Loading...
2019-08-15 1. Roll-C all Attendance ___X___ Lis a Holland ___X___ And rew S eal ___X___ R honda Mc C arvel ___O___ R eid O ls en ___O___ Ryan F itzgerald ___X___ Bill C assinelli 2. Adoption of Agenda 3. Action I tems ___X___ Jessic a P errault - C hairp ers on L and U se P ublic H ea rin g P rocess: After th e P ublic H ea rin g is op en ed th e sta ff rep ort will b e p resen ted b y th e a ssigned city plann er. F ollowin g S taff's report th e app licant has u p to 1 5 minutes to p resen t th eir applica tion . E a ch m emb er of th e public m ay p rovid e testimon y u p to 3 minutes or if they are rep resentin g a la rg er g roup, such a s a H om eown ers Association, they ma y b e allow ed 1 0 minutes. T h e applicant is then a llow ed 1 0 add itional minutes to resp on d to the public's comments. N o additional pub lic testimon y is ta ken once th e public h ea rin g is closed . A. P ublic Hearing for Verasso Village North (H-2019-0073) by C had O lsen, L ocated 3542 E. Tecate L n. - 1. R equest: To Modify the Current C onditional Use Permit (H-2018- 0071) to reduce the number of dwelling units f rom 56 to 37 and update the development plan for the site. B. P ublic Hearing for Elevate F r anklin S tor age (H-2019-0076) by Ten M ile D evelopment, LLC, L ocated at 3755 W. P erugia S t. - 1. R equest: A C onditional Use P ermit for a residential storage f acility on 2.74 acres of land in an R -15 zoning district C. P ublic Hearing for B ainbridge North (H-2019-0074) by B r ighton Investments, LLC , L ocated at the S E cor ner of W. Chinden Blvd./S H 20-26 and N. T ree F ar m Way – 1. R eques t: P reliminary P lat consisting of 165 building lots and 13 common lots on 35.57 acres of land in the R -15 zoning dis trict; and, 2. R eques t: a P lanned Unit D evelopment incorporating a variety of housing types with deviations to the typical R -15 building setback requirements; and, 3. Modification to the D evelopment Agreement (I nst. #2018-047368) to update the conceptual development plan f or the site Meeting Adjourned at 7:11 PM Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 15, 2019. Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of August 15, 2019, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Jessica Perreault. Members Present: Chairman Jessica Perreault, Commissioner Rhonda McCarvel, Commissioner Bill Cassinelli, Commissioner Andrew Seal and Commissioner Lisa Holland. Members Absent. Commissioner Ryan Fitzgerald and Commissioner Reid Olsen. Others Present: Chris Johnson, Adrienne Weatherly, Andrea Pogue, Bill Parsons, Sonya Allen, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll -call Attendance _X Lisa Holland Reid Olsen _X Andrew Seal Ryan Fitzgerald X Rhonda McCarvel X Bill Cassinelli X Jessica Perreault - Chairman Perreault: Good evening. At this time I would like to call to order the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission on August 15th, 2019. Let's begin with roll call. Item 2: Adoption of Agenda Perreault: Thank you. Next is the adoption of the agenda. The first item on the agenda -- excuse me. We will -- I apologize, I just lost my place. We will be opening items -- we won't be opening Item A, but Items B and C and Item A will only be -- actually, we don't need to open it at all, because they have just withdrawn. So -- okay. So, Item A we will not be hearing this evening. The applicant has withdrawn the application. So, if you are here for the public hearing for also Verasso Village North, we won't be having any testimony this evening. So, can I get a motion to adopt the agenda as presented? Seal: So moved. Cassinelli: So moved. Holland: Second. Perreault: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All those in favor say. None opposed. Motion carries. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August15,2019 Page 2 of 25 MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Perreault: Okay. So, we will move forward -- I don't see the Consent Agenda on -- on the -- on this, so we don't have that; is that correct? Okay. Just want to make sure. This is the first time I have ever seen it missing. All right. Next at this time I would like to briefly explain the public hearing process. We will open each item individually and, then, start with the staff report. The staff will report their findings regarding how the item adheres to our Comprehensive Plan and our Uniform Development Code with the staffs recommendations. After the staff has made their presentations, the applicant will come forward to present their case for the approval of their application and will respond to any staff comments. The applicant will have 15 minutes to do so. After they have finished we will open to public testimony. There is a sign-up iPad in the back as you entered for anyone wishing to testify. Any person testifying will come forward and be allowed three minutes. I'm assuming nobody is here speaking for a larger group, since we don't have a larger group, so we will bypass that information. After testimony has been heard the applicant will be given another ten minutes to have opportunity to come back and respond as they desire and, then, we will close the public hearing and the Commissioners will have a chance to discuss and, hopefully, make a recommendation -- a decision or recommendation to City Council. Item 3: Action Items A. Public Hearing for Verasso Village North (H-2019-0073) by Chad Olsen, Located 3542 E. Tecate Ln. (Vacated from the agenda) Request: To Modify the Current Conditional Use Permit (H- 2018-0071) to reduce the number of dwelling units from 56 to 37 and update the development plan for the site. B. Public Hearing for Elevate Franklin Storage (H-2019-0076) by Ten Mile Development, LLC, Located at 3755 W. Perugia St. