Loading...
2009 02-19~~i1~1 ~ IDIAN:-- • MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, February 19, 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: _X Tom O'Brien _X Wendy Newton-Huckabay O Michael Rohm _X Joe Marshall X David Moe -chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: Approve as Amended 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of February 5, 2009 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: Approve B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 08-032 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a residential care facility in an L-O district for Locust Grove Plaza by Ruby/Edwards: Architecture + Design - 1695 S. Locust Grove Road: Approve 4. Public Hearing: AZ 08-015 Request for Annexation and Zoning consisting of 15.05 acres from Ada County RUT to C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial) and I-L (Light Industrial) zones for Fignut by Ronald Van Auker -west side of S. Locust Grove, north of E. Overland Road and south of I-84: Continue Public Hearing to March 5, 2009 5. Public Hearing: RZ 08-009 Request for Rezone of 1.69 acres from C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial) to I-L (Light Industrial) zone for Fignut by Ronald Van Auker -west side of S. Locust Grove, north of E. Overland Road and south of I-84: Continue Public Hearing to March 5, 2009 6. Public Hearing: PP 08-012 Request for Preliminary Plat approval consisting of 6non-residential building lots and 1 other lot in a proposed C-G and I-L zoning districts for Fignut by Ronald Van Auker -west side Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - February 19, 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. of S. Locust Grove, north of E. Overland Road and south of I-84: Continue Public Hearing to March 5, 2009 7. Public Hearing: CPA 09-003 Request to change the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designation on 2.051 acres of land from "medium density residential" to "commercial" for Goff by Garland Goff and Shannon Hamrick - 1665, 1705 and 1725 W. Pine Avenue: Recommend Approval to City Council 8. Public Hearing: AZ 09-001 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 0.76 of an acre of land with a C-N zoning district for Goff by Garland Goff and Shannon Hamrick - 1725 W. Pine Avenue: Recommend Approval to City Council 9. Public Hearing: CPA 08-012 Request to add 54.9 acres of land to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map with designations of "Public/Quasi Public" and "Low Density Residential" for River Planning Area by City of Meridian Planning Department: Recommend Approval to City Council 10. Public Hearing: CPA 08-013 Request to change the text of the Comprehensive Plan revising the name of the Mixed Use WWTP designation to Mixed Use Non-Residential for the Mixed Use Non- Residential Text by City of Meridian Planning Department: Recommend Approval to City Council 11. Public Hearing: CPA 08-014 Request to re-designate approximately 265 acres from Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, and Mixed Use Regional to Mixed Use Non-Residential for State Highway 69 & Amity by City of Meridian Planning Department: Recommend Approval to City Council 12. Public Hearing: AZ 08-016 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 36.27 acres of land from the RUT zoning district in Ada County to the M-E (Mixed Employment) zoning district in the city for Southridge 31 by James L. Jewett -northeast corner of Overland Road and Ten Mile Road: Continue Public Hearing to March 5, 2009 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - February 19, 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 andlor hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. • AGENDA NAME ~ f ~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~ ~1 REVISED (YES/NO) ~~-'~r_-~~. REVISED DATE: ~~ ;- ~~ BACK TABLE FOR P & Z OR C/~' DOOR OF CHAMBERS l~-~ CLERKS STATION `~' ;~ CITY COUNCIL SEATS;`/ ~~ ~X~ ? ~; ~}'} CLERKS WALL CALENDAR REPOST IN LOBBY REFAX WEBS/TE WEBLINK E-MAIL Initial: Date: Time: • E IDIAN~-- MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING I D A H O REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, February 19, 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 °O Wendy Newton-Huckabay Michael Rohm Joe Marshall David Moe -chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: ~~i1d/^p~ 3. Consent Agenda: ~~pra U~. as An~er~q,° A. Approve Minutes of February 5, 2009 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 08-032 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a residential care facility in an L-O district for Locust Grove Plaza by Ruby/Edwards: Architecture + Design - 1695 S. Locust Grove Road: 4. Public Hearing: AZ 08-015 Request for Annexation and Zoning consisting of 15.05 acres from Ada County RUT to C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial) and I-L (Light Industrial) zones for Fignut by Ronald Van Auker -west side of S. Locust Grove, north of E. Overland Road and south of I-84: Gan -I,'n u.e_ ~w~~~ l~lec<,r; n y ~ M.av~c~ ~ ~oo~ 5. Public Hearing: RZ 08-009 Request for Rezone of 1.69 acres from C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial) to I-L (Light Industrial) zone for Fignut by Ronald Van Auker -west side of S. Locust Grove, north of E. Overland Road and south of I-84: 6. Public Hearing: PP 08-012 Request for Preliminary Plat approval consisting of 6non-residential building lots and 1 other lot in a proposed C-G and I-L zoning districts for Fignut by Ronald Van Auker -west side of S. Locust Grove, north of E. Overland Road and south of I-84: ~h-lz'v~ ft-2_ l~~h(.~ ~ (-~ ece~^i'~ `1 ~ o /l/l,2vr~ ~, ~DO~ Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - February 19, 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. 7. Public Hearin CPA 09-003 Re uest to chan a the Comprehensive g q 9 Plan Future Land Use Map designation on 2.051 acres of land from "medium density residential" to "commercial" for Goff by Garland Goff and Sh nnon Hamrick - 1665, 1705 and 1725 W. Pine Avenue• p ~c am hen-eC, ~f'p roV~ `t~ ~~y (~u,~x-e':.C, 8. Public Hearing: AZ 09-001 Request for Annexatlon and Zoning of 0.76 of an acre of land with a C-N zoning district for Goff by Garland Goff and Sh nnon Hamrick - 1725 W. Pine Avenue: 9. Public Hearing: CPA 08-012 Request to add 54.9 acres of land to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map with designations of "Public/Quasi Public" and "Low Density Residential" for River Planning a by City of Meridian tanning Department: C or-'t nZeiL.c~ r4~o p r~ /a.~.--lam ~~ CO tti1 C~ 10. Public Hearing: CPA 08-013 Request to change the text of the Comprehensive Plan revising the name of the Mixed Use WWTP designation to Mixed Use Non-Residential for the Mixed Use Non- Residential Text by City of Meridian Planning Dep ment: 11. Public Hearing: CPA 08-014 Request to re-~signate approximately 265 acres from Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, and Mixed Use Regional to Mixed Use Non-Residential for State Highway 69 & mity by City of Meridian Planning Department: ,~~of~--"-r.~.~L. ~~~ v~..e.. --~ C~'-fy Cou-~'-C 12. Public Hearing: AZ 08-016 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 36.27 acres of land from the RUT zoning district in Ada County to the M-E (Mixed Employment) zoning district in the city for Southridge 31 by James L. Jewett -northeast corner of Overland Road and Ten Mile Road: ~n~i~n~ce I~L~`c l-•~ca-r'~ n~ ~ S~ ~-c~~ Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - February 19, 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 use ~bs-~ ~r~v- I ~ JU o-h'~ - `-~,~p ~ DIAN,- MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING I REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, February 19, 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 February 5, 2009 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 08-032 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a residential care facility in an L-O district for Locust Grove Plaza by Ruby/Edwards: Architecture + Design - 1695 S. Locust Grove Road: 4. Public Hearing: AZ 08-015 Request for Annexation and Zoning consisting of 15.05 acres from Ada County RUT to C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial) and I-L (Light Industrial) zones for Fignut by Ronald Van Auker -west side of S. Locust Grove, north of E. Overland Road and south of I-84: 5. Public Hearing: RZ 08-009 Request for Rezone of 1.69 acres from C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial) to I-L (Light Industrial) zone for Fignut by Ronald Van Auker -west side of S. Locust Grove, north of E. Overland Road and south of I-84: 6. Public Hearing: PP 08-012 Request for Preliminary Plat approval consisting of 6non-residential building lots and 1 other lot in a proposed C-G and I-L zoning districts for Fignut by Ronald Van Auker -west side of S. Locust Grove, north of E. Overland Road and south of I-84: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - February 19, 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. 7. Public Hearing•CPA 09-003 Request to change ~e Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designation on 2.051 acres of land from "medium density residential" to "commercial" for Goff by Garland Goff and Shannon Hamrick - 1665, 1705 and 1725 W. Pine Avenue: 8. Public Hearing: AZ 09-001 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 0.76 of an acre of land with a C-N zoning district for Goff by Garland Goff and Shannon Hamrick -1725 W. Pine Avenue: 9. Public Hearing: CPA 08-012 Request to add 54.9 acres of land to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map with designations of "Public/Quasi Public" and "Low Density Residential" for River Planning Area by City of Meridian Planning Department: 10. Public Hearing: CPA 08-013 Request to change the text of the Comprehensive Plan revising the name of the Mixed Use WWTP designation to Mixed Use Non-Residential for the Mixed Use Non- Residential Text by City of Meridian Planning Department: 11. Public Hearing: CPA 08-014 Request to re-designate approximately 265 acres from Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, and Mixed Use Regional to Mixed Use Non-Residential for State Highway 69 & Amity by City of Meridian Planning Department: 12. Public Hearing: AZ 08-016 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 36.27 acres of land from the RUT zoning district in Ada County to the M-E (Mixed Employment) zoning district in the city for Southridge 31 by James L. Jewett -northeast corner of Overland Road and Ten Mile Road: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - February 19, 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. Date/Time LocaIID 1 LocaIID 2 Broadcast Report 02-17-2009 03:06:37 p.m. Transmit Header Text City of Meridian Idaho 2088884218 Local Name 1 Line 1 Local Name 2 Line 2 This document :Confirmed (reduced sample and details below) Document size : 8.5 "x11 " p ~ ~ E~aS2 ~OS+ ~r ~'l~bl~c l~~h~e -`~'Tv~,A ~ C .iYt E IDIAN~-- MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING i a p µ~ Q REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, February 79, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. :4lthough the Cfty of McNdian no longer requires awom testimony, a/t presentations before fhe 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 NewtorwHudcabay Michael Rohm Joe Marshall ---David Moe -chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Cons®nt Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of February 5, 2009 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: B. FPndings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 08-032 Request for Conditlonai Use Pemtit for a residential care - - ---- = - faci8ty in an L-0 diattict for Locust Grove Plaza by Ruby/Edwartis: Architecture + Design -1895 S. Locust Grove Road: 4. Pubfic Hearing; AZ 08-015 Request for Annexation and Zoning consisting of 15.05 acres from Ada Coufrty RUT to GG (General Retail and Service Commercial) and !-L (Light Industrial) zones for Fignut by Ronald Van Auker -west side of S. Locust Grove, north of E. Overland Road and south of t-84: 5. Pubfic Hearing: RZ 08-009 Request for Rezone of 1.89 acres from C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial) to I-L (Light IndusttiaQ zone for Fignut by Ronald Van Auker -west sloe of S. Locust Grove, north of E. Overland Road and south of I-84: 6. Public Hearing: PP 08.012 Request for Preliminary Piat approval consisting of 6non-residential building lots and 1 other lot in a proposed GG and I-E. zoning districts for Fignut by Ronald Van Auker -west side of S. Locust Grov©, north of E. Overland Road and south of I-84: Merktian Plsrming and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda- February t9, 2009 Page 1 ot2 M rtreteriala presented at p~Oc mee0r~a shat become property of the City of MerMlen. AnYO~ desiring eaomtnodarbn for dieabdidea rersQed W dootanente and/or ttserkg, please confsa the City Clerks OIRce at 8B8~d493 el resat 48 rwura prior M Ote public mee0ng. Total Paaes Scanned : 2 Total Paaes Confirmed : 38 No. Job Remote Station Start Time Duration Pages Line Mode Job Type Results 001 042 3810160 02:34:38 p.m.02-17-2009 00:02:16 2/2 1 EC HS CP9600 002 042 9,8989551 02:34:38 p.m.02-17-2009 00:00:40 2/2 1 EC HS CP26400 003 042 2088848723 02:34:38 p.m.02-17-2009 00:00:31 2/2 1 EC HS CP28800 004 042 9,8886854 02:34:38 p.m.02-17-2009 00:00:30 2/2 1 EC HS CP31200 005 042 2088985501 02:34:38 p.m.02-17-2009 00:00:37 2/2 1 EC HS CP28800 006 042 9,8467366 02:34:38 p.m.02-17-2009 00:00:30 2/2 1 EC HS CP28800 007 042 208 855 9560 02:34:38 p.m. 02-17-2009 00:00:46 212 1 EC HS CP21600 Broadcast Report Date/Time 02-17-2009 03:06:44 p.m. LocaIID 1 2088884218 LocaIID 2 Transmit Header Text Cltyof Meridian Idaho Local Name 1 Line 1 Local Name 2 Line 2 No. Job Remote Station Start Time Duration Pages Line Mode Job Type Results 008 042 208 888 2682 02:34:38 p.m.02-17-2009 00:00:30 212 1 EC HS CP28800 009 042 2083876393 02:34;38 p.m.02-17-2009 00:00:28 2/2 1 EC HS CP28800 010 042 Ada County 02:34:38 p.m.02-17-2009 00:01:32 212 1 G3 HS CP14400 011 042 9,8885052 02:34:38 p.m.02-17-2009 00:00:30 212 1 EC HS CP28800 012 042 9,8881963 02:34:38 p.m.02-17-2009 00:00:31 212 1 EC HS CP26400 013 042 2083776449 02:34:38 p.m.02-17-2009 00:00:55 212 1 EC HS CP14400 014 042 9,4679562 02:34:38 p.m.02-17-2009 00:00:33 2!2 1 EC HS CP28800 015 042 9,3505962 02:34:38 p.m.02-17-2009 00:01:05 2/2 1 EC HS CP14400 016 042 9,8884022 02:34:38 p.m.02-17-2009 00:01:42 2/2 1 EC HS CP14400 017 042 3886924 02:34:38 p.m.02-17-2009 00:03:01 212 1 EC HS CP12000 018 042 9,8841159 02:34:38 p.m.02-17-2009 00:00:36 212 1 EC HS CP21600 019 042 9,8840744 02:34:38 p.m.02-17-2009 00:00:31 2!2 1 EC HS CP26400 Abbrevfatlons: HS: Host send PL: Polled local MP: Mailbox print TU: Terminated by user HR: Host receive PR: Polled remote CP: Completed T5: Terminated by system G3: Group 3 W5: Waiting send MS: Mailbox save FA: Fall RP: Report EC: Error Correll • • Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting February 19, 2009 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of February 19, 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 and Commissioner Wendy Newton-Huckabay. Members Absent: Commissioner Michael Rohm Others Present: Ted Baird, Machelle Hill, Pete Friedman, Caleb Hood, Sonya Wafters, Scott Steckline and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Tom O'Brien 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 for February the 19th and I'd like to call this meeting to order and ask the clerk to call roll, please. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: Moe: Okay. Next item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda and there are a couple changes you folks need to know in the audience probably. There are a few hearings that will be continued. Items No. 4, 5 and 6, which are AZ 08-015, RZ 08-009, and PP 08-012 for Fignut will be continued to our regularly scheduled meeting of March the 5th. Also Item No. 12, which is AZ 08-016 for Southridge; that as well will be continued to the meeting of March the 5th. So, Commissioners, as I have noted that, can I get a motion to adopt the revised agenda? Newton-Huckabay: So moved. Marshall: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve the revised agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? The motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 3: Consent Agenda: Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission. • February 19, 2009 Page 2 of 32 A. Approve Minutes of February 5, 2009 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 08-032 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a residential care .facility in an L-O district for Locust Grove Plaza by Ruby/Edwards: Architecture + Design - 1695 S. Locust Grove Road Moe: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda. We have two items on that. Item A is to approve meeting minutes of February the 5th, 2009, Planning and Zoning Meeting. And Item B is the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for approval of CUP 08-032 for Locust Grove Plaza. Commissioners, any comments, questions, or can get a motion to approve the Consent Agenda? O'Brien: So moved. 