that are not viewed from a public right of way or viewed from a residential property or, in fact, impacted any residential properties. We also have situations where we require five foot property -- buffers or perimeter buffers in parking lots, but we also try to encourage shared parking and so what happens when you have two users sharing a parking lot on two separate lots, but, then, we are requiring a five foot perimeter buffer in between those lots. So, we are trying to clarify that. Another area that we are looking at is it's come to our attention that we have had some issues with the long-term parking of large recreational vehicles, boats, trailers, and those sorts of things in driveways and so what the code amendment we are proposing is that essentially we limit the parking of -- in the street setback to registered automotive vehicles and motorcycles and that sort of thing and that the recreational vehicles, the boats, the trailers, any other things you can think of, be parked and screened either in the rear yards or in the side yards. We don't put a limit on the number that can be parked back there, but we are requiring -- I don't believe we are limiting the number of vehicles that can be parked in the rear yard or the side yard. I could be wrong. Rohm: Sounds reasonable to me. Moe: I guess what I would be curious about is how are you going to enforce that? Friedman: Well, this came to us through code enforcement and this is exactly -- that exactly, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, was the genesis of this amendment where we had asituation -- I don't know all the specifics, but it had to do with a couple of large vessels that were parked in driveways for quite a period of time and I guess they were rather imposing and people living on either side were getting tired of kind of looking at these large vessels sitting out there in the street, so we do recognize, however, that even if they are moved into a rear yard or into a side yard, that the maximum height of the fencing -- they have to be screened to a height of six feet. So, yeah, there will be probably some intrusion -- visual intrusion of larger boats or trailers in those areas, but it will be like many of our issues, it will be response driven. So, without going through these line by line, that in a nutshell is what we are trying to get to. We have had some industrial users come to us and said, you know, there is some areas where you require Meridian Planning and Zoning May 7, 2009 Page 20 of 23 l~ U this perimeter landscaping, but we abut another industrial use and we have trucks that need to maneuver in there and it kind of interferes with the maneuvering of the trucks and this and so -- so, the real key is where we are really not having a view issue from the public right of way or from -- again, from residential properties, that we are looking to at least give the director some room to waive some of the stricter application of screening requirements onto those industrial properties. Marshall: I had a couple questions. Moe: Sure. Marshall: And I'm not sure how this has worked in the past. How does this affect car lots and, you know, unregistered vehicles? You got lots of them. How about mechanic shops where a vehicle has been towed to and is sitting there waiting to be worked on, waiting to be repaired, but is not functioning, possibly unregistered at the time -- Friedman: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, this is -- what we have done is we have broken up the parking requirements and so what we have done is we have put these parking standards -- you will see under 11-3 -- 11-3C-4, parking, it's parking and use standards. We used to lump all our parking use standards together, so the underlying area for single family detached townhouses secondary, single family and attached dwellings, so now what we are doing is we are starting to segregate the parking standards for residential areas, as opposed to the commercial areas, which -- which Commissioner Marshall just mentioned. We are taking that into account, Commissioner. We are really addressing -- trying to get out the parking of recreational vehicles in residential neighborhoods. Marshall: So, this doesn't address -- Moe: This doesn't address the car lot -- Marshall: Got you. Okay. And, then, talking about the areas -- the industrial areas backing up to the railroad right of way. Friedman: Yes. That's correct. Marshall: Are we not requiring screening up against the railroad right of way or we are? Friedman: We are for -- we are for all -- for the commercial districts, the traditional districts, essentially Old Town. But not the industrial districts. And we have proposed for the industrial districts, the way this is written is that we are requiring -- we are proposing at least to require screening 100 feet back from the road -- from the fronting road, so perpendicular to the road 100 feet back in the industrial district. So, really, what you would be seeing as you're driving -- say you're driving -- I'll use Franklin as an example in an industrial area. If you're driving down Franklin under these requirements you would have a solid screen required 100 feet back, so at least kind of the view that • • Meridian Planning and Zoning May 7, 2009 Page 21 of 23 the driver gets from the public street is -- I mean undoubtedly you might see 100 feet past that, but, generally, we thought 100 feet would be an appropriate distance to require that screening back there and not all the way around, because, again, you're going to have industrial users on either side and the railroad behind there. But still in the Old Town and the commercial districts and so forth where the storage areas butt up against the railroad or potentially the residential on the other side of the tracks we wouldn't maintain the requirement for screening. Marshall: My concern there being that what happens, hopefully, in ten to twenty years that that railroad becomes -- railway becomes a light rail, how does it -- how do those yards look, then, to the multitudes traveling that? Friedman: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, hopefully in ten to twenty years if that becomes a reality, if we follow the example that other communities are following and you're starting to get more rail transit, then, you're going to start getting a whole different change in the complex uses adjacent to those rail lines. You will start seeing more mixed use or something like that. It