Loading...
2009 10-15Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting October 15, 2009 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of October 15, 2009, was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman David Moe. Members Present: Chairman David Moe, Commissioner Joe Marshall, Commissioner Tom O'Brien, Commissioner Wendy Newton-Huckabay and Commissioner Michael Rohm. Others Present: Ted Baird, Machelle Hill, Anna Canning, Sonya Watters, Scott Steckline and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X 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 October the 15th and let's 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 a couple changes, as well the audience. Items No. 8, 9, and 10 will be continued. Item No. 8, which is JJA Lands project will be continued to the November 5th meeting and Items 9 and 10 for the street name changes will be continued to the 19th of November and we will do that in order as we go through the agenda this evening for that. Other than that, all other items will stay the same. So, can I get a motion to accept the agenda? Marshall: So moved. O'Brien: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve the -- adopt the agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 3: Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of October 1, 2009 Planning and Zoning Meridian Planning & Zoning October 15, 2009 Page 2 of 26 Commission Meeting: Moe: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda. One item being the approval of the meeting minutes of the October 1st, 2009, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Any questions, comments, Commissioners? Could I get a motion to approve that? O'Brien: Move to approve. Marshall: 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: ALL AYES. Moe: Okay. Before we go into the public hearing phase, you've probably all been here before, but you get to listen to me say it again and basically just kind of give a format for this evening. I will open the hearing, at which time I will, then, ask staff to give a brief overview of the project. Once they are, then, done I will ask the applicant to come forward and, then, they will discuss their issues. The applicant will have 15 minutes to do so. At the end of that time there are sign-up sheets in the back, if anyone would like to come speak on behalf of the hearing, you would have three minutes to do so. After all the names are finished on the sheet, which probably doesn't look like it will take too long tonight, I will, then, ask you if there is anyone else that would like to speak and you will also have three minutes. After that point I will, then, ask the applicant to come back up and rebut anything that was discussed or answer any questions that came up in the public hearing portion, after which, then, we will hopefully close the public hearing and deliberate and make motions. Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from October 1, 2009: RZ 08-005 Request for Rezone of 91.09 acres from an R-4 to an R-8 zone for Cavanaugh Ridge by Affinity Bank -located at 4275 S. Locust Grove Road, east of S. Meridian Road and south of E. Victory Road: Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from October 1, 2009: PP 08-010 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 252 residential building lots and 29 common area lots on 91.09 acres in a proposed R-8 zoning district for Cavanaugh Ridge by Affinity Bank -located at 4275 S. Locust Grove Road, east of S. Meridian Road and south of E. Victory Road: Moe: Having said all that, I would now like to open the continued public hearing on RZ 08-005 and PP 08-010 for Cavenaugh Ridge and, again, start with the staff report, please. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 15, 2009 Page 3 of 26 Watters: Thank you, Chairman Moe, Members of the Commission. The application before you is a rezone request for 91.09 acres of land from R-4 to R-8, a preliminary plat consisting 255 single family residential building lots and 27 common area lots. The property is located at 4275 South Locust Grove Road on the west side of Locust Grove, south of Victory. This is a zoning vicinity map you see here. And this is an aerial view of the property. The Commission heard this application on October 1st. At that meeting the Commission voted to continue the project to allow staff and the application time to work -- excuse me -- meet and work out some outstanding issues related to the 40 foot wide access easement along the west boundary of the site and the pathway along the Farr Lateral providing a pedestrian connection from the Ridenbaugh pathway planned along South Meridian Road to Mary McPhearson Elementary School to the southeast of the site. The applicant has submitted a revised plat in response to discussion at that meeting with the following changes: A public street has been added along the west boundary of the site where the existing 40 foot wide access easement is located. This street will provide access to the property to the south, as well as serve as another access to Cavenaugh Ridge from Meridian Road once Harris Street -- Rumple Lane is extended and approval as a public street. The access easement is required to be vacated once the public street has been constructed. As a result, the configuration of lots and streets in the northwest portion of the plat have been revised to accommodate the public street, resulting in three additional building lots and two fewer common lots. Show you -- here is a copy of the plat that you saw at the last meeting in the upper left and a copy of the revised plat in the lower right. A ten foot wide multi-use pathway has been added within the common area proposed on the east side of the public street along the west boundary to provide a connection to the Farr Lateral pathway along the southwest boundary of the site. The stub street previously shown at the south boundary has been removed and replaced with common area containing a pathway connecting to the pathway along the Farr Lateral, as recommended by staff. The ten foot wide multi- use pathway along the Ridenbaugh Canal at the northeast boundary has been adjusted to drop down across Lot 1, Block 3, and intersect with Locust Grove at Wrightwood Drive. The pathway, then, extends north along Locust Grove and is required to cross the Ridenbaugh Canal and connect to the detached sidewalk planned in Normandy Subdivision north of the site. The staff report has been revised to reflect the changes made to the plat. Staff is generally supportive of the proposed changes to the plat made by the applicant. These are the elevations approved with the Reflection Ridge Subdivision that are included in the existing development agreement. So, these are what future homes constructed on this site should look like. The applicant submitted a written letter in response to the revised staff report. You should have a copy of that. Staff is recommending approval of the requested rezone and preliminary plat with the conditions and development agreement provisions stated in the staff report, with one slight change. Condition number 1.4.2 requires a barricade to be installed at the end of Reflection Ridge Drive, where it connects to the public street. The fire department would prefer a gate with a knox box entry system, in accord with International Fire Code standards instead. So, staff is just recommending that the Commission revise that condition. Staff will stand for any questions that Commission may have at that time. Moe: Any questions of staff? Mr. O'Brien? Meridian Planning & Zoning October 15, 2009 Page 4 of 26 O'Brien: Yeah. Mr. Chair and Sonya, could you go back to the pictures of the elevation of the homes? So, the ones on the right, four Craftsman homes, are those the ones proposed for the R-8 zone or what type of buildings are going to be placed on the R-8 zone? Watters: Chairman Moe, Members of the Commission, Commissioner O'Brien, the whole subdivision is proposed to be rezoned to R-8. Those Craftsman style homes are