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: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe: Thank you. Folks, before I open the public hearing, if there is anyone out there that has not been to one of the Planning and Zoning's meetings, I will give you just a brief overview of the format. I will open the hearing, at which point the staff will give a brief overview of the project; walking through what their findings were. After that point -- at that point the applicant will come forward and have 15 minutes to discuss and make any comments on the proposal that they would like the Commission to hear. After that point there are sign-up sheets in the back for anyone that would like to speak to that hearing and each person would have a three minute time period to make their comments. After all the folks that are signed in have been taken care of, I will ask once again if there is anyone else in the audience that would like to speak to that hearing and they will be given their three minutes as well. Once that is resolved I will, then, ask the applicant to come back up and, basically, rebut or just give explanation to some of the questions that may have come up during the public hearing portion. After that point, then, the Commission will deliberate and make determinations. Item 4: Public Hearing: AZ 08-015 Request for Annexation and Zoning consisting of 15.05 acres from Ada County RUT to C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial) and I-L (Light Industrial) zones for Fignut by Ronald Van Auker -west side of S. Locust Grove, north of E. Overland Road and south of I-84: Item 5: Public Hearing: RZ 08-009 Request for Rezone of 1.69 acres from C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial) to I-L (Light Industrial) zone for Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission. • February 19, 2009 Page 3 of 32 Fignut by Ronald Van Auker -west side of S. Locust Grove, north of E. Overland Road and south of I-84: Item 6: Public Hearing: PP 08-012 Request for Preliminary Plat approval consisting of 6non-residential building lots and 1 other lot in a proposed C-G and I-L zoning districts for Fignut by Ronald Van Auker -west side of S. Locust Grove, north of E. Overland Road and south of I-84: Moe: So, having said that, I now would like to open the public hearing -- yes, I will. Public hearing for the sole purpose of continuing it to our regularly scheduled meeting of March the 5th for AZ 08-015, RZ 08-009, and PP 08-012 for Fignut. Can I get a motion to continue those hearings? Marshall: So moved. O'Brien: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve the continuation of AZ 08-015, RZ 08- 009 and PP 08-012 for Fignut to the regularly scheduled meeting of March the 5th. All those in favor say aye. Opposed. That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 7: Public Hearing: CPA 09-003 Request to change the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designation on 2.051 acres of land from "medium density residential" to "commercial" for Goff by Garland Goff and Shannon Hamrick - 1665, 1705 and 1725 W. Pine Avenue: Item 8: Public Hearing: AZ 09-001 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 0.76 of an acre of land with a C-N zoning district for Goff by Garland Goff and Shannon Hamrick - 1725 W. Pine Avenue: Moe: At this time I'd like to open the public hearing on CPA 09-003 for Goff and start with the staff report, please. Baird: Mr. Chair? At this time you might also want to open the associated item AZ 09- 001. Moe: Thank you very much. And I would also like to open AZ 09-001, please. Friedman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Before Ms. Wafters gets into the staff report and the findings for you, Ijust -- as a little bit of background information, I would like to let you know how this application started to evolve to what it is tonight. The subject property, at least one of the three properties that is involved in the Comprehensive Plan amendment and the one that is the subject of the annexation and zoning request was originally part of the larger implied consent Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission. February 19, 2009 Page 4 of 32 annexation that you considered a few weeks back. In our discussions with that particular property owner about their future plans for the property, realizing that at the time as part of the implied consent annexation it would have been zoned residential, staff had made some interpretations of the code regarding their proposed actions and regrettably on our part we made a mistake and so in order to correct that mistake and allow them to proceed forward with what they were proposing, we recommended and you subsequently. removed the property from the implied consent annexation. We, then, worked with the applicant and looked at the surrounding area to determine what would be the best for the area, as well as the applicant. And so that's the reason why they are there before you tonight with a separate annexation and zoning request. So, with that point of clarification I'll turn it over to Sonya to complete the presentation. Wafters: Thank you, Chairman Moe, Members of the Commission. The first application before you is a Comprehensive Plan amendment to change the future land use map designation on 2.05 acres of land consisting of three tax parcels from medium density residential to commercial. The properties are located at 1665, 1705 and 1725 West Pine Avenue on the south side of Pine west of Linder Road. You can see here is a zoning map in the upper left corner and an aerial of the three properties on the lower right. Surrounding uses to the north across Pine is Meridian High School, zoned R-4. To the east is property owned by ACHD, zoned L-O. To the south is a storage facility zoned I-L. And to the west is a single family residential property, zoned R-1 in Ada County. This is the existing future land use map showing medium density residential designation for the subject properties and the applicant's proposed future land use map changes showing commercial for these three properties. Because there properties all front on West Pine Avenue, a minor arterial street and because there is L-O zoned property to the east and I-L zoned property to the south and east, and a high school across the street, staff believes that commercial uses are more appropriate than residential in this area. The second application is an annexation and zoning request of one of the parcels, the .76 acre parcel, with a C-N zoning district. That property is located at 1725 West Pine Avenue. The applicant estimated the site plan showing how the existing residential property is proposed to redevelop as a swim facility. The site plan shows the existing home that's proposed to remain and the applicant is proposing to construct an approximate 70 foot by 81 foot addition -- square foot I should say. The swim facility is proposed to consist of approximately 1,300 square feet of administrative area, 6,200 square feet of instruction area, mechanical and storage areas. The facility will have a -- will have three small in ground warm water teaching pools, changing stalls, bathroom facilities, and a waiting viewing area. The facility is currently operating in Meridian and will continue to provide the community with a learn to swim program for beginners and efficiencies in swim stroke instruction for valley tri-athletes and other more advanced swimmers in this new location. Access to the site is proposed via one access driveway, two from West Pine Avenue in its current location. Off street parking is shown on the site plan, which meets and exceeds the standards listed in the UDC for commercial uses. The fire department approved turn around is also proposed on the site as requested by the fire department. Cross-access is not proposed on the site plan to adjacent properties. Staff has included a development agreement provision for the applicant to provide cross-access to the properties to the west and east for future Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 19, 2009 Page 5 of 32 interconnectivity upon development of these properties and as an effort to reduce access points on Pine Avenue and minor arterial streets. The applicant has submitted building elevations showing what the proposed addition will look like and how it will integrate with the existing structure. There have been many, many letters of testimony in support of this application received by the city that are in the public record. The applicant has also submitted a response in agreement with the staff report. Staff would like to note that the Commission may want to defer their action on this application until the end of the meeting in case there are some of the other Comprehensive Plan amendments that may require continuance to another meeting, so that they can all move forward to Council at the same time, since Comp Plan amendments -- map amendments can only be heard every six months. Staff is recommending approval of the subject Comp Plan amendment and annexation applications with a development agreement. We will need a revised site plan prior to approval of the development agreement that shows the cross-access to adjacent properties. That's all staff has at this time. Moe: Okay. Any questions of staff at this time? Would the applicant like to come forward? Please state your name and address, please. Goff: My name is Garland R. Goff and this is my daughter Shannon Hamrick. Moe: Address? Goff: 2010 North Mombarto Avenue in Boise, Idaho. Hamrick: And give you mine, too? Moe: No. You're fine. Hamrick: Okay. Goff: Chairman Moe and the Commissioners, I just wanted to take just a very few minutes here to say that I'm really happy to be here finally. It's been an arduous ten months of part-time work to get the surveys, the drawings, zoning, landscape plans, code requirements and meeting with other authorities, but we finally made it and with the patience and finalized guidance of Pete, Sonya, and Christie, we are here. We are also joined in this Comprehensive Plan by Rock Brown of Launch Ministries which is at the 1705 Pine Avenue and Bill Newhouse of 1665 Pine Avenue. Both of these neighbors support our efforts and, in fact, they are supposed to be here tonight. Are they here? Anyway, we -- I just wanted to take just a couple minutes to go over the plans that we have for this facility. My daughter has been working since 2004 in Meridian starting a business. Started with eight kids. She now has over 200 kids that she's -- kids and adults that she's teaching swimming -- swimming to. She works 55, 60 hours a week over these -- over these long months and now we are to a point that we want to expand her business from the small beginnings that we had to this facility that we purchased last year and have been attempting to get the zoning for. We propose to Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission • • February 19, 2009 Page 6 of 32 build a green facility. It will be a monolithic dome and for those not quite familiar with a monolithic dome, it's a rebar reinforced concrete structure with the walls and dome roof consisting of reinforced concrete three inches -- up to three and a half inches to 11 inches thick at the base, with three inches of polyurethane foam insulation and single ply roof membrane. This will also have stem walls, as you will see there. Stem walls there. They are going to be either concrete or they will be concrete block, insulated block, with a brick fascia to it. And I think that this facility is going to be one of the more energy efficient facilities in the city. The USA swimming committee's -- USA swimming facility development staff, which is a US Olympic Committee in Colorado Springs, estimates that this kind of facility will save approximately six percent in overall energy consumption during its life when compared with traditional structures that are -- that are built natatorium style. We propose that we are going to use drain back solar energy to collect -- to heat water to augment the heating of our swimming pools. We are also going to use dehumidifiers that have the components necessary to capture and transfer energy and use that also to augment the heating of the pool waters. And some of the other benefits of our -- of our facility -- of course, being a dome itself its safety as far as fire goes. The Uniform Building Code characterizes this kind of structure on their ability to resist fire. Types one and two structures are built primarily of noncombustible materials and this dome is a type two or better. The Federal Energy Administration or agency has developed construction criteria which makes structures built following standards -- following the standards able to provide near absolute protection from injury or death caused by tornadoes and hurricanes, though we don't have many of those, it is successful in earthquake survivorship as well. The Department of Energy maintains an energy star program and this dome -- or monolithic domes gain this kind of rating. So, in summary, the dome that we propose -- the structure that we are proposing here about 5,000, you know, 6,200 square feet addition to -- to the existing facility, which we are going to change into or just remodel into administrative offices. The monolithic dome will be a very permanent structure, energy efficient, cost effective, and disaster resistant and we hope attractive. I think that you will see that that's a reasonably attractive building for the area. And now I'd just like to have Shannon give some of her comments concerning the community benefits associated with this business expansion activity within Meridian. Hamrick: All right. I guess we have always, when we started four years ago or five years ago, almost, we started with a little endless pool. I don't know if you're familiar with that, but it's like a treadmill for swimmers. It's about 14 feet long and seven feet wide and we got to where we were running about 175 kids through that pool and we needed to expand and so we went out and looked in search of larger water and, unfortunately, Meridian didn't have any that was available for rent, so we went to Boise and we have moved probably five different locations and in the meantime all of our clients ended up traveling with us, so we went from one place to the other place, to the other place, and it was -- we were very fortunate to be in the locations that we were in, but it always had its challenges, as with anything that you're renting. We didn't have control over a lot of the things. We had issues with water chemistry. We had issues with air quality. We had issues with cool temperature. The air temperature. Scheduling conflicts. And all of these things kind of make it -- you know, we have overcome them, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission • • February 19, 2009 Page 7 of 32 but it makes it very difficult to offer more venues on top of what we are already offering. And right now our current clientele is actually six months old, so we teach all the way from six months old all the way up to senior citizens. I think our oldest swimmer right now is 79, but --anyway. So, we -- with all of those changes we have only been able to offer swim lessons, but we'd like to be able to enter more into the community and be able to offer more services, such as aquatic exercise for senior citizens or adaptive aquatics. We have had lots of parents call and ask if we can do adaptive aquatics. We just currently don't have the facility to be able to offer that. We don't have control over a lot of the -- the temperatures and things that we need to have control over to offer that kind of service. So, with this facility that we are proposing with the three different pools we will be able to have different water temperatures, we will be able to have different depths, and we will be able to accommodate all those different people, so that we would be able to, I don't know, just help the community at large, I guess. We also -- you know, with the help of this, we'd like to kind of establish ourselves as the water safety experts in the area and really kind of team up with the police -- the local police and fire departments and go out and help educate people on a lot of the water safety stuff. People don't realize just with the irrigation ditches and things around here and all the backyard pools, there is so many things that you can do to prevent all these drownings that we hear about every year. So, anyway, with that I will close, but, hopefully, if some of you feel that it would be of benefit to the community, we feel it will be a benefit to the community and we would love to help everyone we can with this facility. Moe: Okay. Thank you. Any questions of the applicant? Newton-Huckabay: Everything was so thorough. Thank you for that. All the letters and everything. I appreciate all the ground work. Moe: Thank you very much. We do have a few folks that are signed up. First one on the list would be Kevin Warner. And, again, when you come up, please state your name and address for the record, please. Warner: My name is Kevin Warner and I live at 1600 West 7th Street in Meridian. I just met these folks probably a month or so ago when I was looking for swim lessons for my two and a half year old son, he's almost three, and not much is offered in the valley for that young of a child. It's important for -- forme that they learn how to swim, being that we are an active family and like was said with the irrigation ditches around town, and one of the things that they -- they taught him first was to ask to swim. They always have to ask to get in the water. And, you know, it's something you don't think about, but, you know, kids need to learn that before they ever touch the water they ask their parents. My son has done amazing things so far and well on his way to learning how to swim. I'm also a United States masters swimmer and swim three to five days a week and as a high school student they tore down our one and only pool where I grew up and -- and because of asbestos and, you know, building problems and they kind of left us without a pool in high school. So, anything I can do to, you know, further along this sport that love and that people can enjoy for their whole life I think is a great thing and I completely support their business plan and their customer service and the way they run Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission • • February 19, 2009 Page 8 of 32 their business. So, I think this would be a great benefit to Meridian and aunique -- very unique business that could offer a lot to a lot of people. So, thank you. Moe: Any questions? Thank you very much. Next on the list is -- is it Kathy Fogg? Fogg: Good evening. I just want to tell you guys -- Moe: Please, name and address. Fogg: Oh, I'm sorry. My name is Kathy Fogg and I live at 610 East Trinidad Drive in Meridian. Moe: Thank you. Fogg: Thank you so much for having this very important thing before you guys tonight. I grew up not learning how to swim and I'm very passionate about Shannon's program. She -- my kids have been in her swimming program for four years and I learned how to swim three years ago and I can't tell you what it has done for my life and for my kids' life to be able to get into the water and to not be afraid of the water. I grew up absolutely terrified of the water and the first year that I took lessons from Shannon and my daughter -- and I brought pictures of my family, because I want you to see that these are real people that this is affecting. This isn't just absentee people, this is real people. But we went on a vacation and it was the first time that I had actually gone into the ocean with my daughter to swim and my husband was sitting on the bank with our small son and we got out into the middle of the lagoon and my daughter, who was five at the time, all of a sudden started to panic. She got a little bit of water in her goggles and she started clawing on me. Well, I started to panic and, then, in about a split second I thought, oh, my gosh, I'm the mommy, if I don't do something, we will both drown out here and I thought immediately of the cues that I had listened to Shannon teach my daughter over and over and over and what she taught me and I popped my daughter in the head and looked at her and said roll to sweet spot and she went, oh, yeah, and she rolled over on her back and we paddled around and we paddled in -- so this is the end of our vacation day, instead of something that could have been very tragic, both of us losing our lives, I owe that to Shannon. When I came home from vacation that's the first thing I did was call her and tell her. My son is four. We went swimming two weeks ago to a swimming pool other than Shannon's. He sat on the edge and waited and waited and waited and I finally said what are you waiting for and he said for you to tell me I can get in the pool, because safety is so important. This is a marvelous, marvelous opportunity for Meridian to come together and to create this wonderful facility. We are surrounded by water. Everywhere we go there is ditches, there is canals, there is lakes, there is rivers, there is no reason why we don't have a community pool, something here that can benefit all of us in the community no matter what the age. Thank You. Moe: Thank you very much. Next on the list is T.J. Clifford. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission. February 19, 2009 Page 9 of 32 Clifford: Hello. My name is T.J. Clifford. I'm at 941 Pennwood Street, Meridian. I don't think I can do better than what you guys have already heard, but we have been with Shannon with slow aquatic for five -- about five years. I have two sons -- or we have two sons. We -- I guess before -- even before that we were with a couple different swimming pools, swimming instruction before that and we -- they were good. They taught safety and that kind of thing. And, then, we got to Shannon's and they were -- and she was teaching them technique like from day one and my wife is a collegiate -- was acollegiate swimmer as well and I -- we thought -- even both of us knowing what we knew about swimming, thought, yeah, it seems like there is -- they are not going to learn that that fast, but we were really impressed. They quickly learned that technique. And I guess my emphasis is that not only is this teaching the safety that a lot of other programs are also offering, but this is teaching the life sport. I mean this is technique that could be used for, you know, a lifetime, like you heard the 79 year old that's in the program right now. That's a life sport, but it could be the technique that they are learning in it. It's collegiate. It's high school. It's Olympic. It's technique that they can go pretty much as far as they really want to. So, that part of this program has really impressed us and in that five years both kids, a ten year old and an eight year old, are very comfortable swimming in the ocean when we visit relatives in areas where they got to be able to swim in currents and waves and that kind of thing comfortable. No help, no vest or anything, and very strong swimmers. Definitely stronger than me and, hopefully, they will get at least as strong or stronger than my wife. So, anyway, I -- you know, my -- the overall summary from me and our family is this has really been a huge benefit to us, very impressed, and think it will be really -- the same benefit provided to the community. It's in a -- I think a good location for Meridian, close to the school I think is important, but also like we have heard, it provides that -- the building, the facility that can support a lot of different programs for a lot of different ages. So, it's got the whole range, offering a very good range, even though Shannon said we had to move around a lot during that time it was worth it. So, I hope -- it sounds like you guys support it and hope we continue to go down this road of getting that facility going. Moe: Thank you very much. Just in time. Rock Brown. He did check for it, too, so -- good evening. Brown: Rock Brown. 2188 West Sonoma Drive. We own the property and the building right next to their property on just -- just east of them. We have a youth center. We refer to it as a total teen equipping center, a launch pad, where we provide Christian released time classes for some of the Meridian High School students. We provide peer tutoring programs, sports training, and some driver's training as well. So, we were very excited when we -- and had heard that the property had been purchased next to us and that the vision for it was to build this aquatic center and we just thought that it kind of fit in -- in with some of the things that we -- and in the community and in particular with young people in the community. So, after getting a phone call from Shannon and her father and sitting down and discussing what their thoughts were related to their -- what they were developing, we couldn't be more exited to have neighbors like them. We have discussed the possibilities of doing some things jointly together, which is, you know, kind of fun teamwork things to do and we are in a great location there, right Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission. • February 19, 2009 Page 10 of 32 across from the high school with all kinds of possibilities of helping reach that educational community, helping to undergird it with real positive programs and I believe this is a very positive program. Moe: Thank you very much. That's all that was signed up. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak to this? Against? No? For? Okay. Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I just want to make sure I didn't miss something. The other property that's being requested -- the one on the west side, that's in this map amendment. Your little blurb was just pointing out the one of the three, the one in the middle? Wafters: Chairman Moe, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, the -- the three properties you see here are the subject of the Comprehensive Plan map amendment. Only the -- the property is here only for the annexation. That is the property on the far west -- Newton-Huckabay: And, then, so, Mr. Brown. -- Wafters: The gentleman that just testified has the R-2 property in the center. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. So, the property owner to the farthest east of this, it's -- did miss some? Moe: Yeah. That was -- Wafters: It's the center property. If you look at the map here -- Moe: The center property. The R-2. Wafters: Zoned R-2. Moe: The gentleman was just -- Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Who owns this one? Moe: Do we know who owns the -- the farthest -- Newton-Huckabay: The farthest one to the east. Wafters: Yes. Just a moment. Raymond and Danielle Newhouse. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission • • February 19, 2009 Page 11 of 32 Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Did I miss their -- did they have a written comment or any comment? Wafters: I don't believe they submitted any written comments on this application. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. That's -- Wafters: I don't know if they are in the audience tonight or not. Moe: Okay. Wafters: Yeah. They did submit an affidavit of legal interest agreeing with this applicant, though, as part of the application. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Moe: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: I just have one question for the applicant, if she will come back up. Moe: Would the applicant come back up, please. Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. I was just curious how many people will use this facility at one time, the class sizes, that type of thing, and how long each of the classes are and how much turnover is going to be going through the building in a day. Hamrick: So, we run normally about four kids per class and depending on which pool we have in there, we could probably run, with all of the pools, we could run six to eight classes at one time. So, that might be 24 kids -- 24 in the water at one time. We do classes every 30 minutes, so probably -- we normally right now have morning classes and, then, we take a break for lunch and, then, we start up again in the afternoon -- like mid afternoon, evening time, and we normally finish by 7:30. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. And, then, my last question was related to -- you have 31 parking stalls, which, obviously, meets code, but I didn't notice, do you have parking for say bigger things, such as school buses or any kind of thing that might carry a larger group of people? If you -- do you see a need for anything like that? Goff: We don't have parking for that -- those kinds of vehicles on this site plan. It is a -- you know .76 property -- acre property, so, no, we don't have that, other than they -- we do have a place where they can turn around and go -- Newton-Huckabay: You do have the room to turn around. I did notice that. Okay. Goff: We also have the no parking zone for the fire --the hammerhead for the fire -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission • February 19, 2009 Page 12 of 32 Wafters: And they can park there. Newton-Huckabay: If there is a fire you have got to leave. I just -- I can see an opportunity for something like that in your type of facility, especially if you're talking about people's adaptive programs and that type of thing. But as long as the bus could get in there and turn around and, then, I think it would be fine. I have no other questions. I think this is great and I wish you the best of luck. I think it will be a wonderful addition. The building's interesting looking. I'd like to see it when it's done. Moe: Thank you very much Goff: Thank you. Moe: Commissioners, any other comments? Questions? O'Brien: I think it's a great project for this community. I really do. It's just -- I agree with the importance of teaching swimming to all ages. I learned in the Mississippi River and that was kind of scary. Playing hooky from school, but not the way to learn. So, this is great. Moe: No. I would agree. I think this is a fabulous project. It sounds like it's a fabulous business, actually. It's good hearing the stories from people who have been in here and it definitely will be -- it would be a great addition to Meridian, there is no doubt about it. do -- you know, one item that -- I don't want to say it bothers me, but, you know, when we are changing, you know, the CPA in this area with the medium residential and whatnot, I think when we get around to -- if, in fact, the zoning -- if we are making the change at that point, that I don't know that I wouldn't mind trying to restrict it to where it is this type of facility is why we are making this change in the C-N zoning, as opposed to whatever else we could get in a C-N zone, if you understand what I'm saying. Newton-Huckabay: Sure. Sure. Moe: That's my biggest concern. That's something you guys need to kind of think about. Like it was discussed earlier when we do get ready to, we will be able to close the public hearing, but we will want to go ahead and postpone action until after the last CPA, because we will have to follow those all the way through at the same time, so -- Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, so on that do we need to -- I mean actually list those things that we would exclude, should it go to some -- not come together as this aquatics or -- I mean how are you recommending that we use that terminology to limit non- desirable uses in that area? Moe: Basically, within the motion you can -- you can put pretty much that we are making -- we are making that change, but we wanted to, basically, adhere it to an aquatics type facility or -- well, I mean that's kind of where I'm going with it. But I realize we have that other property on the east -- the problem is I just want to make sure that Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 19, 2009 Page 13 of 32 we are not just doing an open thing in the C-N zone for just this --these three parcels in here. We want to limit. O'Brien: I don't know how we could do that. Moe: Well, let me ask -- okay. I'll ask counsel and then -- can there be, basically, a DR put on that to take care of it? Baird: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, with regard to the Comprehensive Plan amendment, you can't put qualifications on that, but as each property comes in with the annexation and zoning, I do believe that this staff has recommended the development agreement come with this and that's where you would put that. You can get as specific as you want. You can make it right down to this particular proposal, this particular owner, if the project should change hands or another use it would require them to come back in and modify the development, so it's the annexation and zoning where you can get specific as to the use and if I have forgotten anything you might check with planning staff as well, but I think they have already worked out those details. Friedman: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, Commission Members, Ted's exactly right and -- and, again, just because we have these overlapping applications tonight, the annexation and the zoning for the Goff property is specific for the C-N zoning. The other two properties, which are currently in the city, will remain as they are currently zoned, it's just that they -- should you vote for approval their Comprehensive Plan land use designation will change. So, really, the action you might be taking in approving this application would be if you choose to limit the use of the property would just be on the one parcel that was owned by -- that's represented by Mr. Goff. Moe: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: But we are changing the land use designation on all three parcels. Friedman: That's correct. And, then, the other two parcels in the future, as their plans and owners change, should they choose to do something different, then, they would process a rezone application consistent with the commercial designation. So, they would be back before you with a rezone application on those two parcels. The action tonight, should you -- should you approve the Comprehensive Plan amendment, will not change the zoning on those other two, they will still remain with the residential zoning, it's just that their land use designation will change and, then, they have an opportunity in the future to apply for or be considered for another type of commercial zoning. Newton-Huckabay: Fair enough. Moe: Thank you very much, Pete. Then having said all that -- Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission. • February 19, 2009 Page 14 of 32 Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I recommend we close the public hearing on 09-003 -- or am I continuing it to the end of the meeting? Moe: Well, the public hearing you can close and then -- Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Moe: -- just postpone action on it. Newton-Huckabay: And AZ 09-001. Marshall: Second. Moe: Did you ask for the postponement as well? Newton-Huckabay: No. I closed the public hearing. Moe: I'm sorry about that. It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on the CPA 09-003 and AZ 09-001. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I recommend we postpone action on CPA 09-003 and AZ 09-001 until the end of the meeting in the event that one of the other Comprehensive Plan amendments before us may have to be continued to a later date. Marshall: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to postpone action until the end of the meeting on CPA 09-003 and AZ 09-001. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 9: Public Hearing: CPA 08-012 Request to add 54.9 acres of land to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map with designations of "Public/Quasi Public" and "Low Density Residential" for River Planning Area by City of Meridian Planning Department: Moe: At this time I'd like to open the public hearing on CPA 08-012 for River Planning Area and ask for the staff report. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission • • February 19, 2009 Page 15 of 32 Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, my pleasure to be in front of you again this evening. This is the second CPA map amendment on your agenda this evening and this map amendment is located on the north and south sides of Duck Alley, which doesn't show up very well on the overhead map, but it bisects that property and goes back out to Linder Road, so that's the beginnings of Duck Alley and, then, it continues to the west and currently terminates approximately middle part of this -- this property. And the subject site is on the south side of the south channel of the Boise River. It's approximately a half mile west of Linder Road. The city is the applicant on this application and has initiated it. The request is based on these parcels kind of being an outlier from the previous Comp Plan amendment for the Phyllis Canal, which has been I think a little over a year now since that -- those properties were added. They show up pretty well on -- on this existing map. Everything in green here is currently on the City of Meridian's map and, then, these parcels -- subject parcels tonight were left off of that application. You may recall that application was put together by the property owners in this area. At that time that petition was not signed by these property owners. Since this area has been added to the City of Meridian's map. We thought it made the most since for planning for Eagle, who is on the other side of the Boise River and Meridian to have this subject area be part of Meridian as well. Again, just for servicing purposes, having an enclave of Eagle at the far north end of Meridian didn't seem to make sense, so -- Mr. Friedman had a meeting and invited those property owners and city of Eagle staff to the meeting to discuss this application and subsequently submitted the application. So, there are approximately 55 acres in the subject area that we are proposing to add and there are two designations that follow on this -- on this project. You all can see my pointer, right? Okay. So, the two designations are public/quasi-public, which would be everything that's within the FEMA designated floodway, and low density residential, which would be everything that's outside of the floodway of the Boise River. As you may or may not recall, our Comprehensive Plan is not an exact guide when it comes to property lines and designations as such. So, this line can float somewhat along there. The main reason -- so, if the floodway ever changes, our designation would, essentially, change with it. The main intent is to have anything that's in the floodway or the channel of the Boise River to be, essentially, not developed with anything due to flooding concerns. Even areas as we get into different floodplains, standards could change over time and this designation allows for some -- some residential, just not quite sure how much may be appropriate, so we will have to evaluate that as we see application in the future for annexation into the City of Meridian. So, the two designations on the floodway line, which approximately does this number. It hugs pretty closely to property lines there and, then, it clips this. So, basically, all this is -- has low density residential designation proposed. This larger trunk here and, then, a small corner of this are also in the current floodway and are proposed to be public/quasi-public. Just a point of clarification, too. The city limits are quite a ways away on this. You can see part of the Tree Farm has annexed. All of this is the Tree Farm. You can see some of the city's. But there are still quite a few properties in between. We don't anticipate this area to develop anytime soon and we aren't proposing to annex those properties at this time. They aren't eligible. They aren't contiguous and there isn't a plan if you want to annex them. Also, regarding along the same lines and the sewer service to those properties we have talked about and have a preliminary plan to serve this area, but we don't have Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission • • February 19, 2009 Page 16 of 32 any detailed plans on when and how that's going to happen. JUB has actually been hired by the Public Works Department to investigate that further, see how much capacity we actually have at the sewer treatment plant and that will tell us exactly or roughly how many dwelling units we can anticipate in this part of the city. So, that will have to be clear that we haven't -- we don't have a master plan to provide service to these folks, but we are evaluating how that will work in the future as development approaches this part of town, so -- as you might imagine, this -- this area is rural in nature. There is at least one home on the properties out there. I have not driving it myself, but I have looked at aerials. I know that there are quite a few folks that use it for sportsmen type activities, walking, hiking, fishing, hunting and the like. So, it still has a rural character. All of the properties out there are zoned RUT in Ada County currently. I would say that I wouldn't say that there are any outstanding issues with this application. I have talked to a few of those property owners now and Rodney Wells, who is a property owner right here did write a letter and submitted it as part of the record and he is concerned about the current use of this property. Again, he's one of those that uses it to hunt and fish from and is going to invest a little bit more in some wildlife habitat on his area and wants to continue that use and is letting the city know that he doesn't have any plans to develop, but he does have plans to -- and plans to continue to use his property in that manner and is somewhat concerned about residential being constructed right up to it as those hunting and residential doesn't seem to be a good match, at least side by side match. So, I think we can talk quite a bit about that and we will certainly include him in any development applications that he has as we approach the land with that. I did also talk with Scott Bishop this afternoon. He's a property owner that owns approximately half of this area. He owns the two parcels here. Actually, I think there is three parcels -- these three parcels here. He -- he hadn't spent a lot of time evaluating it. Not to put words in his mouth, but he didn't -- he couldn't think of anything off the top of his head that would be overly concerning to him. He may be in the audience tonight, but we did have that discussion later this afternoon. He also uses his property for some hunting, so just to keep that in mind. Again, we kind of are viewing this as somewhat of a clean up -- oh, maybe another point that's in the staff report that I should make. On December 17th the Ada County Board of County Commissioners actually approved the city's request to include this within the city's area of impact. So, this area is already included in our area of impact. We are kind of retrofitting our future land use map to also add this to our map and designate it for land uses. So, we have been kind of all over the place with those. Sometimes they go hand in hand; sometimes we add them to our map before the county approves them. In this case the county approved it before adding it to our map. But we are working in conjunction to clean that up. So, I think that's all I had. With that I will stand for any questions you may have. Moe: Any questions? Marshall: I don't. Moe: Thank you. Well, that was the applicant, so, therefore, there is no one signed up to speak. Is there anyone in the in the audience that would like to, please, come up, state your name and address. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission • • February 19, 2009 Page 17 of 32 Timmons: My name is Jerry Timmons. I live at 2228 West Duck Alley. I'm a property owner there. I have 13.2 acres there. And I was wondering what you considered low density. I know you said that it would depend on whether the -- the river flood plain changes or whatever. It has changed. As of last year it has changed quite a bit from FEMA and there is quite a bit more property there that's buildable. But at this time we are not interested in building or anything like that, we'd just kind of like to know what -- you know, how many residents could be put on that, you know, at this time or later on. And it's a great recreational property. We do have a lot of people hunting down through there, but it is private, it's not just open to the public, you know, we let people down through there. How is this going to affect our addresses and stuff like this because we was with an Eagle comprehensive plan and we have an Eagle address, Meridian phone number, and we pay taxes to the Star cemetery. Moe: Okay. I will -- okay. Thank you very much. Any questions of this gentleman? Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Moe: Okay. Thank you very much. You will get some answers. Is there anyone else that would like to speak on this hearing? All right. Thank you very much. Well, now that the questions are done here and the staff -- or the applicant can answer these, then, maybe. Hood: Which hat would you like me to wear? The first -- the first question that Mr. Timmons asked on the low density designation, the range for that is zero up to three dwelling units per acre. So, that's -- that's -- the maximum density would be three. The least amount of density would be zero. So, that's the range for the low density designation. Understand you're not interested in developing now. When you -- or if you ever do, the addresses -- and I'm curious -- that's Meridian School District, too, so you have got a bunch of different folks. But I don't believe that your address would have to change. You can still be a Meridian -- citizen of Meridian and carry another address, although I would want to confirm that, I guess, with the postal service just to see what happens. But that wouldn't be initiated by the city, it would be when you would propose a change or want to be a subdivision out there or something of the like or -- or Duck Alley changes in some manner and is renamed. So, there certainly wouldn't be anything -- overnight you won't see any of those changes, it would be something that you initiate and we would react like we do to any other development. Those are the couple questions that I had down. Did I miss something there? Friedman: There is one other -- one other point, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. I think the other question was what would the allowable density be. As Caleb said, under our plan it's zero to three dwelling units per acre. However, since all we are considering is a Comprehensive Plan amendment and not an annexation, you still remain in unincorporated Ada County, so anything that you propose to do there -- say you decided you wanted to split that up, you would be governed by the RUT zoning designation, which I believe is one dwelling unit per five acres, but you would have to Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission ~ • February 19, 2009 Page 18 of 32 consult with them, but, again, you know, anything -- you know, any building permits or anything like that, until you annex or choose to annex will still go through Ada County. Baird: Mr. Chair? Moe: Yes. Baird: There was one -- possible one more question about the cemetery district. All districts that they are in, those boundaries would remain unchanged and they continue to pay taxes to those districts. Moe: Okay. Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I recommend we close the public hearing on CPA 08-012. Marshall: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on CPA 08-012 for River Planning Area. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I move we -- Moe: Postpone action. Newton-Huckabay: I'm postponing my brain, apparently. We postpone action on CPA 08-012 until the end of the meeting in anticipation of other CPA applications to be heard. Marshall: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to postpone action on 08-012 until the end of the meeting. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 10: Public Hearing: CPA 08-013 Request to change the text of the Comprehensive Plan revising the name of the Mixed Use WWTP designation to Mixed Use Non-Residential for the Mixed Use Non- Residential Text by City of Meridian Planning Department: Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission • February 19, 2009 Page 19 of 32 Item 11: Public Hearing: CPA 08-014 Request to re-designate approximately 265 acres from Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, and Mixed Use Regional to Mixed Use Non-Residential for State Highway 69 & Amity by City of Meridian Planning Department: Moe: At this time I would like to open the public hearing on CPA 08-013 for the Mixed Use Nonresidential Text, as well as the CPA 08-014 for State Highway 69 and Amity and start with the staff report and the applicant report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, once again, and Members of the Commission. We are going to go ahead and do both of these. They do bleed together somewhat, although the text I'm going to try to highlight first and, then, touch more on the specific implications that has for the properties around the intersection of Amity and Meridian Road. Moe: Just one other note. We will act on these separately, though. They are both open now, but we will act separately. Thank you. Hood: So, the Comprehensive Plan text amendment application is to rename the Mixed Use Wastewater Treatment Plant land use designation to be called Mixed Use Nonresidential and to add a purpose statement, revised standards, and sample land uses most appropriate in this designation. So, we don't have an overall Comp Plan map reference in your tips anyways. Right now we currently have that designation of Mixed Use WWTP and it only applies to the area basically quarter of a mile around our wastewater treatment plant at Ten Mile and Ustick. We are proposing, then, to keep those same properties designated the same color on the map, but, essentially, change the text to no longer read Wastewater Treatment Plant, but read nonresidential and, then, take that designation and apply it to other areas throughout our area of impact where we believe nonresidential uses -- there should be a caveat that no new nonresident -- no new residential uses should be supported in that area. So, in a condensed way is the application. I'm going to go into a little bit more detail, because after our staff report went to print, staff had some concerns from one of the property owners that one of that -- that that would apply to. That individual was Vick Conrad, he's in the audience this evening. He represents and works for J.R. Simplot Company and we met with him to discuss some further tweaks and changes that would better represent the intent of the Mixed Use Nonresidential land use designation, at the same time giving them some -- some flexibility and some certainty both into what they could potentially do with that property -- the property they own and I'll get specific about that property here in just a second. I did prepare a memo yesterday afternoon, got it to the clerk. You may or may not have had a chance to read that yet. If you haven't had a chance, please, bear with me for one more minute and I will read it for you or at least the highlights of it. Staff is recommending that we include in your motion: These new standards as outlined in that memo, with one more additional change -- the change I'll just let you know right now, when that memo went out, did not include food service or restaurants in the list of potential future uses out there. Staff does not have any heartburn with adding those to the list of uses that may be potential or envisions in this Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission ~ • February 19, 2009 Page 20 of 32 area. Let me jump back to the current language real quick of the Mixed Use Wastewater Treatment Plant. It currently reads now that the following standards apply to this category: Light professional office uses. Flex space uses, including light warehousing. No new residential uses will be permitted. Existing residential will be allowed to remain and expand accessory structures. Limited small scale retail uses, storage uses, and unless otherwise permitted by city adopted incentives, all developments within this designated area will require approval through Conditional Use Permit process. So, again, we have tweaked that language and kind of merged it with some of the language in our mixed use regional designation, which a vast majority of the subject properties on Amity and 69 currently have and add some of those components to the current mixed use wastewater treatment plant to make a hybrid designation. So, it's not simply just changing the name on the map from the wastewater treatment plan to nonresidential. There are some standards, a purpose statement, and a better idea of what that really means and what we are looking for out there. So, with that being said let me now read how we would like that text in Chapter 7 of the Comprehensive Plan to read. It would be Mixed Use Nonresidential and the purpose of this category is to designate areas where new residential dwelling units will not be permitted, as residential uses are not compatible with the planned uses for this area. A library of nonresidential land uses may occur in this category. Employment opportunities, professional offices, warehousing, flex buildings and storage uses, as well as retail uses are envisioned. The following standards will apply to this category and, then, a bullet point. No new residential uses will be permitted. Existing residential will be allowed to remain and expand accessory structures -- again, not the carry over from current language in the wastewater treatment plant. Retail uses and acompromise -- may comprise a maximum of 50 percent of a development area. That one is from the mixed use regional designation. As you may recall, I just read in the wastewater treatment plant it said limited small scale retail. So, that -- that's more from the mixed use regional designation. And, then, the third bullet is there is neither a minimum nor a maximum imposed on nonretail commercial uses, such as office, industry, food services slash restaurants or warehouse uses -- warehouse uses. And that one's kind of a compilation, again, of several things out of both categories, out of the mixed use regional, as well as the wastewater treatment plant designation. And the final bullet point: All developments shall have a mix of at least two types of land uses. So, they are looking to -- we focused a lot on the last part of that, the nonresidential, but, really, the mixed use component we want to see these developments have a mix of uses as well. And, then, finally, to read into Chapter 7: Some sample uses include employment centers, professional offices, flex buildings, warehousing, industry, storage facility, and retail. That does not mean that that's the only uses that we anticipate out there, it's just a sample use, gives you a flavor of the types of uses that we are looking for out there. Certainly there are several uses out there and when -- when somebody would come in for annexation and zoning we will evaluate the use and the zoning based on these polices and the Comprehensive Plan and the UDC, surrounding area, and our public input, the whole line. But that just kind of hopefully gives someone that is looking at this area a flavor of what the city is looking for in the future. So, I think that clarifies. I wish we would have had maybe some of this discussion a week ago, so I could have got all this in the staff report and wouldn't have to be just reading it in for you, but such is life Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 19, 2009 Page 21 of 32 and I think it's worked out, I think we have a compromise that isn't necessarily a compromise, I think it fits the city better and I want to thank Simplot for -- and Vick Conrad in particular, for working with us to make our Comp Plan better than what we had originally proposed. So, I think that's all I have. Oh, I did also want to let you know, we did talk with -- two more things. I need to highlight a little bit on the -- that's it for the text portion of it, so let me talk about the map portion of it, since