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for a residential storage facility on 2.74 acres of land in an R -15 zoning district Perreault: So, at this time I would like to open the public hearing for Elevate Franklin Storage, H-2019-0076, and we will begin with the staff report. Allen: All right. We are ready to go now. Sorry about that. The first application before you is a request for a conditional use permit. This site consists of 2.74 acres of land. It's zoned R-15 and is located at 3755 West Perugia Street. Adjacent land use and zoning. There are existing and future multi -family residential uses to the north and west, zoned R-15. A church to the east zoned C -N and single family residential and multi -family residential in the development process to the south across Franklin Road, zoned R-15 and R-40. The property was annexed back in 2005 with an L -O zoning district and a rezone that was recently approved and is in process for R-15 zoning. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 15, 2019 Page 3 of 25 Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is medium high density residential and it is in the Ten Mile interchange specific area plan. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for a residential storage facility consisting of 401 storage units on to 72.74 acres of land in an R-15 district. The proposed facility is a component of the multi -family residential development to the north and will provide a variety of storage units ranging in size from five feet by five feet, to ten feet by 20 feet and consists of 47,813 square feet of storage area overall. Access is proposed via West Perugia Street at the north boundary of the development. The northwest corner right here. And an emergency access is proposed via North Umbria Hills Avenue here at the -- along the north boundary on the east side. A street buffer, landscaping and parking are proposed in accord with UDC standards. The Kennedy Lateral runs along the west boundary of the site. The Council did a previously -- previously approve the waterway to remain open and not be piped. Building elevations were submitted for the perimeter storage structures as shown. Construction materials are proposed to consist of ledgestone, corrugated horizontal metal panels, flat metal panel accent bands, hardiepanel staggered edge shingles and standing seam roof. Compliance with the standards in the architectural standards manual is required. The manual does prohibit pre -- prefabricated steel panels as field material or building facades, except when used with a minimum of two other qualifying field materials and meeting all other standard fenestration and material requirements. The structure will be reviewed for compliance with design review standards at the time of submittal of certificate of zoning compliance and design review prior to building permits. Written testimony has been received from Rick Stewart of Babcock Design is the applicant. He is requesting condition of approval number B-3 in section eight of the staff report is modified to reflect Council approval of the waiver to UDC -11-3A6 for the Kennedy Lateral to remain open and not be tiled. Staff is recommending approval of the conditional use permit with the change noted by the applicant. Staff will stand for questions. Perreault: Commissioners have any questions for staff? Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Sonya, so the -- you are -- you are recommending for approval with the -- with the lateral to remain open? Is that what you're saying there then? Allen: That is correct. Cassinelli: Okay. And, then, Madam Chair, in the -- Allen: Council has already approved that previously. Cassinelli: They have? Okay. Allen: Yeah. Quite a while back. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 15, 2019 Page 4 of 25 Cassinelli: And, then, will there be any outdoor RV storage allowed in this? Allen: There will not be. Cassinelli: Okay. Thank you. Perreault: Along the lines of the lateral remaining open, I think I remember the staff report's mention of fencing -- a fencing requirement. Can you speak to that? Allen: Yes, Madam Chair. The fencing requirement will be in the areas where the buildings do not abut the lateral, so where the buildings abut the lateral that will serve as the fence. Perreault: Okay. Allen: And, then, the areas that don't will be required. Perreault: Is that something we need to actually address in our motion? Allen: I can clarify that provision in the staff report if you would like. Perreault: I think that would be helpful. Thank you very much. Any additional questions for staff? Okay. Thank you. Would the applicant, please, come forward. Please state your name and address for the record. Stewart: My name is Rick Stewart. I work for Babcock Design. I live in Boise, Idaho. 2516 -- you want my residence address or -- Perreault: Business or personal. Stewart: Okay. Well, business is 800 West Main, Suite 940. 83702. Perreault: Okay. Please proceed. Stewart: Okay. In regards to the staff report, E-15 that we received, we will comply with all of the -- all of the comments by the city, except for two we had -- we had comments on. Two of the -- two of the city comments. So, underneath item eight, city agency comments, item number three with the site landscape plan -- let me see here. We are talking about the perimeter fence that -- that you guys have just touched on. So, after speaking with Sonya this week we clarified that the building perimeter along the Kennedy Lateral will act as the perimeter -- or the boundary to the lateral and, then, we will be providing a wrought iron fence that is similar to the Silver Oaks development that's just to the north along the parking area of the site plan that you see before you. And, then, the other item was item number 3-B of the Public Works Department. Apparently there was -- in response to all the irrigation ditches, canals, laterals and drains, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting crossing or laying adjacent or continuous to the area to be Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 15, 2019 Page 5 of 25 developed shall be tiled per UDC 11-3A6. It's -- the City Council waived the condition requiring the tiling of Kennedy Lateral with previous subdivision approval. I think we