proposed for the alley loaded lots along the east portion of the site. O'Brien: And so it prompts another question. The reason that you're going with proposing an R-8 designation from an R-4 is cost and time or to replat it, is that the primary reason or -- Watters: No. The -- this subdivision came through a couple years ago, it was back in 2005, I believe. It was before the UDC went in effect. This project was approved under the old Meridian City Code as a planned development and that allowed reductions to lot size, street frontages, several dimensional requirements. That plat and Conditional Use Permit and planned development has since expired, so it is no longer valid. So, this is a new application and as the plat was previously it didn't match -- meet our current dimensional standards for the R-4 district, so that's why the applicant is requesting an R-8 zoning. O'Brien: So, this is a positive? I mean to increase the density? Watters: It's not an increase, it's substantially the same plat as was approved - O'Brien: Okay. Watters: -- with Reflection Ridge previously in 2005. O'Brien: Oh. Okay. Watters: There is several standards that have changed since that time. O'Brien: All right. Thank you. Marshall: Mr. Moe, I did have a question of Sonya. Moe: Absolutely. Marshall: Sonya, when you're talking about the barricade on Reflection Ridge Drive -- now, (believe this is the southern road that goes through -- has the traffic circle and runs up and stubs towards the north there -- right towards the west. Yes. That's where you're talking about the barricade on the west end? Meridian Planning & Zoning October 15, 2009 Page 5 of 26 Watters: Correct. It's stubbed to that public street that the applicant is now proposing along the west boundary. The reason for that is that currently Rumple Lane is a private street that connects to Meridian Road. So, until that lane is -- it's actually Harris Street across Meridian Road to the west. Once Harris Street is extended and approved as a public street, then, Cavenaugh Ridge may obtain access through that street, but until, then, they cannot. So, we don't want traffic going out and hitting the public street here in Rumple Lane. Marshall: But that -- excuse me. That would allow for a secondary access when we get over 50 houses. That would be -- if half that road's built and we have a lock box on it, that allows and secondary access for the fire department, allowing them to continue building; correct? Watters: Yes. Marshall: Thank you. Moe: Any other questions of staff? Would the applicant like to come forward, please. And, please, state your name and address for the record. Ford: Thank you, Commissioners. For the record Ashley Ford, land use planner at Rose Law Group. My office address is 6223 North Discovery Way, Suite 200, in Boise, here tonight on behalf of Affinity Bank. Good to see you all again. We have worked with staff, as Sonya has mentioned, over the last weeks to put together this revised plat for you. We are back to the original 255 lots that Reflection Ridge was approved with, so we have not increased the density. Unfortunately, the standards have changed from 2005 to 2009 and thus our request for the R-8 zone, it just makes it a cleaner approval all the way around. Generally we are in support of the staff conditions of approval and I did submit a letter today on behalf of that. There is just two things I just want to note for the record. Condition 1.2.10 talks about the ten foot multi-use pathway on the Farr Lateral. We are agreeing to this condition at this time. This is one of those things that it's tough for us at this point, because the site has been graded, construction has occurred for a portion of this property. We think we have enough room to make this work at this time. However, until we actually get into the construction drawings and take a hard look at it, we may need to come back to talk with staff, to talk with the Commission about an alternative compliance for the pathway and we did talk about with staff that maybe we don't have to do landscaping on both sides if we don't have enough room. There is a topography difference at this point, so we will do our absolute best to comply with this condition, but we just wanted to note that we may need to come back and have a discussion with you for an alternative compliance. And, then, condition 3.9. We did have -- the day of our last hearing on October 1 st a conversation with the fire chief and we just wanted to clarify the language in the condition, basically, to state the following: That, number one, the Cavenaugh Ridge Subdivision may have one single point of access through building permit number 50 and, two, between building permits 50 and 78, which is the proposed phase one final plat that was previously approved by the Council, Cavenaugh Ridge Subdivision will be required to have two points of Meridian Planning & Zoning October 15, 2009 Page 6 of 26 abscess. However, it is understood that one access may be an approved all weather surface, 20 feet wide, that meets all the requirements of the Meridian Fire Department. It's further understood that -- by the applicant that if that point of access is locked or has bollards, it will be done so with the approval of the Meridian Fire Department and I did attach an a-mail between myself and Joe Silva that agreed to this language. So, we -- the language is just foggy enough that in a couple years if we come back in and it's being interpreted, we just want to make sure it's crystal clear what the intent was. Other than that, we thank you for your time and your consideration and happy to answer any questions you may have. Moe: Any questions of staff? O'Brien: I have a question. Moe: Mr. O'Brien. O'Brien: I'm not sure if this goes to staff or yourself, but on the path -- pathway that connects Ridenbaugh pathway and Mary McPhearson Elementary School is -- so that follows that lateral, I guess? Is that part of that -- Ford: Yes, sir. O'Brien: Okay. And it's a slight slope, I would imagine. Ford: The site has been previously graded due to he construction of phase one and due to that previous grading there is quite a bit of a topography difference, which is what our original concern was in trying to make apathway -- the 20 foot fit within that. O'Brien: Okay. So, I have a concern with the -- that particular area and I'm not sure who is responsible for it, but if -- I know it's not designated that school children will be using the path, but I'm sure they will. However, in -- most of the school year takes place during the wintertime and I'm concerned about the safety and issues of lighting and ice and what -- is it maintained at all along that part? Is there -- what kind of lighting do they have? Ford: I do not believe we are required to have any pathway. It, essentially, has to be constructed to a standard and, then, typically your requirements are for Lighting is typically not a requirement for that. O'Brien: Okay. lighting associated with this certain pavement width and landscaping on both sides. Watters: If may interject on that, the police department did, 4.2, include a condition of approval that all pedestrian pathways shall have four foot tall bollard style or equivalent lighting to illuminate the entire pathway and be shielded to prevent light from going into Meridian Planning & Zoning October 15, 2009 Page 7 of 26 residential lots. So, that would be a requirement along that pathway, as well as the pathway along the Ridenbaugh. O'Brien: All right. Thank you. I appreciate that. That's all I have. Moe: Any other questions? Marshall: I have a comment. Moe: Mr. Marshall. Marshall: I want to say thank you very much for going back and working with staff. I really appreciate the effort. There has, obviously, been a lot of effort and really appreciate it. Thank you Ford: You're welcome. Thank you. Moe: Anything else, Commissioners? Thank you very much. Ford: Okay. Thank you so much. Moe: Well, at this time there were no one signed up. So, if there is anyone in the audience that