they are both open. almost forgot we had both of those open. So, the map amendment, then, application applies to areas on the map located at the northeast and southeast corners of Amity and State Highway 69. There are approximately 211 acres of land that the city is proposing to change the Comprehensive Plan future land use designation from low density residential, medium density residential and mixed use regional, to have it all be designated mixed use nonresidential. There are eight different property owners. They are all zoned in the county. Some of them have RUT zoning and some of them have R- 1 zoning. It doesn't necessarily show up very well on either one of those maps, but most of them are zone RUT, with a couple of R-1 parcels. The city did coordinate with the current land owners and initiated --the city has initiated the CPA on -- on the subject property. Again, I don't want to jump back into the text stuff, but that's one of the reasons that we made the text changes, so we could apply it to this area in particular. Similar to the -- the last application we are not proposing any changes to zoning or annexing any of these properties or any development, it will all be initiated by the private community or private property owners, we are just proposing to change the designation on our map to reflect this revised designation. Currently a majority of the subject properties are operating with similarly allowed uses in the proposed mixed use nonresidential designation and/or are vacant. There are two homes, though, that are -- property lines don't show up there on that one. Let's look at this one. There are two homes that are on both of these properties here. One of those property owners, Patricia Rabel, showed up to our neighborhood meeting, coordination, kick-off meeting, whatever you want to call it, and -- and did not express any concerns at that time to Matt, the one that held that -- he was the staff member that organized that meeting and held it. I have not heard from the adjacent -- her adjacent property owner neighbor on that application, but I did want to point out there are currently two -- two residential units out there. They are fine. The text says no new residential, so -- let's see. So, staff believes that the subject area is one of those areas suitable for the Mixed Use Nonresidential land use designation. In view of the current operations occurring and anticipated nature of redevelopment, the aerial may be the best at explaining currently what's out there, the part that's out here being filled in or has been somewhat filled in. haven't been out there recently. And, then, the storage -- old chicken coup storage facility, Simplot owns. It's over the 94 acres that we are proposing to change here. can't remember exactly what the land holding is. We have got American Paving's operations. ACHD does some other extraction and their operations on a large portion of this property, too. So, I mean you can see it pretty -- it's also pretty heavy industrial, but certainly residential uses aren't a very good fit in what's currently out there. In the couple of conversations we have had with Simplot and -- my take on it is they are just trying to keep all options open, which I can't fault them for doing that. But the other folks that I have talked about potential redevelopment of their properties are looking at something real similar, you know, something along the lines of a contractor's yard or Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission • • February 19, 2009 Page 22 of 32 pretty heavy industrial type redevelopment. No one's really approached us with doing retail or office or, you know, some of those traditional stuff. So, I think that the flavor that's out there will improve over time I would hope, but it certainly has an industrial type of flavor to it now. We don't envision that changing too terribly much, so -- we did receive a verbal confirmation from the Ewing Company in support of the proposed land use change. They were one of the ones that were not at our -- well, when we held our kick-off meeting some additional -- this property was not part of the application at the time. After further discussions staff decided it did make sense to include three additional parcels or two and a half additional parcels all owned by the same property owner, which the Ewing company has since acquired and I called them and said, hey, we are -- we are proposing this change from low density to this mixed use nonresidential, do you have a problem with that and they are on board with it and support the application. So, this four and a half acres, approximately -- and, again, it cuts off -- cuts off the back side of one of those parcels, but it makes a straight line south there and that wasn't part of the original application. But those folks -- the additional folks were noticed within the 300 feet and were somewhat late add, but that additional area is also part of the subject map change and like I mentioned, we have worked with the Simplot company about changing their designation from this mixed use regional to mixed use nonresidential and they are on board, but, again, Vick's in the audience this evening and I won't try to put words in his mouth. But with that staff would ask that you act favorably on both of these applications and I will stand for any questions you may have. Moe: Any questions of staff at the present time? O'Brien: Mr. Chairman, I have a question of Caleb. Moe: Mr. O'Brien. O'Brien: On that property that -- those two, two and a half parcels that -- that are being acquired by American Gravel or is this being designated the -- could possibly sell that off to American Gravel for further excavation of the gravel pit, in which case I think it would -- it would want to notify people more in the whole area, because of the noise issues. Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner O'Brien, American Paving is at the hard corner of State Highway 69, Amity. The subject parcels -- get to maybe something that's a little bit closer -- do not abut that property. It's not directly adjacent. I have not heard any intentions of American Paving acquiring that property, so if -- if that's the case I have not heard any rumblings about that. O'Brien: I thought they moved their pit to a little further east and southeast of their existing pits, of which they have been reclaiming over a period of time and recently have stopped in the last couple of years, but I just wondered if that was in the evolution that they might acquire more land and I know they have asked in the past to do that, but I don't know what the -- • • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 19, 2009 Page 23 of 32 Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Commissioner O'Brien, I think, again, this is just a map designation. I don't think that that applies to that -- your concerns. It would have to come back through, if there was any kind of rezoning or anything like that and so designating it as a mixed use nonresidential doesn't give -- give them any -- any presumed right until they are annexed to do anything. O'Brien: Okay. I agree with that. Okay. That makes sense. Newton-Huckabay: I think that although valid concerns and points, I don't think that it's going to do us any good to discuss them here right now, but -- O'Brien: Fine. Thank you. Moe: Any other questions? Okay. There is one person signed up, Vick Conrad. And, again, if you would state your name and address for the record, I'd appreciate it. Conrad: My name is Vick Conrad. I work for the J.R. Simplot Company. Our address is 999 Main Street, Boise, Idaho. 83702. I got to start out with a question and a request. When preparing our comments I have submitted them in connection with application number CPA dash 014 and because we are hearing them together, but have decided to vote on them separately, I would request that also a copy of those comments be submitted in connection with CPA dash 013 as well. Moe: I think that can be done. Conrad: Okay. After submitting our comments last week, I met with Matt and Caleb to discuss the resolution to the concerns that I expressed in our letter and after that meeting Caleb provided a revision to the proposed land use description, which is the version that Caleb just described. We find that this proposal is acceptable and I want to thank the planning staff especially, Matt, Caleb, and Anna, for taking our comments into consideration. We appreciate the level of courtesy service and professionalism in how they conducted this matter and thank you very much. Moe: Thank you very much. Again, that was the only one signed up. If there is anyone else that would like to come forward, please do. Ewing: Commissioners, Tuck Ewing, 1500 EI Dorado, Boise. I'm representing the Tico One parcel or it was referred to as the Ewing Company parcel. I guess, just a clarification, it's that southern piece, the five -- four, five, six acre piece there, just for clarification, to kind of answer the questions I heard there. There is no rumbling about selling to American Paving. We do now own that parcel. At the time when some of this • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 19, 2009 Page 24 of 32 discussion was coming through we had it just optioned. Since, then, we have acquired it, but we are in full support and as Caleb stated, would like to be included in this new designation. So, with that any questions? Moe: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Moe: Thank you very much. Is there anyone else that would like to speak to this? Okay. There were no more questions of staff on that either, so, Commissioners, any comments, questions? I, myself, think that the change is a good one. No problem whatsoever with this. It's kind of nice that some of the folks that it's affecting have already come in and said they are very much in approval of it and I would love to see this even take -- take off and something happen to it sooner rather than later, but that's just me. Newton-Huckabay: My only comment is that I -- that I hope that this change in text and clarification resolves what would seem to be an ongoing issue around wastewater treatment plant area planning. This has always has been a very political -- that sure give you a lot of headaches. So, I'm hoping that that will resolve that issue for us to move forward on that, but -- and I think it's -- I have -- I don't think any of it's unreasonable, so I'm good. Moe: Okay. Marshall: Mr. Chair, I do have one question for you. Moe: Yes, sir. Marshall: Even though we are going to act on these separately, can we close the public hearing on both? Moe: Yes, I opened them up that way, so yes. Marshall: Mr. Chair, I move that we close the public hearing on CPA 08-013 and CPA 08-014. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on CPA 08-013 and CPA 08-014. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe: And since we are on -- you know, that would be the first one that we would be working our way back through. U Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 19, 2009 Page 25 of 32 • Marshall: Mr. Chair, to clarify, we are going to work backwards up through? Moe: Basically -- well, basically, we will go ahead and act on 10, 11, then, we will go back up and take care of the -- Newton-Huckabay: Seven, eight and nine. Moe: -- seven and eight and, then, nine. Okay? So, having said that, is there someone that would just love to make a motion, other than myself? Newton-Huckabay: Do you want me to do it, Commissioner Marshall? Marshall: I'm trying to get there. Give me second. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Marshall: We need to include in that the new text as well; is that correct? So, should I read that for the record as part of the motion? Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Marshall, I don't think you need to read -- if you can just reference the memo with the add or the restaurant and food services that wasn't in the memo, if you could just make that clarification, but -- unless you see something else that needs to be changed, just to reference that memo -- Marshall: Other than the slash restaurant wasn't in there. You want to add the slash restaurant to the food services. Hood: That's the proposal from staff. Marshall: The second one didn't have slash restaurant. And that's the memo dated February 19th. Getting there. Mr. Chair, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number CPA 08-013, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 19th, 2009, with the following comments: To reference the new text on the memorandum dated February 18th, 2009, received February 19th, 2009, restating the Chapter 7, page 103 text, to include lodging and food services slash restaurants on the fourth bullet. Moe: No. Newton-Huckabay: Not to include lodging. Marshall: Oh, excuse me. Not to include lodging. Food services slash restaurants. Excuse me. Thank you. O'Brien: End of motion? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 19, 2009 Page 26 of 32 Marshall: End of motion. O'Brien: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to send onto City Council approving CPA 08-013 for Mixed Use Nonresidential text as noted. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Marshall: Eleven. Mr. Chair? Moe: Mr. Marshall. Marshall: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number CPA 08-014 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 19th, 2009, with no further comments. Moe: I thought we were noting that same information. Marshall: Oh, do I have to note the same information on this one as well? Moe: Yes. Baird: Mr. Chair, I would think you don't need to, because what it's doing is incorporating what you just recommended in 08-013. Moe: Okay. I follow you. Okay. I'm sorry. Okay. O'Brien: End of motion? Second. Moe: All right. It's been moved and seconded to approve to City Council CPA 08-014. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 9: Public Hearing: CPA 08-012 Request to add 54.9 acres of land to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map with designations of "Public/Quasi Public" and "Low Density Residential" for River Planning Area by City of Meridian Planning Department: Marshall: Mr. Chair, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number CPA 08-012 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 19th, 2009, with no comments. • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 19, 2009 Page 27 of 32 Moe: Would you -- 08-012 is what you -- Marshall: 012. Yes. Moe: Okay. That's fine. Marshall: Thank you. Moe: Second. • Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve -- send onto City Council requesting approval of CPA 08-012 for River Planning Area. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 7: Public Hearing: CPA 09-003 Request to change the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designation on 2.051 acres of land from "medium density residential" to "commercial" for Goff by Garland Goff and Shannon Hamrick - 1665, 1705 and 1725 W. Pine Avenue: Moe: Now, we are going up. Okay. Marshall: And, Mr. Chair, I assume we want to do CPA 09-003 before the AZ. Moe: Yes. That's what I'm waiting on. Marshall: Okay. Mr. Chair, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number CPA 09-003 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 19th, 2009, with no further comments. O'Brien: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve CPA 08-003. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 8: Public Hearing: AZ 09-001 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 0.76 of an acre of land with a C-N zoning district for Goff by Garland Goff and Shannon Hamrick - 1725 W. Pine Avenue: Newton-Huckabay: Commissioner Marshall, this is going to be a motion record for you think. • • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 19, 2009 Page 28 of 32 Moe: And you're doing a great job. Marshall: Okay. Mr. Chair, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number AZ 09-001 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 19th, 2009. Moe: Is there any discussion or wanting to limit the use of the property? O'Brien: Development agreement. Moe: You're the maker of the motion, so -- Marshall: I was not going to -- I thought we were covering that in the development agreement, so to be -- Moe: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: I think the -- Mr. Chair, the concern we have that we would make that directive is a portion of the development agreement through this motion and we need to decide as a Commission do we want to limit the use on that to an aquatics fitness center only or do we want to exclude specific uses allowed in the C-N zone as part of the development agreement. Did I get it? Yeah. Marshall: So, just to reference it as an aquatics facility only would -- Newton-Huckabay: I think it would severely -- Marshall: Limit anything that could be on that. Moe: -- and we are only talking about this parcel only at the present time. Marshall: Right. Friedman: Mr. President, Commissioners, if I may help shed a little light on your discussion here. Under the proposed recommendations from the staff -- and you may wish to amend it --one of the first conditions that we have recommended placing on the development agreement is future development of the site substantially comply with the conceptual development plan and building elevations included in the exhibits and the design standards currently in effect at the time of zoning application -- certificate of zoning application is applied for. You could amend that and say further the use of the site may well be restricted to the swim training facility or swim training facility and any other of the permitted or conditional uses you think are appropriate in the C-N zone or you could limit it to what they are proposing without having to sit here and go through every single permitted and conditional use in the C-N zone. That's your choice. Marshall: But any other uses still have to come back for reapplication. • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 19, 2009 Page 29 of 32 • Friedman: It would have to come back for a development agreement modification. That's correct. Marshall: Personally, not wanting to limit them as to exactly what they can do with their facilities, because they are trying to expand offerings to the public and I would not want to specifically exclude something that I may not have thought of, I would choose to leave that to the development agreement as it stands. So, I'm going to pass forward with no comments. Moe: Go ahead and restate that, please. Marshall: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number CPA -- oh, excuse me, we have already passed that. Of AZ 09-001, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 19th, 2009, with no comments. Moe: Is there a second? Newton-Huckabay: No. Moe: Hearing no second, so that motion fails. Newton-Huckabay: I don't think -- I think we are all thinking the same thing, but not articulating what it is -- I don't think by limiting it on this application to the use of an aquatic fitness center -- I think what we are saying is that the applicant can't build something else there that's allowed in the C-N zone. Marshall: Well, right now the way I understand the development agreement that they wouldn't be able to build anything else but what they have proposed at this time. Newton-Huckabay: There is no development agreement yet. Marshall: As written by the city as a part of this. Newton-Huckabay: It isn't an enforceable -- Friedman: Right. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, really, what it does is the development -- recommended development agreement condition has tied it to the site plan and the development plan for the property and we certainly know and understand that Mr. Goff and his daughter plan to erect and operate the aquatic fitness and training facility, but without a limitation on uses, they could just as easily turn that into adrive-in restaurant. So, what you want to do is tie them -- if it's the pleasure of the Commission to limit the use of the site to the aquatic training and education facility and preclude any other development that might be allowed as a permitted or conditional use in the C-N zone, then, you would probably want to add that condition to the site plan also, if that's • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 19, 2009 Page 30 of 32 ~J your pleasure and, then, in the future if the property changes hands, other conditions change and they feel that they want to embark on another venture there, they could do so through a development modification. Baird: Mr. Chair? Moe: Yes, sir. Baird: I have a question for Mr. Friedman, if I may. Moe: Yes, sir. Baird: Is the land use designation found within this zone that they fall under -- is that the indoor recreation heading? Friedman: Yeah. It's the -- Baird: Because what this Commission is used to doing, Mr. Chair, is finding the one listed category that's permitted within the land use designation and -- if it's your pleasure to state that particular name as it's listed in the code, so that does provide some flexibility within the building of similar uses. So, I'll yield to Mr. Friedman with that information if you have it. Friedman: It's the arts, entertainment, and recreation facility indoor. Baird: And if that's too broad you can limit it. Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. That is way too broad. I'm going to take a stab at a motion, Commissioner Marshall, if you don't mind. Marshall: Please. Newton-Huckabay: Commissioner O'Brien? O'Brien: Fine. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number CPA 09 -- oh. Excuse me. AZ 09-001 as presented it the staff report for the hearing date of February 19th, 2009, with the following comment that the use on the property will substantially comply with the concept plan submitted and will be limited to aquatic fitness facility as proposed by the applicant. End of motion. O'Brien: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 19, 2009 Page 31 of 32 Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve AZ 09-001 with the modifications as noted. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 12: Public Hearing: AZ 08-016 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 36.27 acres of land from the RUT zoning district in Ada County to the M-E (Mixed Employment) zoning district in the city for Southridge 31 by James L. Jewett -northeast corner of Overland Road and Ten Mile Road: Moe: At this time I would like to open the public hearing on AZ 08-016 for the sole purpose of continuing the hearing to the regularly scheduled meeting of March 5th. Can I get a motion? Newton-Huckabay: So moved. O'Brien: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to continue AZ 08-016 to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission March the 5th. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe: I would like one more motion. O'Brien: Mr. Chair, move to adjourn. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe: We adjourn at 8:38. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:38 P.M. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 19, 2009 Page 32 of 32 (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) D: °IL~~~o~ DAVID MOE - C AIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: JAYCEE L. HOLMAN, CIT' ~O ,.~ .,r ~~ - ~ z ®,~ ~lst 1s~• ~O ~,`r , Q„ :'' yAITY , \O • • February 17, 2009 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8. ZONING MEETING February 19, 2009 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 3'A REQUEST Approve Minutes of February 5, 2009 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting: AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: ~,,e~ 70~~ ,o Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetin~a shah become property of the City of Meridian. • February 17, 2009 CUP 08-032 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING February 19, 2009 APPLICANT Ruby/Edwards: Architecture + Design ITEM No. 3-B REQUEST Findings of Fact 8~ Conclusions of Law for Approval -Conditional Use Permit for a residential care facility in an L-O district for Locust Grove Plaza 1695 S. locust Grove Road AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: COMMENTS See Attoched Findings ~p~r~ ~. ~F-D Jim/ 7a OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetinfls shall become property of the City of Meridian. • CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER • ,, o ,i,_ _, k f f z:::'/ E`~ ~DIA~T~ IDAHO In the Matter of Conditional Use Permit for Approval of a Residential Care Facility in an L-O Zoning District, Located at 1695 S. Locust Grove Road, by Ruby Edwards: Architecture + Design. Case No(s). CUP-08-032 For the Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: February 5, 2009 (Findings on February 19, 2009) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 5, 2009, incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 5, 2009, incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 5, 2009, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 5, 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-08-032 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 Chairman of the Commission 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 February 5, 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: 1. The applicant's Conditional User Permit as evidenced by having submitted the Site Plan attached in Exhibit A of the staff report dated February 5, 2009, 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 February 5, 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 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP-08-032 Page 2 • Commission maybe granted. With all extensions, the Director or Commission may require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11. E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis 1. The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code 67-8003, a denial of a plat or conditional use permit entitles the Owner to request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than twenty-eight (28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review 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 February 5, 2009. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP-08-032 Page 3 By action of the Planning & Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the day of ,1^(,~ , 2009. COMMISSIONER DAVID MOE (Chair) COMMISSIONER MICHAEL ROHM COMMISSIONER WENDY NEWTON-HUCKABAY COMMISSIONER TOM O'BRIEN COMMISSIONER JOE MARSHALL MOE VOTED VOTED VOTED VOTED VOTED ````\\\\1111111 11~~,', `/~ ~°~~'F o ~~- ~ - SEAL Tara Green, eputy City Clerk ~`~ s ';'gyp Gsr ~s~ ,'` ,r0\, Copy served upon Applicant, The Planning 1'!3'~~~ ~',brb`lic Works Department and City Attorney. By: Dated: a -a~- -~ City erk's Office CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP-08-032 Page 4 • • STAFF REPORT Hearing Date: February 5, 2009 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission E IDIAN~--- FROM: Sonya Watters, Associate City Planner I D A H O 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: CUP-08-032 -Locust Grove Plaza I. SUMMARY DESCRII'TION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST The applicant, Ruby Edwards: Architecture + Design, has applied for Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval of a residential care (assisted living) facility in an L-O district, as required by UDC Table 11-2B-2. The applicant is proposing a 30,106 square foot, two story, 54-bed, assisted living facility to be constructed in two phases. The first phase will consist of 30 beds with a 24 bed future expansion. See Section 10 of the staff report for more information. II. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending approval of the proposed development with the conditions of approval listed in Exhibit B, based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in Exhibit D of the Staff Report. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission heard this item on February 5. 2009. At the public hearing, they moved to approve CUP-08-032. a. Summary of Commission Public Hearing: i. In favor: Scot Halladav ii. In opposition: None iii. Commenting: None iv. Written testimony: Mike Ball. Sportsman's Pointe HOA President; Mike Bussert; and the applicant's response to the staff report v. Staff presenting application: Sonya Watters vi. Other staff commenting on application: None b. Key Issues of Discussion by Commission: i. Discussion about site lighting in relation to the pathways, buffer area along the west boundary. and residential neighbors; ii. Testimony regarding raising the height of the berm more than the proposed 2 feet to shield the neighbors from headlights. c. Key Commission Changes to Staff Recommendation: i. None III. PROPOSED MOTION Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number CUP-08- 032, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 5, 2009 with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications.) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number CUP-08-032, as presented during the hearing on February 5, 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). I further move to direct Staff to prepare an appropriate findings document to be considered at the next Locust Grove Plaza CUP-08-032 PAGE 1 • Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on February 19, 2009. Continuance I move to continue File Number CUP-08-032 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) IV. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS A. Site Address/Location: The site is located at 1695 S. Locust Grove Road, on the southwest corner of S. Locust Grove Road and E. Overland Road, in the northeast % of Section 19, Township 3 North, Range 1 East. B. Owner(s): Locust Grove Plaza, LLC 2548 Stokesbeny Place, Ste. 105 Meridian, ID 83642 C. Applicant: Ruby Edwards: Architecture + Design 200 N. 4"' Street, Ste. 101 Boise, ID 83702 D. Representative: Wescott Edwards, Ruby Edwards: Architecture + Design (208-345-7323) E. Applicant's Statement/Justification: Please see applicant's narrative for this information. V. 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: January 19, and February 2, 2009 C. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: January 9, 2009 D. Applicant posted notice on site by: January 23, 2009 VI. LAND USE A. Existing Land Use(s): The site is currently vacant. B. Character of Surrounding Area and Adjacent Land Use and Zoning: Residential uses abut the site on the west and south. A convenience store/gas station exists across Overland Road to the north and vacant land exists across Locust Grove to the east and northeast. 1. North: Overland Road and Maverik c-store/fuel station, zoned C-G 2. East: Locust Grove Road; Vacant land, zoned C-G 3. South: Sportsman Pointe Subdivision, zoned R-4 4. West: Sportsman Pointe Subdivision, zoned R-4 Locust Grove Plaza CUP-OS-032 PAGE 2 • • C. History of Previous Actions: - In 2007, the subject property was granted Annexation and Zoning (AZ-07-004) approval by City Council with an L-O zoning district. A Development Agreement was approved with the annexation (Instntment No. 107126900) restricting the site to office uses. Alternative Compliance (ALT-07-005) was approved for construction of a concrete landing, retaining walls, and two stairways within the required street landscape buffers. Design Review (DES- 07-002) approval was also obtained for the site and building at that time. - A Development Agreement Modification (MDA-08-006) was approved by City Council on January 13, 2009, which allowed for the operation of an assisted living facility on the site with conditional use approval, along with principal permitted uses in the L-O district. A new site plan and building elevations were also included in the DA for the proposed assisted living facility. D. Utilities: 1. Public Works: a. Location of sewer: E Overland Road. b. Location of water: E Overland Road c. Issues or concerns: None E. Physical Features: 1. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: NA 2. Hazards: Staff is not aware of any hazards that exist on this property. 3. Flood Plain: A small portion of this site along the northwest property boundary lies within the XS flood zone but is not within the floodway. 4. Topography: The geography of this site slopes down significantly from the adjacent streets. F. Access: One access point to/from the site is proposed to/from Locust Grove Road at the south end of the site; no access is proposed or approved to/from Overland Road. VII. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS This site is designated as "Office" on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. Per Chapter VII of the Comprehensive Plan (page 106), the office designation provides for opportunities for low- impact business areas. These would include offices, technology and resource centers; ancillary commercial uses maybe considered (particularly within research and development centers or technological parks). While the proposed use of the site is not an office as designated on the future land use map, staff believes the proposed assisted living facility is similar in intensity to an office use, or maybe less, and will serve as a buffer between existing and future higher intensity commercial uses and abutting residential properties. The UDC (Table 11-2B-2) allows residential care facilities as a conditional use in the L-O district. Because the site is already zoned L-O and abuts a residential neighborhood on the west and south boundaries, Staff believes the proposed use is compatible with the adjacent residential uses and the intent of the Office designation. Additionally, the amount of traffic generated by the proposed use should be comparable to that of an office use. Therefore, Staff believes the assisted living facility is an appropriate use on this site and is consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Locust Grove Plaza CUP-08-032 PAGE 3 • 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 of Meridian 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, who currently shares resource and personnel with the Meridian Rural 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). This service will not change. - The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian School District No. 2. This service will not change. - The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian Library District. This service will not change and the Meridian Library District should suffer no revenue loss as a result of the subject annexation. Municipal, fee-supported, services will be provided by the Meridian Building Department, the Meridian Public Works Department, the Meridian Water Department, the Meridian Wastewater Department, the Meridian Planning Department, Meridian Utility Billing Services, and Sanitary Services Company. • Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective C, Action 1 -Protect existing residential properties from incompatible land use development on adjacent parcels. Staff believes that the proposed residential use of the site will be compatible with and have a low impact on the existing adjacent residential uses to the west and south. The applicant is proposing to construct a 20 foot wide landscape buffer and 6 foot tall vinyl fence along the residential property boundaries as a buffer between land uses. • Chapter V, Goal III, Objective D, Action 5 -Require all commercial and industrial businesses to install and maintain landscaping. Street buffer landscaping and internal parking lot landscaping is depicted on the landscape plan for the proposed project. All landscaping shall be installed and maintained on the site in accordance with the standards listed in UDC I1-3B. • Insure that high-quality emergency care, primary, outpatient, home, and long-term care and other types of health care are provided in the community (Chapter VI, Goal V, Objective A). Staff is supportive of the proposed assisted living facility and believes it will contribute to the variety of long term health care options available in the community. • Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective D, Action 2 -Restrict curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets. Only one access is proposed to/from Locust Grove Road, an arterial street; no access points are proposed or approved to/from Overland Road. Locust Grove Plaza CUP-08-032 PAGE 4 VIII. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE A. Schedule of Use: Unified Development Code (UDC) 11-2B-21ists the permitted, accessory, and conditional uses in the L-O zoning district. The proposed assisted living facility is classified as a nursing/residential care facility use, per UDC 11-1A-1. As such, conditional use approval is required for the proposed use in the L-O district. Additionally, specific use standards apply to this type of use (see UDC 11-4-3-29). B. Purpose Statement of Zone: The purpose of the commercial districts is to provide for the retail and service needs of the community in accord with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. Four districts are designated which differ in the size and scale of commercial structures accommodated in the district, the scale and mix of allowed commercial uses, and the location of the district proximity to streets and highways. C. Dimensional Standards: Development of the site shall comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC 11-2B-3 for the L-O zoning district. D. Landscaping 1. Width of street buffer(s): 25 feet adjacent to E. Overland Road, a principal arterial street; and 25 feet adjacent to S. Locust Grove Road, a minor arterial street 2. Width of buffer(s) between land uses: 20 feet 3. Percentage of site as open space: NA 4. Tree Preservation: Mitigation is required for all existing healthy trees 4-inch caliper or greater that are removed from the site with equal replacement of the total calipers lost on site up to an amount of 100% replacement. There are some existing trees on the site that are greater than 4-inch caliper that are proposed to be removed. Elroy Huff, City Arborist, verified the existing trees consist of dead, dying, or hazardous trees that do not require mitigation, per UDC 11-38-1 OC. S. E. Off-Street Parking: UDC Table 11-3C-6 requires 0.5 parking spaces per bed; 54 beds are proposed. Based on this amount, 27 parking stalls would be required; 29 are proposed, which complies with this requirement. IX. ANALYSIS A. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation: 1. CUP Application: Conditional use permit approval is requested fora 30,106 square foot, 54- bed, assisted living facility in an L-O district. The Comprehensive Plan designation for this site if Office. Staff is supportive of the proposed use on this site and believes it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan (see Section VII above for more information). Specific Use Standards: Per UDC 11-4-3-29, the following standards apply to nursing or residential care facilities: (staff analysis in italics) A. General standards: 1. If the use results in more than ten (10) persons occupying a dwelling at any one time, the applicant or owner shall concurrently apply for a change of occupancy as required by the building code in accord with Title 10 of this code. The applicant is proposing to construct a new building for the proposed assisted living facility. The applicant shall comply with the Building Code requirements for this occupancy class. Locust Grove Plaza CUP-08-032 PAGE 5 • L~ 2. The owner and/or operator of the facility shall secure and maintain a license from the state of Idaho department of health and welfare, facility standards division. The recommended conditions require the applicant to comply with this requirement. B. Additional standards for uses providing care to children and juveniles under the age of eighteen (18) years: (Not applicable) 1. All outdoor play areas shall be completely enclosed by a minimum six foot (6') non- scalable fence to secure against exitlentry by small children and to screen abutting properties. The fencing material shall meet the swimming pool fence requirements of the building code in accord with Title 10 of this code. 2. Outdoor play equipment over six feet (6') high shall not be located in a front yard or within any required yard. 3. Outdoor play areas in residential districts or uses adjacent to an existing residence shall not be used after dusk. C. Additional standards for uses providing care to patients who suffer from Alzheimer's disease, dementia or other similar disability that may cause disorientation: Abarrier with a minimum height of six feet (6'), along the perimeter of any portion of the site that is accessible to these patients shall be provided. The fencing material shall meet the swimming pool fence requirements of the building code in accord with Title 10 of this code. (Ord. OS-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) The applicant states that this facility will not house patients with Alzheimer's or similar disabilities that may cause dementia. Site Plan: The site plan submitted with this application (prepared by Ruby Edwards: Architecture + Design, labeled as Sheet A1.1, dated 11/20/08) depicts one 15,730 square foot building pad fora 30,106 square foot building to be constructed in two phases. The proposed on-site parking meets and exceeds UDC standards. The two-story building is proposed to be located away from the adjacent residential property boundary next to Locust Grove and Overland Roads with parking at the rear of the structure adjacent to the residential properties. Staff has reviewed the proposed site plan and found it complies with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2B-3 for the L-O zoning district. Landscape Plan: A landscape plan was submitted with this application (prepared by Ruby Edwards: Architecture + Design, labeled as Sheet L1.0, dated 11/25/08). The plan depicts a 25-foot wide street buffer along both Overland and Locust Grove Roads; a 20-foot wide landscape buffer and 6-foot tall vinyl fence along the west and south property boundaries adjacent to residential uses; a berm along the west boundary that projects 2 feet above the parking area to shield neighboring residential properties from car headlights; and internal parking lot landscaping. The applicant has submitted across-section of the proposed berm that depicts "anti-personnel" landscaping along the west and south property boundaries between the berm and the fence to deter people from loitering in this area in response to concerns of the Police Department. Staff and the Police Department are supportive of the proposed landscape plan and cross-section of the berm as they comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B and meet security concerns. Access: One access point to/from the site is proposed to/from Locust Grove Road at the south end of the site; no access is proposed or approved to/from Overland Road. No stub streets exist to this site; the property surrounding the site on the west and south is already developed. Staff and ACHD are supportive of the proposed access. Sidewalks: The conceptual site plan depicts a 7-foot wide attached sidewalk along both Overland and Locust Grove Roads. The Comprehensive Plan (page 55) requires detached Locust Grove Plaza CUP-08-032 PAGE 6 • • sidewalks along all arterial streets within the City. Because the existing sidewalks were recently constructed with adjacent road improvements, staff is not requiring new detached sidewalks to be constructed on this site. Fencing: The applicant is proposing to replace the existing wood fence along the west and south property boundaries with a 6-foot tall vinyl fence. Building Elevations: The Applicant has submitted building elevations with this application that are included in Exhibit A. Building materials depicted on the elevations include shake siding in two different colors, lap siding, a belly band, simulated stone veneer, and architectural composition roof shingles. Staff is supportive of the proposed elevations as they comply with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19C and the elevations in the amended Development Agreement for this site. The future building constructed on this site shall substantially comply with these elevations. 2. Alternative Compliance (ALT) Application: The applicant is requesting approval of Alternative Compliance to construct retaining walls and a plaza area within the required street buffers along Overland and Locust Grove Roads. Per UDC 11-3B-7C.6, except for walkways, driveways, and signs, impervious surfaces are prohibited within required street buffers. Because this lot has considerable slope from the east to the west, the site requires substantial excavation in order for the building to be built at a level between the adjacent residential neighborhood and the intersection, making retaining walls necessary in certain areas. As mitigation for impervious surfaces to be located within the street buffers, the applicant proposes to construct a water feature, outside seating area (plaza) with landscape planters, trees, and pedestrian pathways as amenities for the development. Per UDC 11-SB-SB.2, requests for alternative compliance are allowed when a site involves space limitations or an unusually shaped lot. Staff believes that this parcel has space limitations due to its size and irregular shape. For this reason, Staff is supportive of the request for Alternative Compliance as proposed. See attached Findings in Exhibit D for more information. Note: Per UDC 11-SA-2, Alternative Compliance applications are approved at administrative level by the Planning Director. However, because ALT is requested concurrently with the CUP, Staff has included analysis on the ALT request in this staff report; the ALT application does not require Commission/Council action. 3. Design Review (DES): The applicant has requested DES approval with this application in accordance with UDC 11-3A-19B, which requires structures over 10,000 square feet in the L- O district to comply with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19C as follows: (staff analysis in italics): 1. Architectural Character: a. Facades -Facades visible from a public street shall incorporate modulations in the facade, roof line recesses and projections along a minimum of twenty percent (20%) of the length of the facade. The proposed building incorporates modulations in the facade, roofline recesses and projections in excess of the required amount. b. Primary public entrance(s) -The primary building entrance(s) shall be clearly defined by the architectural design of the building. Windows, awnings, or arcades shall total a minimum of thirty percent (30%) of the facade length facing a public street. The primary entrance is defined by a covered drop-off circle connected to the parking lot. Locust Grove Plaza CUP-08-032 PAGE 7 • • Windows and arcades are proposed along the building facades facing public streets in excess of 30% of the length of the facade, as required. Roof lines -Roof design shall demonstrate two or more of the following: a) overhanging eaves, b) sloped roofs; c) two or more roof planes; d) varying parapet heights; and e) cornices. The proposed roof design incorporates sloped roofs, overhanging eaves, various roof planes, and dormers. d. Pattern variations - At least two changes in one or a combination of the following shall be incorporated into the building design: color, texture, and / or materials. The structure is proposed to consist of a mixture of horizontal lap siding, simulated shake siding and trim, all painted in various earth tones as well as some simulated stone on all sides of the building. e. Mechanical equipment -All ground-level and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be screened to the height of the unit as viewed from the property line. The applicant will be required to comply with this requirement. 2. Color and materials: Exterior building walls shall demonstrate the appearance of high- quality materials of stone, brick, wood or other native materials. Acceptable materials include tinted or textured masonry block, textured architectural coated concrete panels, tinted or textured masonry block, stucco, or stucco-like synthetic materials. Smooth-faced concrete block, tilt-up concrete panels, or prefabricated steel panels are prohibited except as accent materials. As previously stated, the structure is proposed to consist of a mixture of horizontal lap siding, simulated shake siding and trim, all painted in various earth tones as well as some simulated stone on all sides of the building. 3. Parking Lots: No more than seventy percent (70%) of the off-street parking area for the structure shall be located between the front facade of the structure and abutting streets, unless the principal building(s) and/or parking is/are screened from view by other structures, landscaping and/or berms. All of the proposed off-street parking is located behind the building. 4. Pedestrian walkways: a. A continuous internal pedestrian walkway that is a minimum of eight feet (8') in width shall be provided from the perimeter sidewalk to the main building entrance. The walkway width shall be maintained clear of any outdoor sale displays, vending machines, or temporary structures. The internal pathway connecting to the perimeter sidewalk along Overland and Locust Grove is S feet in width, which does not comply with this requirement; the site plan shall be revised to reflect an 8 foot wide pathway connecting the perimeter sidewalks along Overland and Locust Grove Roads to the main building entrance. b. The internal pedestrian walkway shall be distinguished from the vehicular driving surfaces through the use of pavers, colored or scored concrete, or bricks. Not applicable (the internal pathway does not cross any vehicular driving surfaces.) c. Walkways at least eight feet (8') in width, shall be provided for any aisle length that is greater than one-hundred fifty (150) parking spaces or two hundred feet (200') away from the main building entrance. Not applicable d. The walkways shall have weather protection (including but not limited to an awning or arcade) within twenty of all customer entrances. An awning is proposed as weather protection over the main building entrance. Locust Grove Plaza CUP-08-032 PAGE 8 5~ X. EXHIBITS A. Drawings 1. Vicinity/Zoning Map 2. Site Plan (dated: 11/20/08) 3. Landscape Plan (dated: 11/25/08) 4. Cross-Section of Proposed Berm with Landscaping 5. Building Elevations (dated: 11/20/08) 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 • Locust Grove Plaza CUP-08-032 PAGE 9 1. Vicinity/Zoning Map Exhibit C -Page 2 • • 2. Site Plan (dated: 11/20/08) re ~~ + ar.+x+. s... 7AM W~~1~ ~o~ M 1dlO7lq Ilq mi~7~ MFR 200 ~!'O/RJ~ ~_~ •~~ ^ ~^ ~~ ~~ ~Y 4M~ W~ ~ 1~ rw r rwr err ~r ~~ ~~^~ St14W~ fde eepn Exhibit C -Page 3 • 3. Landscape Plan (dated: 11/25/08) ~~~ , v" ; -,, r =, r'J ~_ ._;. ~ i~ R ,Iii - - a- .~ ~';, ~' ~_ _J, C~ ~ ~~~~~ .. ... . mow., •... ~.. i .. .r smamre~raFc 1 , m ~_._...-- pFP~~a ~ ~irrir.~ ~~w~ rte. ~r.~~xwa~~-w ~~~.a a ~, ~~ i~ r ~~ w ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~. ~, _;_ i ~, PREL[M[NARY ~~ _- i ~~ == ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~, ~ ... . L1,~ r Exhibit C -Page 4 • • 4. Cross-Section of Proposed Berm with Landscaping CANWtI"LR TREES A8 Tf~' OF E~ER~t _ ,_~,___ ._...._ °' -- ANTr-FfRSLYUNEL ~.ANDSCAPf PLANiING5 C(3CAFEq ALONG SOutH ANq Y~iT PROFER~r LINES, iNCtUgtNG 9AR8ERRY, SKYROCKEF JUNIPER, HAWftiORNE..-` __ AND PYRACANTHA SHRUBS°-~ ,~ MEW U9N'tL FENCE d\ ~ ' I ~:. 2 ~'- xe ~ '~ n. b.vfi.~"r . - ~ ~ ~~~ c~ -'~+; O~ 2'-Q" 1 t' ~ 5'. z2'-e° f i YSIb'SP I ®SI'WdYS6 S architecture + design, p,a. ,;oL Arne _ ____ ~. Z O u;36 Number Ihc~wn Retef~ltCB 1~=' L'wi0~ s•~IP Jcte ..; I OVERHANG FOR CARS 2 C ~ ? 7" 2 -p ; t/- f LOCUST GROVE ASSSTEO LIV~NG Ii1 _ _ p8U35 Wl f __ I f q„ _ _ . LLI GI/26/g8 Exhibit C -Page 5 • . 5. Building Elevations (dated: 11/20/08) re• ....r~.. ,... ]OBM Wit 1M.101 OeY4,D~03 T MD61lb h~7Ai6>'l011 EA5f EIEYAlION .. ~~ _~~ ^~ ~~^ r~ ~~ ~~~~ NfS~~A114N PRELIMINARY KtT f00. CDIISi~1[TgN ~ Y W~ IWI ~ ly It! huu~ ~ r w ~ ~ ~~ sauna EIEVAnaa A " ^ Exhibit C -Page 6 ~ Fwor Nro~ca~w +.- M Exhibit C -Page 7 /`ifv nF'Miw~irii~rt • • B. Conditions of Approval On January 1 S, 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 comments and conditions of the annexation (AZ-07-004), development agreement (Instrument No. 107126900), and amended development agreement (MDA-08-006, yet to be recorded), associated with this site shall also be considered conditions of the subject Conditional Use Permit (CUP-08-032). 1.2 The Applicant shall comply with the Specific Use Standards for nursing/residential care facilities listed in UDC 11-4-3-29 as follows: a. The owner and/or operator of the facility shall secure and maintain a license from the state of Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, Facility Standards Division. 1.3 The applicant's request for design review approval of the site and building is approved. Development of the site shall substantially comply with the site plan and building elevations attached in Exhibit A. 1.4 The applicant's request for Alternative Compliance to construct retaining walls and a plaza area within the required street buffers along Overland Road and Locust Grove Road is approved. As mitigation for impervious surfaces to be located within the street buffers, the applicant shall construct a water feature, outside seating area (plaza) with landscape planters, trees, and pedestrian pathways within the site as amenities for the development, as proposed. 1.5 The applicant shall construct a 6-foot tall vinyl fence along the west and south property boundaries as proposed on the site plan. 1.6 All ground-level and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be screened to the height of the unit as viewed from the property line, per UDC 11-3A-19C.1.f. 1.7 An 8-foot wide pathway shall be provided connecting the perimeter sidewalks along Overland and Locust Grove Roads to the main building entrance, per UDC 11-3A-19C.4. 1.8 The landscape plan shall be revised to reflect a berm within the southwest portion of the buffer along the south property boundary where the grade is significantly lower than the southeast portion of the buffer. 1.9 The number of plantings on the back portion of the berm abutting the residential properties shown on the cross-section of the berm included in Exhibit A.4 shall be determined based on 50% coverage at maturity. 1.10 The applicant shall submit a Certificate of Zoning Compliance application for the proposed assisted living facility with revised plans that comply with the conditions of approval listed herein, prior to issuance of building permits. 1.11 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 C -Page 8 • • 2. Public Works Department 2.1 Water service to this site is being proposed via extension of main located in E Overland 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 E Overland Road. 