have covered this. The project should be exempt from tiling the lateral. That was the only comments that we have. Perreault: Thank you. Stewart: Or responses to the city comments. Perreault: Commissioners have any questions for the applicant? McCarvel: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: The staff report also mentions several -- several times in bold about the different -- uses of different materials. Are you in agreement with the staff report on that point? Stewart: That is correct. Perreault: I am under the assumption that the intention is for the -- the residents that are in that apartment complex there to be using these to relieve some of the traffic; is that -- or that was the intention to relieve traffic along that local street there? Stewart: That's correct. Perreault: But this isn't specific to that complex and it's a public storage facility. Stewart: That is correct. Perreault: Right? And so if -- if that doesn't -- if you get several users that come from other areas and it doesn't actually accomplish that, is that -- can you speak to that? Someone -- I think just to have it on -- on public record. Stewart: I guess clarifying your second comment, I'm not quite sure -- Perreault; Yeah. Absolutely. So, it really doesn't -- I guess my -- my question is is there an intention that a certain number of these units be -- be rented out by the individuals in that specific development or is that not a part of -- of what you're attempting to do? Stewart: No. It's completely free and open. There is no limitation as to who can or cannot rent. It's for public use. Perreault: Okay. Okay. Any more questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you very much. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 15, 2019 Page 6 of 25 Stewart: Thank you. Perreault: Okay. At this time can I get a motion to close the public hearing for Item No. H-2019-0076? Oh, I didn't -- do we have anybody signed up to testify? Weatherly: Madam Chair, we don't have anybody. Perreault: Okay. My apologies. I assumed that no one was stepping up and that we -- so, thank you very much. Okay. Is there anyone in the -- please come forward. McKay; Thanks, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. Becky McKay. Business address 1029 North Rosario in Meridian. I'm here representing Mr. Wolf and his partners on this. To kind of answer the question that you asked, it is the intent that this facility will primarily serve the Franklin apartments that they own that adjoins it to require people to put their storage within this facility, instead of utilizing garages for storage. So, it's -- it is our intent and our desire to accommodate their needs, so that we can open up those garages to be utilized for cars, so we don't have parking on the public streets or parking up and down, you know, over in the church parking lot. It's -- they want to make it like an incentive for those who come in to rent an apartment, they can do a package deal, so that if they do need storage and, then, tell people you can't use the garages for any storage of personal property, so that's kind of -- you know, that was the whole intent. I think, you know, we have gone through all this process with the ordinance amendments and the rezones and everything to get it to -- to this point where it comes in under a conditional use, there are stipulations on hours of usage and compatibility, additional architectural standards that wouldn't be found in your normal commercial or industrial zone. So, you know, this is intended to be -- compliment the multi -family use and so we are excited to get started and to try to, like I said, alleviate people using these garages for personal property storage. If you have any questions, I would be glad to answer. Perreault: Any questions for Becky? Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Perreault: Thank you very much for clarifying that, because we -- oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead, Commissioner McCarvel. ►ITi[4 Tdlai■,L[:a Cassinelli: And thank you for pointing out the -- thanks for pointing out the hours, Becky. Seeing that -- is there going to be an onsite manager? McKay: I believe in the residential storage ordinance that we took through it indicated that there will be -- either be an onsite manager or that they would have to supply the city with security plans, cameras, and -- I mean they have to have some type of plan on how to maintain safety and manage it accordingly if it -- if they don't have someone on site and so that's written into the ordinance that they have to provide a detailed plan. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 15, 2019 Page 7 of 25 Cassinelli: Okay. McKay: And -- and I believe they are working with a security company on that. Cassinelli: Okay. McKay: They have already started that process. Cassinelli: Thank you. McCarvel: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: Becky, is there any preference given to the apartments or anything -- I mean know that you're encouraging with the package deal, but preference as far as how many of the units you will let go to the general public that doesn't live in that surrounding area. McKay: Madam Chair, Commissioner McCarvel -- how do you -- is that right? Am I saying that right? McCarvel: Yeah. McKay: It's been a long week. McCarvel: Me, too. McKay: Yes. They -- they are -- McCarvel: I have been here five years. McKay: They are going -- I don't know. I'm getting old. Maybe senile, too. I kind of drew a blank. I forget my own address some nights. Yes, they -- they -- they want -- it is their desire that, hey, if they can fill this whole thing with -- with the Silver Oaks residents they are going to be happy as a lark. They also have another multi -family project. It's not their -- their project, but it's going to be adjoining them on the west. So, they see that as potential, you know, customers. There is another I guess multi -family project south of Franklin that Corey Barton is building. So, I don't think that -- that there