may be that's -- those industrial areas start transitioning out or being purchased and -- I mean Portland is a good example and some other communities are an example where you start seeing more mixed use developments along those rail corridors. There is also examples where, you know, the rail does -- you know, again, f think of Seattle -- as you come into Seattle on the train you still go through an industrial area and you still see all kinds of things, plants -- airplane plants, things like that. Marshall: Well, I can foresee easily a lot of mixed use at the stops along that rail -- Friedman: Right. Yeah. Marshall: But in between those stops industrial still tends to thrive in a lot of areas. Friedman: Again, we -- we kind of thought at least in our -- at least our logic was that the view from the majority of the general public that are traveling along -- along the roadway and, you know, if you're on the Amtrak and you're coming into Meridian you might see the back, you know, storage of some piles of lumber or something, but that's a good -- good question and a good concern. We are just trying to respond to some of our current industrial users and are saying, hey, why are you making us spend the money to fence these storage yards when my neighbor's the only one that really looks at it or the industrial guy behind me or the train that goes through a couple times a day. So, trying to balance the visual integrity and the interest of our present industrial owners and users. Marshall: I just -- I have been on a few of those trains and been through some of those yards and you kind of go, oh, glad I don't live here and -- Friedman: Yeah. Meridian Planning and Zoning May 7, 2009 Page 22 of 23 • • Marshall: -- I'd hate somebody to do that with Meridian eventually, if that becomes a mass transit corridor, which I do believe is hoped and planned for. Friedman: Yeah. Yeah. Marshall: And currently we still require fencing off from that area; right? Friedman: Yeah. Currently we are proposing -- we are proposing now that at least just in the industrial areas that be relaxed somewhat. Marshall: I understand. I like most everything else. There is that one I've got a little bit of a -- I mean planning issue with, because it's very difficult to go back in in the future and if that becomes a light rail or even as I have heard mention even today just to take buses and put the rails like you do with pickups and run buses up and down the rail and start a transit rail that way, you're going to have a lot of people looking at Meridian and that's their view of Meridian right there and that concerns me. Other than that I like everything else. Moe: Any other comments, Commissioners? Rohm: No, I have none. Marshall: In the same breath, though, 1 also like the idea of encouraging industrial growth and doing what we can to, you know, relax the rules when we can, too. So, I'm a little torn there. Moe: Uh-huh. Newton-Huckabay: I guess I -- Mr. Chair, I don't really have any concerns with that. I don't think that -- they could be overthinking it for me. So, I would -- I'm comfortable with the text as written. Moe: Okay. Well, having said that, then -- Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Moe: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move that we close the public hearing on -- got to put my glasses back on. ZOA 09-001. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on ZOA 09-001. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. • . Meridian Planning and Zoning May 7, 2009 Page 23 of 23 MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Moe: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of the text change for ZOA 09-001 with no changes. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve ZOA 09-001. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move we adjourn. Marshall: Second. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:04 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) f ApP~Q. E VID MOE - C IRMAN A' JAYCEE HOL I ~I~ DATE APPROVED MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING May 7, 2009 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 3'A REQUEST Approve Minutes of April 16, 2009 Planning 8~ 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: COMMENTS A~P'~`~~ N y~ ~' 3'° Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. C~ ~~~~ May 4, 2009 CUP 09-002 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING May 7, 2009 APPLICANT ZGA Architects & Planners LTD ITEM NO. 3'B REQUEST FFCL for Approval -Conditional Use Permit for adrive-thru establishment in a C-G C-G zone within 300 feet of another drive-thru establishment for Idadiv Credit Union - NWC of Meridian Road and Corporate Drive AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Emailed: C~ Date: Phone: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. COMMENTS See Attached Findings CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER ~ RECEIVED MAY p ~ 2~9 CITY OF C`i~f D;^:' CITY CLERKS OFFICE E IDIAN~--- IDAHO In the Matter of Conditional Use Permit for a Financial Institution with aDrive-through Facility in a C-G Zoning District, by ZGA Architects and Planners, LTD. Case No(s). CUP-09-002; DES-09-006 For the Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: Apri116, 2009 (Findings on May 7, 2009 agenda) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of April 16, 2009, incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of April 16, 2009, incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of April 16, 2009 incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of April 16, 2009, 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-SA. 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-09-002, DES-09-006 Page 1 • 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 Conditions of Approval in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of April 16, 2009, 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-SA and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: The applicant's Conditional Use Permit as evidenced by having submitted a Site Plan Landscape Plan and Elevations, attached in the Staff Report as Exhibit A, is hereby conditionally approved; and, 2. The site specific and standard conditions of approval are as shown in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of April 16, 2009, incorporated by reference. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits Notice of Eighteen (18) Month Conditional Use Permit Duration Please take notice that the conditional use permit, when granted, shall be valid for a maximum period of eighteen (18) months unless otherwise approved by the City. During this time, the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground. For conditional use permits that also require platting, the final plat must be recorded within this eighteen (18) month period. For projects with multiple phases, the eighteen (18) month deadline shall apply to the first phase. In the event that the development is made in successive contiguous segments or multiple phases, such phases shall be constructed within successive intervals of one (1) year from the original date of approval. If the successive phases are not submitted within the one (1) year interval, the conditional approval of the future phases shall be null and void. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11-SB-6.G.1, the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the use not to exceed one (1) eighteen (18) month period. Additional time extensions up to eighteen (18) months as determined and approved by the Commission maybe granted. With all extensions, the Director or Commission may CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP-09-002, DES-09-006 Page 2 • 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 maybe 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 maybe adversely affected by the issuance or denial of the conditional use permit approval may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. F. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of April 16, 2009. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP-09-002, DES-09-006 Page 3 C~ C~ By action of the Planning & Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the ~h day of , 200 COMMISSIONER DAVID MOE (Chair) COMMISSIONER MICHAEL ROHM COMMISSIONER WENDY NEWTON-HUCKABAY COMMISSIONER TOM O'BRIEN COMMISSIONER JOE CHAIRMAN DA A est: a Green, Deputy City Clerk VOTED G~, VOTED VOTED VOTED VOTED OE Copy served upon Applicant, The Planning Department, Public Works Department and City Attorney. .~ ~ I ~ oavo ,~ dl' t j ~e° ... lFO ~' By. Dated: ~ ~ ~ ! ... ~ City Clerk's Office 09 ST 1 s~ , ~o P ~'~4iAITV , ~O CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP-09-002, DES-09-006 Page 4 • STAFF REPORT Hearing Date: April 16, 2009 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Bill Parsons, Associate City Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: CUP-09-002 -Idadiv Credit Union • (~E IDIZ IAN,-- ~J 1. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST The applicant, ZGA Architects & Planners LTD, has applied for Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval for a financial institution with adrive-through facility in a C-G zone. 2. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending approval of the proposed development subject to the conditions of approval listed in Exhibit B, based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in Exhibit C. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission heard this item on April 16, 2009. At the public hearing, the Commission voted to approve CUP-09-002. a. Summary of Commission Public Hearing: i. In favor: Andee Mover-Farmer ii. In opposition: None iii. Commenting: None iv. Written testimony: None v. Staff presenting application: Bill Parsons vi. Other staff commenting on application: Pete Friedman and Bruce Freckleton b. Key Issues of Discussion by Commission: i. The issuance of a building permit for the proiect. c. Key Commission Changes to Staff Recommendation: i. Modified condition 1.2 to Read: A building permit shall not be issued until the lot is created through the recorded plat for Trade Plaza Subdivision. ii. Modified condition 2.7 to read: Street signs are to be in place, water system shall be installed and activated, sewer system shall have passed air-testing and video inspection, fencing installed, drainage lots constructed, road base approved by the Ada County Highway District ,prior to issuance of building permits. 3. PROPOSED MOTION Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number CUP-09- 002, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 16, 2009 with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications.) Ifurther move to direct Staff to prepare an appropriate findings document to be considered at the next Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on May 7, 2009. Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number CUP-09-002, as presented during the hearing on April 16, 2009, for the following reasons: (you must state specific reasons for denial and what the applicant could do to obtain your approval in the future). Continuance Idadiv Credit Union CUP-09-002 PAGE 1 • I move to continue File Number CUP-09-002 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) 4. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS A. Site Address/Location: The site is located on the northwest corner of Meridian Road and Corporate Drive, in the northeast '/ of Section 13, Township 3 North, Range 1 West. B. Owner: Idadiv Credit Union 1822 N. Midland Blvd., PO Box 500 Nampa, Idaho 83653 C. Applicant/Representative: ZGA Architects & Planners 565 W. Myrtle Street, Suite 225 Boise, Idaho 83702 D. Applicant's Statement/Justification: Please see applicant's narrative for this information. 5. PROCESS FACTS A. The subject application is for a conditional use permit. A public hearing is required before the Planning & Zoning Commission on this matter, consistent with Meridian City Code Title 11, Chapter 5. B. Newspaper notifications published on: March 30, and April 13, 2009 C. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: March 26, 2009 D. Applicant posted notice on site by: March 31, 2009 6. LAND USE A. Existing Land Use(s): The subject site is currently vacant land; zoned C-G. B. Character of Surrounding Area and Adjacent Land Use and Zoning: The subject site is primarily surrounded by developed and undeveloped commercial land/uses. 1. North: John's Auto Care, zoned C-G 2. East: Commercial restaurants, zoned C-G 3. South: Storage Facility, zoned C-G 4. West: Vacant land, zoned C-G C. History of Previous Actions: On February 24, 2009, the subject site was approved through the Trade Plaza Preliminary Plat. Staff is currently reviewing the Trade Plaza final plat (Phase 1) which is scheduled for the April 14, 2009 City Council hearing. D. Utilities: 1. Public Works: a. Location of sewer: S Meridian Road b. Location of water: S Meridian Road c. Issues or concerns: None Idadiv Credit Union CUP-09-002 PAGE 2 E. Physical Features: C~ 1. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: NA 2. Hazards: Staff is not aware of any hazards that exist on this property. 3. Flood Plain: NA 4. Topography: NA 7. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS The subject property is designated on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map as "Commercial". This designation will provide a full range of commercial and retail to serve area residents and visitors. Uses may include retail, wholesale, service and office uses, multi-family residential, as well as appropriate public uses such as government offices. At this time, a bank with a drive-through facility is proposed to be constructed to serve area residents. Other uses in the area include other drive-throughs, restaurants, drinking establishments and retail stores. Staff believes the future use is compatible with surrounding commercial uses in the area and is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Idaho Code 67-6508 states that "the plan shall consider previous and existing conditions, trends, desirable goals and objectives, or desirable future situations for each planning component." Staff has reviewed the subject PP application and offers the analysis and recommendations contained herein for the Commission and Council's consideration. Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this property and apply to the proposed use (staff analysis in italics): • Chapter VII, Goal III, Objective A, Action 1 -Require that development projects have planned for the provision of all public services. The City ofMeridian plans to provide municipal services to the subject property in the following manner: - Sanitary sewer and water service will be extended to the project at the developer's expense. - The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Meridian City Fire Department. - The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Meridian Police Department (MPD). - The roadways adjacent to the subject lands are currently owned and maintained by the Ada County Highway District (ACHD) and ITD. This service will not change. Municipal, fee-supported, services will be provided by the Meridian Building Department, the Meridian Public Works Department, the Meridian Water Department, the Meridian Wastewater Department, the Meridian Planning Department, Meridian Utility Billing Services, and Sanitary Services Company. • Chapter VII, Goal I, Objective B: Plan for a variety of commercial and retail opportunities within the Impact Area. Stafffinds that the site is designated Commercial on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. Staff believes that over time, a variety of commercial and retail opportunities will be provided within Trade Plaza Subdivision. Staff believes the bank will add to service needs in the area and will most likely attract other businesses. Idadiv Credit Union CUP-09-002 PAGE 3 • Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective D, Action 2 -Restrict curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets. The site plan depicts one right-in/right-out only driveway on Meridian Road; designated an arterial street and one full access driveway on Corporate Drive; designated a collector street. These access points were approved with Trade Plaza Subdivision. Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective D: Encourage appropriate land uses along transportation corridors. Staff believes that the proposed bank and associated drive-through facility is appropriate along Meridian Road, a major corridor. • Chapter V, Goal III, Objective D, Action item 5: Require all commercial businesses to install and maintain landscaping." The developer will be responsible for installing and maintaining the appropriate internal and parking lot landscaping. The streetscape buffers will be installed with final plat approval for Trade Plaza. Chapter IV, Goal I, Obj. A, #6: Permit new commercial development only where urban services can be reasonably provided at the time of final approval and development is contiguous to the City." This parcel is already annexed into the city. Sanitary sewer and water are available to this parcel. 8. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE A. Purpose Statement of Zone: The subject site is designated "Commercial" on the City's zoning map. The purpose of the commercial districts is to provide for the retail and service needs of the community in accord with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. Four districts are designated which differ in the size and scale of commercial structures accommodated in the district, the scale and mix of allowed commercial uses, and the location of the district proximity to streets and highways. B. Schedule of Use: UDC 11-2B-2 lists financial institutions as a permitted use and the associated drive-through facility as an Accessory/Conditional use in the C-G zone, with Specific Use Standards for both. C. Dimensional Standards: Development of the site shall comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC 11-2B-3 for the C-G zoning district. D. Landscaping 1. UDC 11-3B-8C regulates the parking lot standards of the development code (see section 9 below for further analysis). E. Off-Street Parking: UDC 11-3C-6B requires 1 space for every 500 square feet of gross floor area; a 3,765 square foot building is proposed. Based on this amount, 8 parking stalls would be required; 18 are proposed, which complies with this requirement. F. Self-Service Uses: UDC 11-3A-161ists the specific requirements for self service uses (see section 9 below for further analysis). Idadiv Credit Union CUP-09-002 PAGE 4 • 9. ANALYSIS A. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation: 1. CUP Application: Conditional use permit approval is requested fora 3,765 square foot bank with associated drive-through in a C-G district. UDC 11-2B-21ists adrive-through facility as an Accessory/Conditional Use in the C-G zone, with Specific Use Standards for Drive- through Establishments. The Specific Use Standards listed in UDC 11-4-3.11 require Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval for drive-through facilities that are within 300 feet of another drive-through facility. The subject site is within 300' of another drive-through establishment (Starbucks); therefore procurement of a CUP is required. The Comprehensive Plan designation for this site is designated as Commercial. Staff is supportive of the proposed use on this site and believes it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan (see Section 7 above for more information). Drive-Through Establishment: Per UDC 11-4-3-11, Specific Use Standards apply to the proposed drive-through use of the property as follows: • All establishments providing drive-through service shall identify the stacking lane, speaker location, and window location on the plans submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. The ATM location, night deposit area and automated teller locations are not shown on the submitted site plan. With CZC submittal, the applicant shall revise the site plan depicting the automated teller locations, the ATM location and night deposit area. • Stacking lanes shall have sufficient capacity to prevent obstruction of the public right-of--way by patrons. Staff believes there is sufficient stacking capacity for the proposed drive-through use and should not impede the public right-of-way. • The stacking lane shall be a separate lane from the circulation lanes needed for access and parking. The stacking lanes are separate from the internal drive aisles and comply with this requirement. • The stacking lane shall not be located within ten feet (10') of any residential district or existing residence. The subject site is surrounded by commercially zoned property; therefore this standard is not applicable. • Any stacking lane greater than one hundred feet (100') in length shall provide for an escape lane. The proposed site plan depicts an escape lane. • A letter from the Transportation Authority indicating the site plan is in compliance with the authority's standards and policies shall be required. ACHD's comments are provided in Exhibit B below. Financial Institutions: Per UDC 11-4-3-17, Specific Use Standards apply to the proposed financial institution as follows: The location, access and safety features of all automated teller machines shall be subject to review and approval by the Meridian Police Department, and in accord with the standards set forth in UDC 11-3A-16. The Meridian Police Department has reviewed and commented on proposed site design of the project and comments are attached in Exhibit B. Further analysis is provided below for self-service uses. All ATMs shall be deemed an accessory use to a financial institution. Because this site is proposing additional drive up teller services other than an ATM,• CUP Idadiv Credit Union CUP-09-002 PAGE 5 procurement is required because the proposed drive-through is within 300' of another drive-through facility. Self-Service Uses: Per UDC 11-3A-16, any self-service uses (ATM) shall comply with the following requirements: • Entrance or view of the self-service facility shall be open to the public street or to adjoining businesses and shall have low impact lighting. The ATM is located on the east side of the proposed building and faces Meridian Road, a major arterial. Financial transaction areas shall be oriented to and visible from an area that receives high volumes of traffic, such as a collector or arterial streets. The ATM and automated teller services will be visible from Meridian Road; designated a major arterial. Landscape shrubbery shall be limited to no more than 3 feet in height between entrances and financial transaction areas and the public street. The applicant shall maintain the landscaping to comply with this requirement. Access: Access to Meridian Road and Corporate Drive was approved through the Trade Plaza Subdivision. The applicant is proposing to construct the internal drive aisle that connects the site to the adjacent roadways. A portion of this drive aisle is proposed to be constructed on the adjacent owner's property and not bank owned property. Staff has received written permission from the adjacent property owner allowing the construction of the drive aisle on his property. The applicant shall construct the internal drive aisle 25 feet, at a minimum, in accord with UDC 11-3C-5. Further, Staff will not issue a CZC until the fmal plat has recorded establishing cross access for the development. NOTE: Cross Access will be provided as a note on the final play Staff is currently processing the final plat application for Trade Plaza Subdivision (Phase 1) which is scheduled for the April 14,' 2009 City Council hearing. Site Design: The site plan submitted with this application (ZGA Architects and Planners, labeled as Sheet A-101, dated 3/16/09) depicts one 3,765 square foot building pad and the required site improvements. Staff has reviewed the site design for conformance with UDC and the Meridian Design Manual. Staff finds the site plan is consistent with the aforementioned documents. However, Staff is recommending additional changes to the site plan as follows: 1) SSC has communicated to Staff the trash enclosure will need to rotate towards the east; coordinate trash enclosure location with SSC. SSC comments are provided in Exhibit B. 2) The trash enclosure detail is not depicted on the proposed site plan. The applicant shall include the trash enclosure detail on the revised site plan. Said enclosure shall be constructed of similar building materials as the proposed building (stucco, brick). 3) The applicant shall construct the internal drive aisle extending from Meridian Road through the site to Corporate Drive, as proposed. All drive aisles shall be constructed in accord with UDC 11-3C-5. The applicant shall include an affidavit of legal interest from the adjoining property owner to construct the portion of the drive aisle on the adjoining property with submittal of the CZC application. 