would like to come forward, you're more than welcome. I see no one is rushing to come up, Commissioners, so having said that -- Marshall: Personally, I'm in favor, now that we have seen the changes, and I have no problem with the staff's recommended change to 1.4.2, nor do I have a problem with the change, especially with Chief Silva's recommendation on 3.9 changes -- language there. Other than that, I'm in favor of this. Moe: I'd just like to make a comment and not so much on the project as a whole, but after -- because I was not at the last meeting and reading through everything I would like to say that I do appreciate the Commission very much going through the process and requesting the continuance, so those things could have been taken care of. You know, I think that we have kind had a clear goal, you know, with this Commission to take care of these things and reading through it I thought all of you did a great job as far as your points and continue it and I do appreciate that. So, now can I get someone to -- Rohm: That being said, Mr. Chairman? Moe: Mr. Rohm. Thank you. Rohm: I move we close the public hearing on continued public hearing RZ 08-005 and PP 08-010. O'Brien: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 15, 2009 Page 8 of 26 Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on RZ 08-005 and PP 08-010. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: My only concern is we need to either agree to change the wording on fire department requirement 3.9 or decline. That is one thing the applicant did ask for clarification on related to the secondary access. Moe: As far as from the Commission or do you want to hear just how to word it? Newton-Huckabay: Well, we need to either address it or not. Moe: That is correct. Newton-Huckabay: I think is what I'm saying. Moe: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, I am perfectly fine with the wording as proposed by the applicant, seeing how it was approved by the fire chief -- Moe: Silva. Marshall: -- Joe Silva. That's my comment. O'Brien: I agree. No further comments. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Did I miss something here or did she not say she wanted different wording in the staff report related to the temporary access than what's in the -- Watters: Excuse me. If I could clarify that, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Moe: Please. Watters: Ashley did request a clarification from Joe Silva and they did work out -- I do have a copy of that e-mail in my file and -- and the wording that she read does match what Joe agreed to. So, I can -- at your direction I can make a clarification in the fire department's conditions to include that wording. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 15, 2009 Page 9 of 26 Newton-Huckabay: Well, I think that was her request. I didn't think it was unreasonable. Moe: You just wanted to know what it was. The words. Watters: If I could also add one more -- Newton-Huckabay: I heard the wording, but it's not within the staff report. The wording. Moe: I got you. Watters: If I could add more thing for clarification. The police department's condition that I referenced earlier 4.2. It says -- that was about the bollard lighting along the pathway. It -- the last part of that sentence said: Including the regional pathway along the north boundary of the subdivision on the south side of the Ridenbaugh Canal. I think we should also just clarify, so it's clear in the future, that bollard lighting is also required along the Farr Lateral. It does say all pedestrian pathways right now, but I think we should also add that text, if the Commission is agreeable on that. We met with the police department originally. We weren't sure if the Farr Lateral pathway would be on this property or not, so that's why it wasn't specifically stated. Moe: Yes, Mr. Marshall. Marshall: No. Just ready to make a motion if everything else is taken care of. Moe: Go for it. I do believe you have got the floor. Marshall: Mr. Chair, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file numbers RZ 08-005 and PP 08-010 and MDA 08-003 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 15th, 2009, with the following modifications: 1.4.2 should include -- requires a barricade to be installed at the end of Reflection Drive. That barricade to be a gate with a knox box entry system in accord with IFC standards. That is Reflection Drive where it connects to the public street on the west end of the subdivision. 3.9 is to add the following: The Cavenaugh Ridge Subdivision may have one single point of access through building -- building permit number 50 and between building permits number 50 and number 78, which completes proposed phase one final plat, the Cavenaugh Ridge Subdivision will be required to have two points of access. However, it is understood that one access may be an approved all weather surface, 20 feet wide, that meets the requirements of the Meridian Fire Department. It is further understood by the application that if it is -- that if that point of access is locked or has bollards, it will be done so with the approval of the Meridian Fire Department. And 4.2, to add: And the pedestrian pathway along the Farr Lateral. So moved. O'Brien: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 15, 2009 Page 10 of 26 Moe: It's been moved and seconded to move on to City Council asking approval of RZ 08-005 and PP 08-010 and it's noted here as MDA 08-003 as noted and changed. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 6: Public Hearing: AZ 09-008 Request for Annexation and Zoning of a total of 115.26 acres consisting of 48.59 acres to the C-C zoning district; 27.27 acres to the H-E zoning district; 22.57 acres to the M-E zoning district; and 16.83 acres to the R-40 zoning district for Meridian Crossing by James Zeiter - 1085 S. Ten Mile Road: Moe: At this time I'd like to open the public hearing on AZ 09-008 for the Meridian Crossing and start with the staff report, please. Watters: Thank you, Chairman Moe, Members of the Commission. The next application before you is a request for annexation and zoning of 115.26 acres, consisting of 48.59 acres of C-C, Community Business District, 27.27 acres of AT, high density employment, 22.57 acres of mixed employment, ME zoning and 16.83 acres of R-40 zoning, high density residential. The site is located at 1085 South Ten Mile Road on the north side of I-84 midway between Ten Mile and Black Cat Road. The property consists of 115.26 acres and is currently zoned RUT in Ada County. There is an existing home on the southeast corner of the site. This is an aerial view of the property. The general area consists of rural residential, agricultural land. Baraya Subdivision was approved to the north of this site for residential uses and a school is planned on a parcel northwest of the site. This property lies within the area subject to the Ten Mile interchange specific area plan. The future land use map contained in the plan designates this site as medium high density residential, mixed use commercial, high density employment and mixed employment. The zoning requested for this site is consistent with the future land use map. The applicant has submitted a conceptual site plan showing how the property is proposed to develop with flex office, condos, and townhouses, ground level retail with residential above. Ground level retail with office above. Research and development. Restaurants. Offices. Parking structures. An amphitheater and park areas with lakes. Access to this site is depicted via two access points from Baraya Subdivision at the north and northwest property boundaries. Several other stub streets are proposed to adjacent properties for future connectivity. The proposed street system depicted on the concept plan is generally consistent with the transportation plan for this area contained in the Ten Mile plan. A 3,400 foot long section of the Northwest Pipeline bisects this site and runs from the southeast corner to the northwest corner. The concept plan