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 applicant has indicated the required pressurized irrigation system in this development will be owned and operated by an irrigation district, therefore a letter of plan approval shall be submitted prior to scheduling of apre-construction meeting. If it is to be maintained as a private system, plans and specifications will be reviewed by the Public Works Department as part of the construction plan review. A "draft copy" of the operations and maintenance manual will be required prior to plan approval with the "final draft" being required prior to final plat signature on the last phase of this project. 2.5 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. 2.6 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. 2.7 Additional width to the public utilities, drainage and irrigation easement along the right-of way shall be dedicated where the sidewalk is located past the right-of--way. The additional width needs to be sufficient to allow for 10 feet of easement past the sidewalk. 2.8 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 may be 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. 2.9 Per UDC 11-3A-6 all irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, that intersect, cross or lie within the area being developed shall be tiled. Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association (ditch owners), with written approval or non-approval submitted to the Public Works Department prior to plan approval. If lateral users association approval can not be obtained, alternate plans will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. 2.10 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 applying for building permits. Exhibit C -Page 9 • 2.11 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. 2.12 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. 2.13 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. 2.14 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES Permitting that maybe required by the Environmental Protection Agency. 2.15 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that maybe required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.16 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 requirements for unobstructed sidewalk access. 2.17 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. 2.18 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 are at least 1-foot above. 2.19 One hundred watt, high-pressure sodium streetlights, on 25' pole shall be required on all public residential streets. Two-hundred and fifty watt high pressure sodium streetlights, on 30' pole shall be required on subdivision entrances and collector roadways. Design of the streetlights shall be approved by the Public Works Department. Decorative lights require a streetlight agreement on file with Public Works prior to activation. All streetlights shall be installed at subdivider's expense. Typical locations are at street intersections and/or fire hydrants, and no further than 400' distance in between locations. Final design locations and quantity are determined after power designs are completed by Idaho Power Company. The street light contractor shall obtain approval from the Public Works Department, and permit from Building Department prior to commencing installations. 3. Fire Department 3.1 Acceptance of the water supply for fire protection will be by the Meridian Fire Department and water quality by the Meridian Water Department for bacteria testing. 3.2 Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department. a. Fire Hydrants shall have the 4 '/z" outlet face the main street or parking lot aisle. b. The Fire hydrant shall not face a street which does not have addresses on it. c. Fire hydrant markers shall be provided per Public Works specifications. d. Fire Hydrants shall be placed on corners when spacing permits. e. Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10'. £ Fire hydrants shall be place 18" above finish grade. g. Fire hydrants shall be provided to meet the requirements of the IFC Section 509.5. h. Show all proposed or existing hydrants for all new construction or additions to existing buildings within 1,000 feet of the project. Exhibit C -Page 10 • • 3.3 Any roadway greater than 150 feet in length that is not provided with an outlet shall be required to have an approved turn around. Phasing of the project may require a temporary approved turn around on streets greater than 150' in length with no outlet. 3.4 All common driveways shall be straight or have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside and shall have a clear driving surface which is 20' wide and support an imposed weight of 75,000 GVW. 3.5 For all Fire Lanes provide signage "No Parking Fire Lane". 3.6 Fire lanes, streets, and structures including the canopy height of mature trees shall have a vertical clearance of 13'6. 3.7 Operational fire hydrants, temporary or permanent street signs and access roads with an all weather surface are required before combustible construction is brought on site. 3.8 Commercial and office occupancies will require afire-flow consistent with the International Fire Code to service the proposed project. Fire hydrants shall be placed per Appendix D 3.9 Maintain a separation of 5' from the building to the dumpster enclosure. 3.10 The Fire Dept. has concerns about the ability to address the project and have the addresses visible from the street which the project is addressed off of. Please contact the Addressing Specialist at 898-5500 to address this concern prior to the public hearing. The first digit of the Office Suite shall correspond to the floor level. 3.11 All aspects of the building systems (including exiting systems), processes & storage practices shall be required to comply with the International Fire Code. 3.12 Where a portion of the facility or building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction is more than 400 feet (122 m) from a hydrant on a fire apparatus access road, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building, on-site fire hydrants and mains shall be provided where required by the code official. For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2 the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183). a. For Group R-3 and Group U occupancies, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m). b. For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m). 3.13 All R-2 occupancies with 3 or more units shall be required to be fire sprinklered. 3.14 There shall be a fire hydrant within 100' of all fire department connections. 4. Police Department 4.1 The proposed landscaping creates hiding spots along the west property boundary. The applicant shall consider aspects of CPTED in dealing with the strategic placement of anti- friendly landscaping to reduce the desire of anyone to try and walk through this area. The applicant shall contact Elroy Huff with the Parks Department to help determine the best type of anti-friendly landscaping products for this growing region. The revised landscape plan in Exhibit A reflects anti friendly landscaping within the buffer to residential uses as requested. 4.2 Any interior fencing shall allow visibility from the street or shall not exceed four feet in height if solid fencing is used. All pathways and open areas shall have adequate lighting. All pedestrian Exhibit C -Page 11 • • pathways that are not already lit by existing building or street lights shall have a 4-foot bollard style or equivalent pathway lighting to illuminate the entire pathway while being shielded to prevent light from going into residential lots or shining into traffic on either Locust Grove Road or Overland Road. 4.3 The design of the outdoor plaza area located very close to the intersection of Overland and Locust Grove Roads. The area around the plaza must have either a heavy buried concrete bollard or large concrete planter style bollard to protect the facility residents in case a vehicle was to come over the curb towards this plaza. These residents, by applicant description, are probably not going to be able to react quickly to protect themselves and will need additional barrier protection from a vehicle losing control or a vehicle involved in a separate accident heading towards this plaza, The applicant shall meet with John Overton, Police Department, to discuss this requirement and concern. 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 Prior to issuance of a certificate of zoning compliance, that applicant shall submit an approved site plan from SSC. 6.2 Turning Radius: the applicant shall provide a minimum of 50 ft. turning radius. 7. Ada County Highway District SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 7.1.1 Construct one 30-foot wide, full-access, curb return driveway intersecting Locust Grove Road located approximately 355-feet south of Overland Road (measured near edge to near edge). Pave the driveway its full width at least 30-feet into the site. 7.1.2 Close the two existing driveways onto Locust Grove Road and replace them with curb, gutter, and sidewalk to match existing improvements. 7.1.3 Other than access specifically approved with this application, direct lot access to Locust Grove Road is prohibited. 7.1.4 No access has been proposed to Overland Road and none is approved. 7.1.5 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 ACRD 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. Exhibit C -Page 12 • 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. 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 (spaze or filled) aze compromised during any phase of construction. 7.2.12 No change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they aze 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. Exhibit C -Page 13 • D. 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 Commission finds that the existing site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and comply with the dimensional and development regulations of the L-O zoning district, except for impervious surfaces proposed within the required street buffers. The applicant is requesting approval of Alternative Compliance for the allowance of impervious surfaces (retaining walls and a plaza area) within the street buffers along Overland and Locust Grove Roads. The Commission finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions of approval in Exhibit B, development of this site should meet the intent of the UDC. 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 Future Land Use Map designation for this property is Office. The property is currently zoned L-O which complies with this designation. The Commission fmds the proposed use is comparable to that of an office use and will serve as a buffer/transition between existing and future higher intense commercial uses and abutting residential properties. Lastly, the Commission fmds the proposed use is generally harmonious with the requirements of the UDC (See Sections 8 and 10 above for more information regarding the requirements for this use). 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 assisted living facility should be compatible with adjacent residential and commercial uses and with the existing and intended character of the area. Further, the Commission believes that the proposed use will not adversely change the essential character of the area. D. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. The Commission 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. 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 D -Page 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 recognizes that traffic and noise is a concern; however, the Commission does not believe that the amount 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. The Commission finds that there should not be any health, safety or environmental problems associated with the proposed use. The Commission finds that the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural, scenic, or historic feature of major importance. 2. Alternative Compliance Findings (UDC 11-SB-SE): a. Strict adherence or application of the requirements is not feasible; OR Staff finds that the subject property has topographicaUshape restraints. This does, in fact, preclude full compliance with the City's landscaping standards. b. The alternative compliance provides an equal or superior means for meeting the requirements; and Staff finds the alternative compliance does provide a superior means for meeting the City's landscaping requirements. Staff finds the proposed water feature that will provide visual interest for the traveling public as well as "white noise" from traffic for residents sitting in the plaza area. Additionally, Staff believes the plaza will be an appealing gathering area for residents of the assisted living facility. Therefore, Staff supports the proposed landscape plan, as depicted in Exhibit A. c. The alternative means will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or impair the intended uses and character of the surrounding properties. Staff fmds that the proposed alternative will not be detrimental to the public welfare or impair the use/character of the surrounding properties. Exhibit D -Page 2 „t Fe ru 17, 2009 RI N PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING APPLICANT Ronald Van Auker n AZ 08-Q 15 February 19, 2009 ITEM NO. 4 REQUEST Public Hearing- Annexation and Zoning consisting of 15.05 acres from RUT to C-G (General Retail & Service Commercial) and I-L (Light Industrial) zones for Fignut - west side of S. Locust Grove, north of E. Overland Road and south of I-84 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~i'ARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: COM= _... See Request for Continuance l~~' " -Iv ~I ~~ - ~o~ No Comment See Attached Comments OTHER: No Comment by ITD Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shag become property of the City of Meridian. February 17, 2009 RZ 0&009 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING February 19, 2009 APPLICANT Ronald Van Auker ITEM NO. Jam' REQUEST Public Hearing -Rezone of 1.69 acres from C-G (General Retail & Service Commercial) to I-L (Light Industrial) zone for Fignut - west side of S. Locust Grove, north of E. Overland Road and south of I-84 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: ~~ ~ 3,5~0~! P(~ OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. COMMENTS See AZ Packet • • February 17, 2009 PP 08-012 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8. ZONING MEETING February 19, 2009 APPLICANT Ronald Van Auker ITEM NO. 6 REQUEST Public Hearing -Preliminary Plat approval consisting of bnon-residential building lots & 1 other lot in a proposed C-G and I-L zoning districts for Fignut - west side of S. Locust Grove, north of E. Overland Road and south of I-84 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: ~~ ~r~" ~~,5~0~1 OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. COMMENTS See AZ Pocket • Fe ua 17, 2009 CPA 09-003 MER IAN CANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING February 19, 2009 APPL Garland Goff and Shannon Hamrick ITEM NO. 7 REQUEST Public Hearing -Change the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designation on 2.051 acres of land from "medium density residential" to "commercial" for Goff - 1665, 1705 and 1725 W. Pine Avenue 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: No Comment by ITD 8 Boise Kuna Contacted: ~~~~ ~ ~ ee~D~ Emailed: ~., v~. i r~ ~x l' i ~ _ t / i r/ii/1 COMMENTS See Attached Staff Report ~,c No Comment See Attached Comments ~~` i~ Dist. /See Sign Posting/ Lefler ftom Dale Nelson Date: ~ ~ Phone: ~_Staff Initials: ~1~/ I become property of the City of Meridian. at public meetings • • February 17, 2009 AZ 09-001 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING February 19, 2009 APPLICANT Garland Goff and Shannon Hamrick ITEM NO. S REQUEST Public Hearing -Annexation and Zoning of 0.76 of an acre land with a C-N zoning district for Goff - 1725 W. Pine Avenue 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 DEFT; MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: COMMENTS See CPA Packet gyp' ~ Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. February 1 , 2 MERIDIAN P NNI 8. ZONING MEETING February 19, 2009 CPA 0&012 APPLICANT \~ityf Meridian Planning Department ITEM NO. 9 REQUEST Public Hearing -Add 54.9 acres of land to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map with designations of "Public/Quasi-Public" and "Low Density Residential" for River Planning Area 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 R Q ~J • G) No Comment No Comment OTHER: See letter from James Wylie /No Comment by ITD /Boise Kuna brig. District Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. • • 17, 2009 CPA 08-013 ER AN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING February 19, 2009 APPLICANT City of Meridian Planning Department ITEM NO. ~ O REQUEST Public Hearing -Change the text of the Comprehensive Plan revising the name of the Mixed Use WWTP designation to Mixed Use Non-Residential for the Mixed Use Non-Residential Text 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 Q ~ l No Comment No Comment OTHER: See Email from Vic Conrad Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. • i ~, 2009 CPA os-o~ 4 PLANNING & ZONING MEETING February 19, 2009 APPLICANT City of Meridian Planning Department ITEM NO. ~ ~ REQUEST Public Hearing -Request to re-designate approximately 265 acres from Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential and Mixed Use Regional to Mixed Use Non-Residential for State Highway 69 8~ Amity 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 ~~r~ ~~ No Comment No Comment OTHER: See Various Emails by Vic Conrad / Lefler by Vtc Conrad /See Narrative >~ Maps Contacted: Emailed: Date: Phone: Staff {nitials: Materials presented at public meahnQs shall become property of the City of Meridian. • • F ru 17, 2009 AZ 08-016 ERI AN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING February 19, 2009 APPLICANT James L. Jewett ITEM NO. ~ Z REQUEST Public Hearing -Request for Annexation and Zoning of 36.27 acres of land from the RUT district in Ada County to the M-E (Mixed Employment) district in the city for Southridge 31 - northeast comer of Overland Road and Ten Mile Road AGENCY ~ COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: See Attached Staff Report ('~~. No Comment 1~ P15,~~, 3 OTHER: See Sign Posting /Attached Petition in Opposffion / No Comment by ITD 8 Boise Kuna Contacted: ~ ~ Date: -1 ~ Phone: Emailed: ~f ~ C. Staff Initials: Materials presents at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.