is -- there is going to be any problem with filling this up, but they do want to make sure that their residents get priority. McCarvel: Right. McKay: And so I'm not sure, you know, how they are going to implement that, if, you know, they are going to reserve a certain percentage, if -- you know, they have talked about giving them financial incentives so that, hey, you don't have to try to find storage Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 15, 2019 Page 8 of 25 five miles away, we are right here and we will give you a deal. Because they want to alleviate this parking issue as soon as possible. Perreault: Thank you for clarifying that. That was what I was getting at with my question to the applicant. And you -- you have said that much more clearly. I'm asking, because you have got five apartment complexes all within a quarter mile of that location. So, thought, well, you know, what if -- what if a bunch of the residents from The Lofts or -- McKay: Right. Perreault: -- you know, are going to come and they are going to take -- then it won't accomplish the purpose of relieving some of the parking, so -- McKay: They -- this -- you know, it -- the problem associated with the parking issues and the garages facilitated this, so it is their desire to solve that issue and so it's in their best interest to give these people priority and reserve units for them. Perreault: Well, I would like to say I really appreciate the -- the proactive approach that they are taking to do this and I know our commissioner that we love to call Mr. Parking appreciates any parking improvements that are made. So, thank you. McKay: Yes. Perreault: Anymore questions before she steps away? Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: I have a parking question and this is open for staff -- comments from -- from either one, Becky or staff. With regards to the parking and the issue that there has been -- because there is -- I don't -- I didn't see anything from -- from police in here, any comments there. Has it been -- have they commented on parking over in that area in the past or is it just kind of known to be an internal issue? McKay: Madam Chair, Commissioner Cassinelli, it's been more of an internal issue. I don't think they have been cited or -- or had problems with emergency access or police access to the facility. It's been more of -- they recognize their own problem and, you know, they just -- you know, people lining -- lining the collector roadway that comes in, which also serves the church, they have daycare facilities, youth facilities, I think, you know, the church has commented on -- that, you know, they don't like that, so they are -- they are being proactive like -- like the chairman's indicated. Perreault: Okay. Thank you very much. McKay: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 15, 2019 Page 9 of 25 Perreault: Okay. Before we close the public hearing is there anyone else who would like to testify? Okay. Thank you. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Madam Chair? Perreault: I'm apparently having a hearing problem tonight. Cassinelli: Go for it. McCarvel: I move we close the public hearing on H-2019-0076. Cassinelli: Second. Perreault: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H-2019-0076. All those in favor say aye. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Perreault: Okay. Next we will move on to the public hearing for Bainbridge North, H- 2019-- Cassinelli: Are we going to -- are we going to vote? Perreault: Oh, my gosh. I'm having a night, you guys. Seriously. It's -- please forgive me. Cassinelli: If I -- if they want to stick around for the vote. Perreault: We should vote. All right. Open for discussion. Commissioners. If I'm not in a hurry to get out of here I'm good. Cassinelli: I know -- without looking back at the minutes the last time, we spent a lot of time on this the last time and I can't remember everything that came out of it. I think we are -- are we -- hopefully we are seeing the -- seeing things that -- seeing the fruit of our labors that, yes, to put it -- to put it that way that night. But I think it looks good. The only thing -- my only thought that I would possibly like to see is -- it was on section five, paragraph FK -- was the number -- no outside storage. I would love to see that we add to that no RV storage if possible. Granted there is no outside, but -- I'm just assuming if they built, you know, covered storage for -- for RV that would be -- that would be my only thought. I would love to see this in the back of the property, but it is where it is. I think it will -- it will help. I don't know how well they can police who gets in there, you know, across the street or -- or where ever, but I think it will help. So, I think that's good. So, I would say all in all I'm -- I think it -- I think it fits what we -- what we have been after. It Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 15, 2019 Page 10 of 25 works. I would just like to see maybe in a motion adding just that -- adding to that no outside storage -- the condition that there is no RV storage allowed. McCarvel: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I agree. I think this is exactly what we were after with that conditional use for having a storage in the R-15, because we all -- I mean we do our best to do our calculations on parking, which always includes the garages and the spaces, and, then, everybody moves in and rents the garages as storage units and nobody parks their cars in there and so I think this absolutely addresses that point and happy to see it hopefully doing what it's supposed to do. Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: Madam Chair. I -- I would agree. I think as far as storage units go, this is probably one of the better ones we could see and it's in the right area of town, because it's wrapped around by a bunch of multi -family and that's really where you need to have this to help offset the parking concerns over there. I don't know that I see the same issue Commissioner Cassinelli brings up with needing to add that RV storage is exploding, because looking at the site plan they are not going to have the ability to add RV storage in there anyway. It's pretty tightly in there and it says no outdoor storage. They wouldn't be able to put RVs in there. If it makes you feel more comfortable I'm happy to make a motion that adds the words and RV to the outside storage though. No problem there. And I think both the conditions they have requested changes on -- no concerns. Perreault: Commissioner Seal, anything to add? Seal: Nothing to add. Thank you. Perreault: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Who would like to make a motion? I don't -- also don't have anything to add. I think it's -- I agree with my fellow Commissioners that this is a good location for this, that it's really necessary at this point with as many multi -family developments as we have coming in the area and I'm -- I am happy that -- that they are taking the initiative to do this to try to alleviate a traffic issue, which always leads to alleviating safety issues -- or, you know, to -- to addressing safety issues. So -- and as far as the design goes, I don't have any -- any obvious concerns. There isn't anything that stands out to me that is creating a concern for me, so -- Seal: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Seal. Seal: I would like to make a motion. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number H-2019-0076 as presented in the staff report for Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 15, 2019 Page 11 of 25 the hearing date of August 15th, 2019, with the following modifications: Like to have the wording modified to not allow outside or RV storage. Would like to modify Section A-3 to allow the building and -- the building structures to serve as the lateral boundary and also Section B-3 to allow the lateral to not be covered. McCarvel: Second. Perreault: It has been moved and seconded to approve -- so, before I proceed, this is a conditional use permit and so this will be the final decision. Okay. It has been moved and seconded to approve with -- with modifications File No. H-2019-0076. All those in favor say aye. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. C. Public Hearing for Bainbridge North (H-2019-0074) by Brighton Investments, LLC , Located at the SE corner of W. Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26 and N. Tree Farm Way 1. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 165 building lots and 13 common lots on 35.57 acres of land in the R -15 zoning district; and, 2. Request: a Planned Unit Development incorporating a variety of housing types with deviations to the typical R -15 building setback requirements; and, 3. Modification to the Development Agreement (Inst. #2018- 047368) to update the conceptual development plan for the site Perreault: Okay. Now, we can move forward to the public hearing for Bainbridge North, H-2019-0074. Let's begin with the staff report. Allen: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. The next applications before you are a request for a development agreement modification and that actually doesn't require action from the Commission, only City Council. A preliminary plat, planned unit development and a private street and alternative compliance are also proposed that do not require action from the Commission, only from the director. It's 35.57 acres of land. It's zoned R-15 and it is located at the southeast corner of West Chinden Boulevard, State Highway 20-26, and North Tree Farm Way. Adjacent land use and zoning. There are single family residential homes currently under development to the north in the R-15 zoning district and to the west and south in the R-8 zone and commercial uses are planned to the east in the C -G zone. This is where the new Costco is proposed to develop. This site was annexed back in 2018 along with the property to the east and it is included in the development agreement. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is medium density residential, which calls for three to Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 15, 2019 Page 12 of 25 eight units per acre and modification to the development agreement is proposed to update the concept development plan for this site. The one shown on the left there is the existing one in the agreement for a mix of single family residential attached and detached units for seniors age 55 and older. The layout of the development is the only thing that has changed. As you can see the -- the map on the right is the new proposed concept plan. The existing plan depicts a central common area surrounded by building lots. The proposed plan depicts a gated community with three large separate active and passive common areas dispersed throughout the development and is accessed by gated private streets. The applicant also requests to amend provisions number 5.1.5 in the development agreement, which requires the property to be subdivided prior to issuance of any building permits in favor of allowing one permit for the community center clubhouse to be issued prior to subdivision of the property and as I stated previously, the Commission does not -- is not required to make a decision or recommendation on this application. Staff is in favor of the applicant's request for a building permit for the clubhouse. The proposed preliminary plat consists of 165 building lots and 13 common lots on 35.57 acres of land in the R-15 zoning district and is proposed to develop in two phases as shown on the phasing plan on the right. A planned unit development is proposed for a mix of attached and detached age qualified 55 and older dwelling units. The dwelling units incorporate a variety of housing types and setbacks unique to unit and site design. Development is proposed to be gated for security purposes and have private streets, alleys, and a common driveway for access to the units within the development. Mediations to the typical R-15 building setback requirements are proposed