depicts a 75 foot wide right of way easement for use by the pipeline company. The easement is proposed to be an open landscaped area with landscape material and methods approved by the pipeline company. The applicant has submitted pictures showing conceptual building elevations that will be typical within the proposed development. Building heights are proposed to be generally four to six stories, with a few taller buildings located in the MUC area. Mixed use commercial. Low rise retail and restaurant space will be provided within the central Meridian Planning & Zoning October 15, 2009 Page 11 of 26 linear park, which will allow easy access to adjoining uses. That's the area that's over the pipeline there. Staff is supportive of the concept building designs. Future buildings shall be consistent with the city's design manual, the Ten Mile interchange specific area plan, and the Unified Development Code. A response to the staff report was received from Joann Butler. Staff responded to her comments by e-mail. You should have a copy of that. In response to the applicant's response to the staff report, staff is requesting development agreement provision number 1.2.A be modified to read as follows: All development on this site shall comply with the Northwest Pipeline development guidelines, as evidenced by an encroachment permit for any improvements proposed within the pipeline easement. And, then, the rest of that paragraph will remain the same. Development agreement provision 1.2.C we recommend be modified as follows also. Development of this site shall be consistent with the concept site plan shown in Exhibit A-2 and the concept pictures shown in Exhibit A-3. Further, future development shall be consistent with the vision of the Ten Mile specific area plan, the design manual, and the City of Meridian ordinances in effect at the time of development. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed annexation, the concept site plan, and concept elevations with the development agreement. Staff will stand for any questions the Commission may have at this time. Moe: Any questions at this time of staff? Marshall: I do, Sonya. Mr. Chairman. Moe: Mr. Marshall. Marshall: Sonya, you mentioned just the two proposed changes, 1.2.A and 1.2.C. Watters: Yes. Marshall: And the others in the notes that we received, B, D, E and F and G, are those to remain the same as they were? Watters: Yes. Those are just your copy of the development agreement provisions recommended by staff. Marshall: No changes to those? Watters: No. Marshall: Thank you. Moe: Any other questions? Would the applicant like to come forward, please. Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission. My name is Mike Wilson and I represent Stanley Consultants and our business address is 2264 South Bonito Way in Meridian, Idaho. And I'm here to represent the developer Meridian Planning & Zoning October 15, 2009 Page 12 of 26 of this project and I will spend part of the 15 minutes going through a presentation on the project and, then, I will defer the remainder of the time over to Joann Butler to go through some items of clarification with the proposed conditions that have been outlined in the staff report. Is the document cam working? Can you see this in front of you? Okay. So, what you have before you is the concept plan and what we have presented -- I'm sorry. I can't see it on here. Okay. So, does the 15 minutes start over? Moe: Ah, you're good. Wilson: Okay. All right. So, the concept plan, what we have prepared or presenting to you tonight is really -- it's a vision and that vision has already been outlined in the Ten Mile plan and this is a result of that vision and it offers, really, a vision that's supported, obviously, by the developer and it's manifested in the concept plan that's presented to you tonight and we also feel that the project really is going to fit a precedent for the Ten Mile planning area. It supports future development that will bolster the city as a place for business, culture, recreation and a great place to live. We also feel that it's in harmony with the vision that's been established in the Ten Mile interchange plan and it creates a place where residents can live, work, and raise a family and I think that's what the Mayor is striving to achieve within the city. So, just to give you some general overview of the development features of the site. Conceptually there is approximately 1,034 proposed residential units, with an overall density of 8.97 dwelling units per acre. There are proposed 9,500 parking spaces that will be primarily in structured parking. There are -- there is approximately 919,000 square feet of residential, 132,000 square feet of flex office space, 150,000 square feet of research and development and 451,000 square feet of retail and restaurant space and, then, there is over one million square feet of office proposed conceptually within the plan. As you can see on the concept plan, we are showing a linear park central to the community. And this is really going to be a hub of social gathering and recreation and what we have identified are conceptually restaurants, specialty retail beautiques, and water features, so it's really a gathering place for the community and provides some excellent opportunities for amenities in there as well. The restaurant space will be low rise restaurant areas that will have windows overlooking the park and some patio areas, so it creates a pleasurable dining experience and, then, there will also be, as outlined in the staff report, we will work with the staff and parks and recreation on providing a ten foot pathway that will run down through the linear park and the pipeline easement, so that that regional pathway that's proposed will be connected. As far as some of the building features, these are conceptual illustrations of the proposed buildings and it gives you an idea of the style of architecture and the height of the structure and how these structures relate to the adjoining uses. What we tried to illustrate is that the buildings will be brought up close to the street with building height and orientation in context with the intended use of the building, as well as the location of the building in relation to other uses. Off street parking again will be provided primarily in structured parking or incorporated into the building. And they are designed to a human scale to create, you know, interesting places, pedestrian friendly, and also as we get into detailed design of each phase, we will work with the city on providing the landscaping drawings and the architectural details that will, then, be reviewed in accordance with the adopted design Meridian Planning & Zoning October 15, 2009 Page 13 of 26 guides that the city has adopted. The transportation network, what we have really focused on is designing the road system -- but what you can see -- what we tried to do is we have taken the Ten Mile land use plan and laid this concept plan over the top and so if you look at that -- the roadway network you can see that we are bringing in the road and incorporating that in and tying that -- the internal roadways in with the roads that are being proposed with the Ten Mile plan. We did have to take into consideration the pipeline easement. The pipeline company would like us to have our roadway crossings at 90 degree angles and so we have adjusted for that with the transportation network and so it substantially conforms with what's being proposed in the plan. And, obviously, again, as we get into detailed design, we will work with the city and the highway district on making sure that those streets comply with the city's request and the ACHD standards and we are looking at more livable context in city street design. The land use considerations -- as you can see on the map that you have again before you, we have tried to take the land use map and, of course, we have had to make some judgments in how the boundaries of the land use relates within the site and in the Ten Mile plan there is some flexibility