4) The applicant shall revise the site plan depicting the automated teller locations, the ATM location and night deposit area. To ensure that all of the conditions of approval listed in Exhibit B are complied with and the site plan is amended, the applicant will be required to obtain a CZC from the Idadiv Credit Union CUP-09-002 PAGE 6 • • Planning Department prior to receiving a building permit. Further, the Planning Department shall not issue a CZC until the Trade Plaza Subdivision (Phase 1) is recorded. Landscaping: The applicant has submitted a landscape plan dated 3/12/2009 by Jensen Belt Associates, labeled as Sheet L-101. The street buffer landscaping along Meridian Road and Corporate Drive will be assessed and approved with the final plat for Trade Plaza Subdivision; currently under review. Staff has reviewed the internal parking lot landscaping depicted on the landscape plan and finds it complies with the landscaping requirements in UDC 11-3B-8. Therefore, staff is supportive of the landscape plan as proposed. Note: The streetscape landscaping shall be completed or surety in place prior to release of occupancy for Trade Plaza Subdivision. Building Elevations: The Applicant has submitted building elevations with this application that are included in Exhibit A. Building materials depicted on the elevations include brick veneer and stucco, arriscraft building stone as a wainscot and accent band, and standing seam metal roofing material. Staff is supportive of the proposed elevations as they comply with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and Meridian Design Manual. The future building constructed on this site shall substantially comply with these elevations. Design Review: The proposed development is subject to Administrative Design Review in accord with UDC 11-SB-8. Further, the building and site design are subject to the standards and guidelines in accord with UDC 11-3A-19 and the Meridian Design Manual. As mentioned above, staff has reviewed the site design and elevations for compliance with these standards and guidelines. Therefore, the applicants administrative design review is approved and the elevations and site design attached in Exhibit A shall not be altered without written approval from the Planning Department. 10. EXHIBITS A. Drawings 1. Vicinity/Zoning Map 2. Site Plan (dated: 3/16/09) 3. Landscape Plan (dated: 3/12/09) 4. Building Elevations (3/16/09) B. Conditions of Approval 1. Planning Department 2. Public Works Department 3. Fire Department 4. Police Department 5. Parks Department 6. Sanitary Service Company 7. Ada County Highway District C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code Idadiv Credit Union CUP-09-002 PAGE 7 • 1. Vicinity/Zoning Map Exhibit A - 1 - • • 2. Site Plan (dated: 3/16/09) 'i i , ~~ i _ ,~ - ~,.a..+.~r~r, I . _. .,~ -, O ®~(~ ~ ~= f~ , ~ ~ i ~~`_ l ~.w. ~ ~ ~ ~~ . j~ ~ 5 ~`,~," " .' "' a p~ --- -- ~ ~ '' •~ : ,~ '~ FbO~,r~- - ~ ~ ~~ ~ ---- ~~ y+ - ~ 3,76'~afi, ~ I .. ~ s ~ !3 ll' 2 .~ ". ~ ~ ~ 1 y ~ ^___ - Yw~1+M1 j .' j _ - ~ ~.~ - __. _ . - _ - ~.. . - A ~. .,»,~,.„ .:. _ CpRPt?RATE dF7IVE ~~ Exhibit A - 2 - • _ ..~.- Exhibit A - 3 - 3. Landscape Plan (dated: 3/12/09) • • 4. Building Elevations (dated: 3/16/2009) Exhibit A - 4 - Ct ~Csa ELEVATION , ,.. r.» Y.S'.,..M ~.~' At '8;~~~ELEVATION ~, C~ Exhibit A -5 - Al T~ELEVAiION • • B. Conditions of Approval On March 26, 2009 a joint agency and departments meeting was held with service providers in this area. These agencies submitted comments on this application, which are included below. 1. Planning Department 1.1 All conditions of the preliminary plat (PP-08-011) associated with this site shall also be considered conditions of the subject Conditional Use Permit (CUP-09-002). 1.2 A building permit shall not be issued issue a-C~3G until the lot is created through the recorded plat for Trade Plaza Subdivision. 1.3 The Applicant shall comply with the Specific Use Standards for drive-through establishments and financial institutions listed in UDC 11-4-3-11 and UDC 11-4-3-17. 1.4 The applicant shall comply with standards for self-service uses listed in UDC 11-3A-16. 1.5 The Site Plan, labeled Sheet A-101, prepared by ZGA Architects and Planners, dated 03/16/2009, included in Exhibit A, is approved, with the following changes: 1) SSC has communicated to Staff the trash enclosure will need to rotate towards the east; coordinate trash enclosure location with SSC. 2) The trash enclosure detail is not depicted on the proposed site plan. The applicant shall include the trash enclosure detail on the revised site plan. Said enclosure shall be constructed of similar building materials as the proposed building (stucco, brick). 3) The applicant shall construct the internal drive aisle extending from Meridian Road through the site to Corporate Drive, as proposed. All drive aisles shall be constructed in accord with UDC 11-3C-5. The applicant shall include an affidavit of legal interest from the adjoining property owner to construct the portion of the drive aisle on the adjoining property with submittal of the CZC application. 4) The applicant shall revise the site plan depicting the automated teller locations, the ATM location and night deposit area. 1.6 The Landscape Plan, labeled Sheet L-101, prepared by Jensen Belts Associates, dated 03/12/2009, is approved, with no changes. 1.7 The request for Administrative Design Review approval of the site and proposed building with a drive-through facility is approved. Any modifications to the site design or building alterations shall not occur without written approval from the Planning Department. 1.8 The applicant shall submit a Certificate of Zoning Compliance application for the proposed financial institution and associated drive-through facility with revised plans that comply with the conditions of approval listed herein, prior to issuance of building permits. 1.9 All business signs require a separate sign permit in compliance with the sign ordinance (UDC 11- 3D). 1.10 The applicant shall comply with the outdoor lighting standards listed in UDC 11-3A-11. 1.11 Staff's failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or terms of approval of the Trade Plaza development does not relieve the applicant of responsibility for compliance. The applicant shall comply with all prior conditions of approval for this site. 1.12 Applicant shall have a maximum of 18 months to commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval listed above (UDC 11-SB-6F). If the approved use has not begun within 18 months of approval, a new conditional use permit must be obtained prior to operation. Exhibit B - 1 - • • 2. Public Works Department 2.1 Water service to this site is being proposed via extension of main located in S Meridian Road. The applicant will be responsible to install water mains to and through this development, coordinate main size and routing with the Public Works department. 2.2 Sanitary sewer service to this development is being proposed via extension of mains in S Meridian Road with the Trade Plaza Subdivision. The applicant shall install mains to and through this subdivision; 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. 