as shown and as noted in the staff report and to UDC 11-6C-3135, which requires alleys to be designed so that the entire length is visible from a public street. As private streets are only proposed internally. Access is proposed via two gated private driveways from the adjacent collector streets, Tree Farm and Lost Rapids. Private streets, alleys and common driveways are proposed internally within the subdivision for access. Qualified open space and site amenities are proposed in excess of UDC standards. A minimum of ten percent or 3.56 acres of land in open space is required. The applicant is actually proposing 26.37 percent or 9.38 acres as common open space area. A minimum of two site amenities are required. The applicant is proposing a ten foot wide multi -use pathway within the street buffer along Chinden. A micro path connection is proposed to the east to the commercial development for interconnectivity and a community clubhouse, pool and outdoor activity center are also proposed as amenities and these far exceed our minimum UDC standards. Noise abatement is required for residential uses adjoining a state highway. A six foot wide -- or, excuse me, six foot tall fence on top of a four foot tall berm is proposed. Wood fencing does not qualify as a sound attenuating material. Wall materials are required to consist of impervious concrete or stucco or other appropriate sound attenuating material. Monotonous walls are also not allowed and must vary in color and texture in accord with UDC standards. A revised plan is required with the final plat that is consistent with UDC standards or the applicant may request alternative compliance for a substitute noise abatement proposal in accord with ITD standards and prepared by a qualified sound engineer. Conceptual building elevations were submitted as shown for the proposed single family residential attached and detached units. Traditional alley - loaded homes and patio homes are proposed. All attached units are required to comply with the design standards in the architectural standards manual. Written testimony was Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 15, 2019 Page 13 of 25 received from Mike Wardle, Brighton Corporation. They are in agreement with the staff report, except for the following modifications: Condition number 3-F in Section 7, which requires a sound attenuation wall, as I previously mentioned, to allow the developer to submit alternative compliant for substitute noise abatement proposal as allowed by the UDC and as I mentioned previously and deletion of condition that the proposed intersecting alleys break up the block face and comply with UDC standards. The condition noted that the northern block exceeded UDC standards, but it does have intersecting alleys, so that does qualify as a -- a break in the -- in the block face. Staff is amenable to these changes. Staff is recommending approval with the conditions in the staff report and the amendments requested by the applicant. Staff will stand for any questions. Perreault: Do the Commissioners have any questions for staff? Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: One question. I think this should be an easy question, but was this always designated as a senior 55 and older community, even with the previous concept? Allen: Madam Chair, Commissioner Holland, yes. That's always been the -- the plan for this property. Holland: Thanks. Perreault: Sonya, in the section that the applicant is not in agreement with, when it -- when it says that staff is amenable to these changes, are you -- and they are requesting an alternative compliance for a substitute noise abatement, are you in agreement that they go that route or are you saying that you're in agreement with the actual change that they are proposing? Allen: Madam Chair, I'm -- I'm only saying that I'm in agreement with the change they have requested to allow alternative compliance. Perreault: Okay. Allen: That is how code reads. It does allow for alternative compliance -- Perreault: Okay. Allen: -- for that section of code. They have not proposed an alternative. Staff has not reviewed an alternative, no. Perreault: Okay. Thank you. Any additional questions for staff? Okay. Thank you. Would the applicant please come forward. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 15, 2019 Page 14 of 25 Wardle: Madam Chair, Commissioners, Mike Wardle, Brighton Corporation, 2929 West Navigator. A new address for us in Meridian. I'm not seeing anything on the screen here. Is there a button I need to push, Chris, so I can kind of follow what -- I'm not going to spend a lot of time, because Sonya has really covered the information quite well and has provided most of the -- the information from the slides that -- that we would show as well, but just to repeat, this area was annexed, zoned and conceptually approved just last year and it does show that concept from 2018 in the upper left of this particular slide, which was in the application last year designated as an age qualified gated community conceptually and so we are back now with the detail. I just wanted to take a moment -- staff had recommended some additional conditions and we are in concurrence, but I just wanted to illustrate from using this particular slide, which kind of simplifies the area, but specifically there was a request for staff in conditions 2-B and 3-E for some additional guest parking on -- adjacent to the two the more passive open space areas. We certainly agree. It's a great suggestion and we concur with that. At the lower left, condition 2-A and 3-B, was a recommendation to add a pathway and it's kind of interesting that in our original concept we actually showed a pathway in that location. It dropped out in -- in our review, but we have -- we are in agreement with that particular suggestion as well and over on the right side of -- there is condition 3-A that's talking about the pathway connection that we actually show currently in the northeast corner of the project up toward -- well, it would provide