allowed within the Ten Mile plan and I pulled out, basically -- some of the ideas is that the goal of the plan is to promote more organic and holistic development patterns to mixed uses more than to obey lines on a map, not to separate uses by areas, but to promote the best use of each area in concert with the others. The lines in the map are flexible and the lines should adjust and evolve to create a place that is truly an integrated whole, mixing uses both vertically and horizontally and that's what we have strived to do with this plan. As far as the land use categories, staff presented those various uses that are proposed, the medium high density residential, mixed use commercial, mixed employment and high density employment and we are requesting zoning that corresponds with those land use types. So, this map shows the proposed zoning with the site plan as an overlay, just to give you an idea of how the buildings will be located within each zone. The high density residential, which is the yellow area here, that's proposed, again, with 64 townhomes, 171 apartments or condominiums. The density in roughly three point -- or 13.9 dwelling units an acre, which fits within the target density of eight to 15 units per acre proposed in the plan. The community business district is the salmon color and this is a mixed use commercial area, again, both vertically and horizontally. It will integrate office, retail, and residential within that area. We are proposing a C-C zone to allow flexibility in the building heights, as well as the building area. The mixed employment area is identified in the purple and this is really more of the research and development component, the flex office space. And, then, the high density employment area is the blue and this is the area adjacent to Interstate 84 and, again, this is intended as a -- more of a corporate type campus, business and professional office space, with some research and development, and there will be limited retail that would support the office use. Again, we have taken into consideration the northwest gas pipeline with the 70 foot easement and respected the easement, recognizing that we will continue to work with the pipeline company and prepare detailed plans and review those plans with them for their approval. And just to maybe summarize or close, you know, again, we feel that this fulfills the vision that's outlined in the Ten Mile area plan. It builds, again, on the city's platform to become a place where, you know, you can live, work, and raise a family. It encompasses a variety of uses, again, both vertically and horizontally and that's Meridian Planning & Zoning October 15, 2009 Page 14 of 26 important, it's outlined, again, or stressed in the plan that that's an important element of the area. And it will create what we feel is, really, a dynamic sense of place. It's not just your typical cookie cutter subdivision. This really creates a destination and that's what this developer is striving to accomplish. We support the staff's recommendation for approval and we do ask for your approval this evening -- recommendation for approval to City Council. And with that I will stand for questions or we can hold on questions until after Joann Butler has an opportunity to present. Newton-Huckabay: I'm sorry, what was she going to cover again? Wilson: She is going to go through some of the conditions and some clarification. Moe: Well, since we will have questions for that, we will just wait and have questions at one time. Wilson: Okay. All right. Thank you. Moe: Thank you very much. Butler: Good evening. I couldn't quite hear. Am I up or not or were you waiting for questions? Did you want me to address this issue now? Okay. Okay. I got a nod. Okay. Joann Butler, 251 East Front Street, representing the applicant, There were just three conditions that we wanted to get some clarification on, so that there wasn't any confusion in the future, especially since this project will be taking place over a number of years. Sonya quickly responded to our letter that we submitted today and brought up a couple of things. There are three conditions that I'd like to go over with you. One is 1.2.A, the issue with the Northwest Pipeline. We don't want to cause any confusion in the future. The Northwest Pipeline guidelines appear to have been met by the developer, given the written correspondence that we have received from Gordon Hamilton, in which he said that we were in accord with their developer's handbook. What Ithink -- what I think the confusion is is Mr. Hamilton, through the use of a-mail, sent the Washington State Code to a lot of people, including staff, and I think that's where there might have been some confusion that that was -- those were guidelines of the Northwest Pipeline. They are not. And so I think that what we want to make sure is that we are not subject to anything that hasn't been adopted by the city. We don't want Northwest Pipeline to govern the city, we want to make sure that whatever happens comes through the city. I just want to point out what 440 feet would look like and that is this shaded area that you see here. We really do appreciate, as I talked to the planning director earlier, that a lot of the uses that want to be discouraged -- we do want -- we understand that and they do have to go through a Conditional Use Permit on the whole. So, we think that it's probably better to write this condition as though these uses are discouraged in the vicinity of the pipeline, because, then, it will be addressed during the conditional use process. If this 440 feet were to be enforced all along the pipeline, I think you would have to rewrite your specific area plan. I also think if you continue this northward you are going to run smack dab into the middle of a school that is already approved on a preliminary plat for Baraya Subdivision. So, I think that that's just an Meridian Planning & Zoning October 15, 2009 Page 15 of 26 issue that -- the 444 feet -- 440 feet just isn't appropriate for either the city or for us, but we understand having this dealt with in a conditional use setting. So, what I would suggest is that -- and I will just read this into the record and Ican -- I'll put this up for you if you like. It's going to be messy, because I have written all over it. I don't know if you can read that, so I will. What I would suggest is that an encroachment permit is required for any improvements proposed within the pipeline easement. A copy of the executed encroachment shall be submitted to the city prior to the issuance of any certificate of zoning compliance for this site. Uses such as day care, schools, hospitals, assisted living facilities where occupants are not able to leave the area quickly in case of an emergency are discouraged in the vicinity of the pipeline. I think my time is about up, so I will only mention two other conditions and that's 3.2.H and 3.22. They deal with fire issues and Sonya has said that they need to be addressed by the fire department. I think they can be addressed by the Planning Commission. I'll address those quickly. If you don't feel that you can -- I don't see anybody from the fire department here tonight. If you can't resolve them, which I hope you can, then, we will deal with the -- work with the fire department between tonight's hearing and the City Council hearing. 3.2.H we believe is an impossible condition for us to meet. The fire department, I guess, wanted to show all proposed or existing hydrants for all new construction within 1,000 feet of our project. We just won't know that. But we think that, obviously, the building and the fire department will know that as -- as projects come through your -- your hearings and we so just think that's just a condition that we can't meet. Secondly, 3.22, this might just have been a statement by the fire department saying that they would like a ladder truck or -- I'm not sure. They just mention a ladder truck would be needed. We are aware of the fact that the city has purchased a ladder truck this year and we are also aware that commercial impact fees -- fire impact fees alone will reach 1.1 million. So, if your future concept -- or capital improvement plan -- okay. Because of the amount of fire impact fees that this new growth will be providing the city, that if a capital improvements plan is passed in the future that, again, puts a fire truck -- a ladder truck on it, we think that can be used for this, so we would also like that -- if that is the case and not just a statement, to be removed, so there is no confusion. And with that I will stand for any questions that the Commission has. Moe: Any questions of the applicant? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I just have one. I can't find any mention, other that the letter from the school district, asking for a school site on here. Where am I -- Butler: There probably isn't one and it's probably because there is a school site immediately north of this property in Baraya Subdivision. I do have -- we do have a picture that shows that, too. Right. That -- right. Exactly. That is where a school has been approved in that -- for that preliminary plat. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 15, 2009 Page 16 of 26 Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh. Okay. Thanks. Moe: Any other questions? O'Brien: I have a question, but I don't know if you want to have Mike up here or not. Anyway, so -- Mr. Chair, my question is what -- what is the best case, worst case build out of that entire site? And, then, Ihave afollow-up question. Wilson: As far as the time frame? O'Brien: I know it's years, but -- Wilson: Yeah. You know, realistically we are probably looking at, you know, a 15, possible 20 year build out. You know, it's -- we all would like to see the conditions change and start construction tomorrow if we -- you know, if we could, but, you know, realistically it's going to be some time. O'Brien: So, my follow-up question to that would be what type of land use will be provided during that time frame, waiting for the build out of the land? Is it going to be still farmed or is it -- what's the intent there and how is it going to be maintained? Wilson: Yeah. It will remain in its current condition in agricultural production until such time, you know, there is a tenant or tenants that, you know, then, we could start forward and possibly start phasing in the project. You know, you're probably not going to see any conditions change out there as it exists now for, you know, three to five more years, unless conditions change and we can go forward sooner, but -- Boe: Is this on? I'm Brad Boe with Insight Holdings, the applicant, and part owner of the project. The timing of the project is unknown. I wish I could tell you when will the economy come back. Your guess is as good as mine. What our intentions are to go in and build several different parts of that project at once, so we'd like to come in and start on the western end of the project and do some of the residential, do some of the flex space, we can get the flex space up and running and go to the east end of the project and start on some of the mid rise office components. I don't -- I wish we had more time and maybe you will allow us to have more time. We have three towers on the east end of that project that are -- they will be the signature buildings within it that you will be able to see coming up and down I-84 and, hopefully, be the signature for that entire area. We'd like to get one of those towers up as soon as we can, as soon as we can go find a tenant that would be able to occupy enough of that where this thing would cash flow and it would make sense from an economic standpoint. But we do want to come in and build several products at once, which means we would be -- we would be under construction on both ends of the project. As you know, it's cheaper to hold land in an agricultural status than it is to go in an improved status, so as we come in with phasing plans, we will keep that in mind from the economic standpoint, but from a use standpoint, if we are going to bring users in that would go occupy a ten story building, then, they need a place for their -- for the people to live and also need some R&D with Meridian Planning & Zoning October 15, 2009 Page 17 of 26 the flex space, we complete that entire transportation corridor through there. We have worked quite a bit with the surrounding owners at -- landowners between ourselves and Ten Mile and it looks like there is an agreement between the state's attorney general and the stakeholders there to go and carve out the right of way, so we have access to the Ten Mile also. We would not want to start the project without that access being able to be built, for obvious reasons. The Ten Mile interchange is the -- the breaking force that's going to cut that whole area loose and the reason why we acquired the property to begin with. But we will do multi-phases. We will do multi-products at the same time and we do have a major problem with the wording on the pipeline and if I put the -- that land plan back up there, if you will -- thanks, Mike. Could we do that? When you do, you know, low rise and mid rise condominiums for sale or for rent, you're going to have to meet the federal Americans with Disability Act law, which means if we had to maintain that 440 foot clearance with people that were less than ambulatory, that would completely eliminate the ability to go build the high density residential in the project. So, the specific plan would be in error in allowing that use in that location. So, I'd have to think that the original testimony and the approval by -- I'm presuming P&Z and the City Council, that you probably weren't aware of that. It's a new condition to us here that just happened in the last several days, that Sonya was made aware of by the pipeline company. Moe: We are approaching way past the time when -- Boe: I'm sure we are way past that, but this entire area -- this area here is all residential. You wouldn't be able to build it. So, thank you for allowing me some extra time. Moe: Thank you. Any other questions of the applicant at this time? Okay. Thank you very much. There is -- Mike was the only one listed here, so there is no one listed to speak. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to come forward? You have three minutes. Okay. No one is stepping forward. Commissioners, any comments? O'Brien: Mr. Chair, my only comment is I'm concerned about the pipeline, you know, what is it and what isn't it. If, you know, their whole project depends upon being able to build residential homes or residences within that 440 foot path, I mean the reason why they put in there, that's strictly safety. So, I don't know which way, you know, we are supposed to go, who is going to make that decision and I don't think we can make that tonight. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, if I -- somebody needs to educate me if I'm misunderstanding this. All I'm understanding is this condition is if they propose anything within that footprint it has to have a CUP and approval by the pipeline, is that what that -- Canning: Chairman Moe, perhaps I could take a moment and talk about the pipeline in general, because it took us awhile to understand the easement. So, let's talk about that for just a moment. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 15, 2009 Page 18 of 26 Moe: Thank you. Canning: It is just an easement over which that specific easement they have control. Outside of that easement they don't have control. So, they are reluctant to require anything of anyone beyond that easement. Rightfully so. It's just an easement. So, the way that the pipeline works is they understand that the development may occur on the other sides of their easement. So, as that development occurs they monitor it on a regular basis and as development around it occurs it may trigger the need to replace the pipe to different standards. So, if it's going through agricultural land it's one kind of pipe, if it's going through housing at three units an acre it's one kind of pipe, if it's going through very urban areas it's a more significant type of pipe and they are prepared to expend the funds necessary as that development occurs. Those uses that we pointed out are ones that trigger a certain level of concern. So, it is generally discouraged. We didn't recommend prohibiting them, because at some point there may be a really great pipe in there and those uses would be fine. Some of those uses are principally permitted uses and they might go in, some of them are conditional uses, at that point when that Conditional Use Permit goes in, it's something for planning staff and Planning and Zoning Commission to consider. That's all we wanted to do was leave in the record that those kinds of uses are discouraged in the general vicinity. That's all we wanted to say, just as a trigger as we go down the road. So, I think that's -- the wording that Mrs. Butler proposed I'm fine with. It's -- we weren't looking for a prohibition, because Mr. Boe is right, it would negate the Ten Mile plan -- if we said don't do anything within 440 feet of that pipeline our Ten Mile plan wouldn't be worth anything. I mean we've got urban style development there and over time it will be fine, they will accommodate that pipeline as necessary. So, they are kind of almost like our roadways, you put the houses in and they fix the roads. They are a little bit the same way. You put the development in and, then, they size the pipeline accordingly or they -- yeah. The width -- thickness of it I think they size accordingly. Does that help? Newton-Huckabay: Yes. A lot. Thank you. Moe: So, I guess, then, the question is, then, you are fine with the wording changes that she's proposed? Caning: Yes. Moe: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: Which are, in essence, the changes that Sonya proposed in the summary; correct? Marshall: Minus the 440 -- changing the 440 feet to the general vicinity of. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 15, 2009 Page 19 of 26 Canning: And that's fine. Again, I just want it to be a trigger for when I'm not the planning director and I don't remember this anymore, Sonya's planning director and she's forgotten by that time, I don't know. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. O'Brien: Nothing further. Moe: Comments, questions, Commissioners? Could I get a motion to close the public hearing hearing? O'Brien: Mr. Chair, I move to close the public hearing AZ 09-008. Marshall: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on AZ 09-008. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, it looks like you had something you wanted to say. Newton-Huckabay: I just wanted to make the comment that this is the first time I have seen in annexation request come in that looked so much like the Comprehensive Plan, I'm stunned into silence. Moe: Boy, that is -- O'Brien: Further comment, I -- Mr. Chair, I think the applicant made an excellent proposal as far as the layout of this thing. It really is -- you know, to compliment what Commissioner Newton-Huckabay said, it's -- they did a great job and a lot of forethought went into this and I appreciate that. Marshall: Chairman Moe? Moe: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: I would -- my comments are on similar lines, that I am very pleased, I think this does -- it does appear to fit with the city's vision. I am -- I'd like to see this and very happy to see that it meets exactly what the city was asking for, it appears to me. Moe: Well, it sounds like everybody up here is all in favor. I just need one more thing to happen. O'Brien: Mr. Chair? Meridian Planning & Zoning October 15, 2009 Page 20 of 26 Moe: Mr. O'Brien. O'Brien: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file AZ 09-008 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 15, 2009, with no modification. Oh. Correction. Modification of 1.2.A, to change the 440 feet to general vicinity of. Okay. Oh. Okay. All development on this site shall comply -- this 1.2.A. All development on this site shall comply with the Northwest Pipeline development guidelines as evidenced by an encroachment permit for any improvements proposed within the pipeline easement. A copy of the executed encroachment agreement shall be submitted to the city prior the issuance of any certificate of zoning compliance for this site. Northwest Pipeline suggested uses, such as day cares, schools, hospital, senior living facilities, et cetera, where occupants are not able to leave this area quickly in case of emergency are discouraged within the general vicinity of the pipeline or actual location of the pipeline. And 1.2.C, development of this site shall be consistent with the concept site plan shown in Exhibit A-2 and the concept pictures shown in Exhibit A.3. Further, development shall be consistent with the vision of the Ten Mile specific area plan, the design manual, and the City of Meridian ordinances in effect at the time of development. Marshall: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve -- Canning: Are you having a discussion, sir? Moe: Pardon me? Canning: Are you having a discussion on the motion before you take the vote? May I interrupt? Moe: We were actually in motion here. Rohm: It's been a motion and a second, but I'm curious what you had to say. Moe: Yeah. I am, too, now. Canning: The wording that -- since the applicant can't interrupt you and I could, I just wanted to clarify that wasn't the language the applicant was looking for, so it's -- t just wanted you to know that one way or the other, but that's all. Marshall: How was -- excuse me, Chairman. Anna, how was the applicant's wording different than that, because we removed the 440 foot in Sonya's recommendation and changed it to the general vicinity of. It was -- there were additional changes? Canning: Yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 15, 2009 Page 21 of 26 Marshall: Which were? Canning: They had requested that you delete the statement all development on this site shall comply with the Northwest Pipeline development guidelines as evidenced by. So, it would just begin with an encroachment permit is required. Marshall: Got you. Canning: And, then, on the sentence that starts Northwest Pipeline suggests, they had deleted that portion. So, delete the Northwest Pipeline suggests that and just begin the sentence with uses. Moe: Well, there was no second to that, so if you want to rephrase the motion and just make it as per Anna's comments, that will take care of that. Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. Just refer --just refer to the right one. Moe: Do you understand that? Just reference her comments in the motion. O'Brien: Further to reference Anna Canning's comments to the proposed motion. Marshall: I will second that. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve AZ 09-008 as noted. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Canning: Sorry for the confusion, sir. Item 7: Public Hearing: CUP 09-009 Request for Conditional Use Permit approval for adrive-thru facility within 300 feet of another drive-thru facility for Fred Meyer Pharmacy Drive-Thru by Fred Meyer Stores, Inc. - 1850 E. Fairview Avenue: Moe: At this time I'd like to open the public hearing on CUP 09-009 for Fred Meyer Pharmacy Drive-thru and start with the staff report and before you do that, can somebody give me some understanding about what happened to the other drive-thru that was proposed there? Watters: Chairman Moe, the drive-thru that was previously approved on the east end of the Fred Meyer building on the south side, they just decided not to go through with. Moe: Oh. Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 15, 2009 Page 22 of 26 Watters: So, that fell through and they are proposing, instead, on this side. Moe: Thank you. Watters: So, the applicant's requesting conditional use permit approval for adrive-thru pharmacy. A Conditional Use Permit for adrive-thru pharmacy for Fred Meyers is requested by the applicant within 300 feet of another drive-thru facility as required by Unified Development Code 11-4-3-11. The site is located on the northeast corner of Fairview and Locust Grove at 1850 East Fairview Avenue and is currently zoned C-G. The general area surrounding the proposed drive-thru consists of commercial retail, professional services, bank, restaurant, and storage unit facility uses and is zoned C-G also. This is an aerial view of the property. The big building here you see is the Fred Meyer building. The applicant has submitted a site plan of the property. The site plan depicts the location of the drive-thru on the south side of the building at the west entrance to the store. There is an arrow here. There are two existing drive-thru lanes in this location separated by a five foot wide raised concrete island. The applicant proposes the pharmacy drive-thru to be located in the existing drive-thru lane closest to the store entry. A pharmacy kiosk is proposed to be constructed within the existing island separating the two drive-thru lanes. There is another drive-thru facility northwest of this location at Groove Coffee within 300 feet of the proposed drive-thru. You will see it noted here on the site plan at the top corner. Staff does not believe the traffic movement and stacking for the existing proposed drive-thru lanes will interfere or conflict with each other. The existing concrete cap in the island where the kiosk is proposed will be removed and soil and landscaping, shrubs, is proposed to be installed. Elevations of the proposed pharmacy kiosk were submitted with this application and are shown on the overhead there. The proposed kiosk measures 21 inches deep by ten feet, five inches tall and ten feet wide. Hours of operation for the pharmacy, the drive- thru, will be 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. The applicant submitted a traffic analysis with this application summarizing the potential impacts this proposed drive-thru might have on circulation within the site. Based on the analysis approximately seven percent of all pharmacy transactions occurred at the drive-thru kiosk. The maximum vehicular queue there is two vehicles and the average time to complete adrive-thru transaction was approximately six minutes. The analysis also states that the drive-thru can accommodate a queue of up to four vehicles, including the distance necessary to not block the pedestrian walkway without blocking adjacent drive aisles. As you can see here there is existing parking on this site here. This allows, you know, people to exit these parking stalls and still exit over here and not conflict with the stacking in the drive- thru. The applicant Kevin Kincaid submitted a written response in agreement with the staff report and staff is recommending approval of their requested Conditional Use Permit with the conditions listed in Exhibit B of the staff report. Staff will stand for any questions the Commission may at this time. Moe: Thank you. Any questions of staff at this time? Mr. Marshall. Marshall: There is currently adrive-thru in this location right now? Meridian Planning & Zoning October 15, 2009 Page 23 of 26 Watters: Chairman Moe, Commissioner Marshall, Commissioners, there is not really a -- there is -- it laid out as a drive-thru as you see on the site plan. I believe they may have used this area for grocery pickup. They don't -- I guess they don't advertise that service, but I think they do provide it if -- if requested and there was a postal service mailbox located -- I believe it was on the other drive-thru, but it has been removed from the site. Marshall: So, is this to be both a pharmacy and a coffee drive-thru? Watters: No. No. Let me go back to the site plan. Marshall: The reason I ask was because the -- it says Tulley's Coffee and pharmacy on the sign there. Right at the bottom. Right? Canning: Tulley's is inside. Watters: Yeah. It's inside the Fred Meyers store. Yeah. If you look at the site plan here this is where the proposed pharmacy drive-thru is at and, then, the Groove Coffee is up here. Marshall: Okay. Watters: But it is within the 300 feet that the Unified Development requires a Conditional Use Permit for. Marshall: It's just -- the coffee sign just caught me off guard there and I thought maybe it was both. Thank you. Canning: Drug and drug. Moe: Anymore questions? Would the applicant like to come forward, please. Are you Kevin? Kincaid: Yes, I am. Kevin Kincaid. Represent Fred Meyers. I work for Western Sign Group at 4612 Northeast Minihaha Street in Vancouver, Washington. Just to present the proposal. They'd like to put that pharmacy in. Been doing that in various stores throughout the northwest and they would like to put that here also. Moe: Any concerns over the staff report at all? Kincaid: No, sir. Moe: All conditions you're okay with? Kincaid: Yes, sir. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 15, 2009 Page 24 of 26 Moe: Okay. Any questions of the applicant? Thank you very much. You know, the only crazy thing about that, that area of that store is just awful busy right there, but I have seen cars go through there all the time, so -- you know. Newton-Huckabay: I think it's a better location than the previously proposed. Rohm: Absolutely. Marshall: I second that. Third. Moe: I might want to argue that, but I won't tonight. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Moe: Mr. Rohm. Newton-Huckabay: Wait. I might want to argue that. Rohm: That's why I want to get this motion in here. I move we close the public hearing on CUP 09-009. Marshall: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on CUP 09-009. All those in favor? Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Moe: Mr. Rohm. Rohm: I move we approve CUP 09-009 to include the staff report with no recommended changes. Marshall: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve CUP 09-009. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 8: Continued Public Hearing from October 15, 2009: AZ 09-005 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.89 acres from RUT (Ada County) to C-C (Community Business) zoning district for JJA Land by Mason and Stanfield, Inc. - NWC of N. Linder Road and W. Ustick Road: Meridian Planning & Zoning October 15, 2009 Page 25 of 26 Moe: At this time I'd like to open the continued public hearing on AZ 09-005 for JJA Land for the sole purpose of moving it to the regularly scheduled Planning and Zoning meeting of November 5th. Rohm: So moved. Marshall: Second. Moe: It's been moved and second to approve continuing AZ 09-005 to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning of November 5th. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 9: Public Hearing: Request for a Street Name Change from N. Washington Place to N. West 14tH Place by the City of Meridian: Item 10: Public Hearing: Request for a Street Name Change from W. Washington Drive to N. West Stn Avenue by the City of Meridian: Moe: I'd now like to open the public hearing for the request of the street name change from North Washington place to Northwest 14th Place by the City of Meridian, as well as the request of a street name change from West Washington Drive to Northwest 9th Avenue by the City of Meridian and continue those to the regularly scheduled meeting of November the 19th, 2009. Marshall: So moved. Rohm: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to continue those hearings. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Newton-Huckabay: Move we adjourn. Rohm: Second. O'Brien: Mr. Chair -- Rohm: Second. O'Brien: -- I move to adjourn. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 15, 2009 Page 26 of 26 Moe: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: We have adjourned at 8:18. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:18 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPRO irk ~- ~~ ~; i i DAVID MOE -VICE-CHAIR DATE APPROVED ATTEST: I (ZV(L `,,,~~ OF ~~Rd~f . JA E LMAN, CITY C ER C)' aQOr~ r ~',~ \~cP Fa SEAL ,, ~p ~~. ,,,,'ems ~"~ ~ ,~,