2.3 The applicant shall provide a 20-foot easement for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way (include all water services and hydrants). 2.4 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water (UDC 11-3A-6). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface water for the primary source. If a surface source is not available, asingle-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. 2.5 Meridian Public Works specifications do not allow any large landscaping within a five foot radius of water meters. The applicant shall make the necessary adjustments to achieve this separation requirement and comply with all landscape requirements. 2.6 Any existing domestic well system within this project shall be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9-4-8 contact the City of Meridian Engineering Department at (208)898-5500 for inspections of disconnection of services. Wells maybe used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation if approved by Idaho Department of Water Resources Contact Robert B. Whitney at (208)334-2190. 2.7 Street signs are to be in place, water system shall be installed and activated, sewer system shall have passed air-testing and video inspection, fencing installed, drainage lots constructed, road base approved by the Ada County Highway District ,prior to issuance of appl~~€e building permits. 2.8 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, pressurized irrigation, sanitary sewer, water, etc., prior to signature on the final plat. 2.9 All development improvements, including but not limited to sewer, fencing, micro-paths, pressurized irrigation and landscaping shall be installed and approved prior to obtaining certificates of occupancy. 2.10 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to construction plan approval. 2.11 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES Permitting that maybe required by the Environmental Protection Agency. 2.12 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.13 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. Where mailboxes are located on or near sidewalk the applicant shall comply with all American with Disabilities Act Exhibit B - 2 - • • requirements for unobstructed sidewalk access. 2.14 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. 2.15 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. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of building pads is at least 1-foot above. 3. Fire Department 3.1 All entrance and internal roads shall have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside radius. 3.2 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. 3.3 Provide a Knox box entry system for the complex prior to occupancy. 3.4 The Fire Department 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 the Addressing Specialist at 898-5500 to address this concern prior to the public hearing. 4. Police Department 4.1 The proposed development shall limit landscaping shrubs and bushes to species that do not exceed two feet in height. Trees shall have a canopy of no less than six feet. 5. Parks Department 5.1 The Parks Department has no concerns with the site design as submitted with the application. 6. Sanitary Service Company 6.1 Please contact Doug Mason at SSC (888-3999) for detailed review of your proposal and submit stamped (approved) plans with the certificate of zoning compliance application. 7. Ada County Highway District SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 7.1.1 The applicant shall comply with all previous conditions of approval (Trade Plaza) for this site. 7.1.2 Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval. 7.2 STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 7.2.1 Any existing irrigation facilities shall be relocated outside of the right-of--way. 7.2.2 Private sewer or water systems are prohibited from being located within any ACbID roadway or right-of--way. 7.2.3 All utility relocation costs associated with improving street frontages abutting the site shall be borne by the developer. 7.2.4 Replace any existing damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk and any that may be damaged during the construction of the proposed development. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file number) for details. 7.2.5 Comply with the District's Tree Planter Width Policy. 7.2.6 Utility street cuts in pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing by the District. Contact the District's Utility Coordinator at 387-6258 (with file numbers) for details. Exhibit B - 3 - • • 7.2.7 All design and construction shall be in accordance with the Ada County Highway District Policy Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services procedures and all applicable ACHD Ordinances unless specifically waived herein. An engineer registered in the State of Idaho shall prepare and certify all improvement plans. 7.2.8 The applicant shall submit revised plans for staff approval, prior to issuance of building permit (or other required permits), which incorporates any required design changes. 7.2.9 Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable requirements of the Ada County Highway District prior to District approval for occupancy. 7.2.10 Payment of applicable road impact fees are required prior to building construction. The assessed impact fee will be based on the impact fee ordinance that is in effect at that time. 7.2.11 It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right-of--way. The applicant at no cost to ACHD shall repair existing utilities damaged by the applicant. The applicant shall be required to call DIGLINE (1-811-342-1585) at least two full business days prior to breaking ground within ACHD right-of--way. The applicant shall contact ACHD Traffic Operations 387-6190 in the event any ACHD conduits (spare or filled) are compromised during any phase of construction. 7.2.12 No change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they are in writing and signed by the applicant or the applicant's authorized representative and an authorized representative of the Ada County Highway District. The burden shall be upon the applicant to obtain written confirmation of any change from the Ada County Highway District. 7.2.13 Any change by the applicant in the planned use of the property which is the subject of this application, shall require the applicant to comply with all rules, regulations, ordinances, plans, or other regulatory and legal restrictions in force at the time the applicant or its successors in interest advises the Highway District of its intent to change the planned use of the subject property unless a waiver/variance of said requirements or other legal relief is granted pursuant to the law in effect at the time the change in use is sought. 8. Nampa Meridian Irrigation District 8.1 Applicant shall apply for a land use change application be filed for review. Contact Suzy Hewlett at 466-7861 for further information. 8.2 All laterals and waste ways must be protected. 8.3 Any encroachment without a signed License Agreement and approved plan before any construction is started is unacceptable. 8.4 All municipal surface drainage must be retained on site. If any surface drainage leaves the site, the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District must review drainage plans. 8.5 The Developer must comply with Idaho Code 31-3805. 8.6 NMID recommends that irrigation water be made available to all developments within the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District. Exhibit B - 4 - C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code 1. Conditional Use Permit Findings: The decision making body shall base its determination on the Conditional Use Permit request upon the following: A. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. The proposed building and drive-through facility on this site can accommodate and meet all dimensional and development regulations of this district (as amended).The Commission finds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the required parking, landscaping and other features required by the ordinance. The Commission should rely on Staff's analysis, and any oral or written public testimony provided when determining if this site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use. B. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in accord with the requirements of this Title. The Commission finds that the Comprehensive Plan designation for this property is "Commercial." The proposed use is generally harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan and the UDC (see Section 7, 8 and 9 above for more information regarding the requirements for this use). C. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. The Commission finds that, if the Applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the operation of the proposed drive-through establishment (Bank) should be compatible with adjacent commercial uses and intended character of the area. The Commission should rely upon any public testimony provided to determine if the development will be compatible with other uses in the vicinity. D. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. The Commission finds that, if the Applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the proposed use will not adversely affect other property in the area. The Commission should rely upon any public testimony provided to determine if the development will adversely affect the other property in the vicinity. E. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools, parks, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, and sewer. The Commission finds that the site will be adequately served by the previously mentioned public facilities and services. Exhibit C - 1 - F. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. If approved, the Applicant will be fmancing any improvements required for development. The Commission finds there will not be excessive additional requirements at public cost and that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the community's economic welfare. G. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors. The Commission does not believe that the amount of traffic generated by the proposed new use of the property will be detrimental to any persons, property, or the general welfare of the public as there are no nearby residents. The Commission does not anticipate the proposed use will create excessive noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors. H. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic, or historic feature considered to be of major importance. Staff finds that there should not be any health, safety or environmental problems associated with the proposed use that should be brought to the Commission's attention. The Commission fmds that the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural, scenic, or historic feature of major importance. Exhibit C - 2 - MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING May 7, 2009 APPLICANT City of Meridian Planning Department ITEM NO. 4 REQUEST Public Hearing-7.65 acres consisting of 25 single-family residential lots & 2 common lots (Lots 1 & 2 & a portion of Lot 3, Block 2; portions of Lots 1 8< 108, Lots 2-9, Block 1, Dove Meadows Sub No. 1; portions of Lots 11 8< 12 8< Lots 13-24, Block 1, Dove Meadows Sub No. 2~ from L-O to R-8 for Dove Meadows-various properties in Dove Meadows Sub Nos. 1 & 2 zoned L-O AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Emailed: Date: Staff Initials: Phone: COMMENTS See Attached Staff Report Iv 11 v ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ,o No Comment See Attached Comments See Attached Sign Posting Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. • May , 2 09 CUP 09-004 MERI IAN CANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING May 7, 2009 APPU Pitter Patter Club, LLC ITEM NO. 5 REQUEST Public Hearing -Conditional Use Permit for a daycare center in an R-4 zoning district for Pitter Patter Club - 2371 N. Monaco Way AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Emailed: See ' COMMENTS See Attached Staff Report ~ v~ ~~ ~~~ No Comment ~/ . ~/v 1 ~ See Attached Comments ~,,~~{,~iu-~ ~ ~(,i,ns~ ~/ ~ Date: ~'' ~ Phone: -_ ne~a ~ ~_~a2"~"n~ (j~/'~ Staff Initials: __Y~}{~-- Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. M , 2009 i • ZOA 09-001 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING May 7, 2009 APPLICANT City of Meridian Planning Department ITEM NO. il3 REQUEST Public Hearing-Zoning Ordinance/UDC Text Amendment to modify 8~ clean up specific sections of the UDC for Outdoor Storage and Parking Unified Development Code Text Amendment - See application for details of all sections proposed for amendments 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 lr- \I~' No Comment See Attached Comments OTHER: No Comment by ITD Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.