access over to the commercial area. Staff in its condition 3-A has suggested moving that pathway to a specific location, which we depicted, but they have also an or statement that says or workout something that really provides the type of alignment to get to the -- more to the Costco area, so that people that are going to be headed that direction would be able to go more directly into the pedestrian facilities there, rather than out into the drive aisle areas. They worked on that particular item. The language as it's recommended is certainly acceptable. We concur with all of those requests. And, then, just to illustrate very specifically what the product is, these are from our Paramount Cadence project, which we are in the final phase currently. We did -- there is 192 units total in that project. The first two-thirds were developed last year and this is all but done and we have now constructed all of the improvements for the last phase of that project and we will construct those. You know, so this particular Bainbridge Cadence product will come on as it -- that particular one is closing out and we are finding great interest in it. So, these are actual live photos of -- first of all at the top is the community center. In this particular case it's -- it's really a very large substantial center, but there will be something of similar scale, slightly smaller project in Bainbridge than we have in Paramount, but it will still have all of the same types of facilities and active elements for the neighborhood. So, just to summarize and respond to your questions, staff has -- has indicated agreement with the modification we have requested for condition 3-F, which, in fact, the code does allow for alternative compliance. We will investigate options and determine if there is a different, more amenable solution than just a huge concrete wall, but that's a determination to be made that we will have to work with staff to justify. And, then, condition 13 was the one about the -- the length of the block face and that particular item we do comply with that UDC code stipulation. I would be happy to answer your questions. I think it's a fairly straightforward proposal and very consistent with what we proposed last year, although the layout is a bit different, but we think improved. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 15, 2019 Page 15 of 25 Perreault: Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: Mr. Wardle, would you mind talking to us about what the buffer is going to look like on the east side of the property as it kind of abuts the Costco? Just a little bit about, you know, if there is loading docks or whatnot, kind of on the back side of that of how that will end. Wardle: Yes. Madam Chair, Commissioner Holland, when we brought the project in last year we brought them together and we worked closely with Costco. My boss, who is here, might have a -- a little bit better idea of exactly what the dimension is, but we have a very substantial -- probably a 34 foot or more buffer on our side of the property line, they will have an additional 20 feet on their side and so it's -- it's very substantial. Now, there will be loading docks. There will be circulation around the Costco building, but because of their hours of operation and so forth, the stipulations made at the Council level when that project was approved we think it will be compatible. But we knew from the get go that we had to provide a substantial separation between the two and it will be as tall a buffer or berm as we can do with fencing on top of that as well. Holland: Thank you. Perreault: Can you speak to us about the -- the proposal to do the wood fencing with a four foot berm versus the concrete wall and what the -- the thought is behind that? Wardle: I'm going to defer that question to Jonathan Wardle, because as we dealt with that issue in Bainbridge No. 7, which is immediately to the west of this, we came to a different conclusion and received approval of that particular request. So, I was not directly involved, the other Mr. Wardle was. J.Wardle: Madam Chair, for the record my name is Jon Wardle. 2929 West Navigator. And I may technically be Mike's boss, but I don't get to tell him what to do. So, I want to be clear about that. Regarding the sound attenuation -- and we just wanted the flexibility -- when -- the reason this came up is in our previous phase on Bainbridge we were faced with two parallel gravity irrigation lines, which really impeded the ability to put a concrete wall in that location. So, we started looking at our options and when we went to a sound engineer to go through the exercise, we actually found that the wood was the same, if not better than a concrete wall. So, all we are asking for is that -- and we are not telling you that we are going to do a wood fence here, but the way the condition was originally written it excluded the opportunity to do alternative compliance and we just need to look at that. So, we have quite a bit of width there. We have the ability to berm it up even higher. I think we have a couple of combinations where we could do -- get that berm close to the ten feet, but there is a few things going on right now as well with the lightning of Chinden Boulevard and so things are not set. So, we just want to ensure we have that flexibility. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 15, 2019 Page 16 of 25 Perreault: I realize that's not something we are making a specific decision on, but I think it's good for us -- for you to share that on the record, so if there is public questions about it I appreciate you explaining that to us. J.Wardle: Absolutely. Perreault: And that it will be gone through again at the time. J.Wardle: If I could answer the other question regarding the buffer between our project and Costco. So, from our property line we are showing outside of the lot a 35 foot landscape buffer and, then, there would be the setback to the homes, which would be another at least 15 feet on our side. From that buffer -- from the boundary line to the Costco building would be another 25 feet. So, within -- from our lot line to Costco, we would have 60 feet and we are going to raise it up at least to six feet at the peak of that with a six foot fence on top of that with a lot of our landscaping. We worked through those details. That was one of the elements that was really important to us as we were working with Costco and we had a substantial buffer that had height, had more than sufficient landscaping. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: I have two questions and maybe they are for -- for Mike. I don't know. But, number one, is your preference on that path in the northeast corner where you have it shown? That's question number one. I will throw out the other one right now. With the original development agreement for this one are the number of lots. Has that changed up or down? Can you comment on that? Wardle: Thank you, Commissioner Cassinelli. We don't know that -- we prefer the other location, but what we were trying to do was limit the -- I guess I will call it the penetration into the heart of the community from necessarily the commercial area. It's a little hard to control that and that northeast corner, while it took it up more toward the drive aisle access, there is still a buffer down the Costco side that would provide a sidewalk element to separate people from the traffic, but we just -- we want to be able to use the or phrase in that condition to really work on that question. So, we are not going to guarantee today exactly where it will be. We will work with Costco and the staff to come up with an agreeable solution. But we kind of thought that that northeasterly corner was a little bit easier place to do that, rather than kind of in between the lots down below. Your second question -- Cassinelli: The number of lots. Wardle: The number of lots. We didn't specify the number of lots last year. Let me go back to the site plan though. It's been just over a year since I have really looked at that, but I believe that the number of lots depicted was 160 at that point. We didn't specify the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 15, 2019 Page 17 of 25 number of lots, though, and the DA does not necessarily identify that either. So, it was just a question of working out the particulars of the site plan, coming back and modifying the development agreement with that revised site plan and so we have got 165. Now, we actually had a layout that was more than that, but Jonathan just noted that we have expanded the buffer along Chinden to give ourselves more room to get elevation. So, we ended up taking out some lots in order to move that north boundary line of the -- the lot -- rear lot line of those lots along Chinden down some additional distance in order to give ourselves some flexibility there, so -- but, anyway, the number is 165. 1 think the original showed 160, but they were not specified. So, we are limited. Cassinelli: Overall density is the same as -- Wardle: Overall density is -- is approximately the same. It's 4.6 units per acre is what the -- the gross density is of the project as it's proposed. Cassinelli: Okay. Thank you. Perreault: I have a question about that alley load homes. So, in my real estate experience those alleys tend to create an issue when it's trash day, when people have left containers out, when somebody consistently parks a car there and doesn't move it. Is there a way that that's going to be managed through the association, you know, maybe through a process of a, hey, if the car is left there three times -- you know, something like that. Because I know it's because of the -- the numerous alley load streets that it's going to potentially be an issue I would assume. So, has that been discussed? Wardle: Well, we do have stipulations and enforcement capability within the CC&Rs. The Fire Department requires those to be signed as no parking areas. There are two little -- there are four little pods that have a couple of spaces there along the edge and those have specifically been noted in the staff report as allowable, as long as that 20 foot wide alley itself is not impeded. So, can we guarantee that there won't be some knucklehead that will do something stupid in the way they use their property and so forth, we can't, but we do have enforcement mechanisms. Perreault: And it's my understanding those drive -- the driveways are six -- only six feet, so no one is parking in their driveway. J.Wardle: That is correct. Those alley loaded -- they are just six feet, which does provide enough room for the garbage to go there. One of the other mechanisms -- mechanisms that we do have is they are all private and because they are private the HOA has the ability to address that immediately, whereas you call ACHD to tell somebody they are parked in the alley, there is not really -- Perreault: Yeah. J.Wardle: -- an enforcement mechanism for that. One of the things that has been really unique for what we have done in Paramount Cadence is we actually have a full-time Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 15, 2019 Page 18 of 25 lifestyle director who is there every day and interfacing with -- with the residents and so there is a lot of communication happening realtime. It's not just a letter that's sent out. There is somebody there most all the time. Overtime could that change? It would depend what those residents decide to do, but the -- the association dues associated with us and the lifestyle that we have found, they really have liked that social aspect of that. Perreault: Just asking, because it's a safety concern and I realize that -- I appreciate that the public -- that the private street allows for additional compliance, that they don't have to go through the City of Meridian to -- Wardle: For code enforcement, yes. Perreault: Yes. Right. Anymore questions for the applicant? McCarvel: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: So, that's the -- you're talking about going from ten feet down to six feet in those alleys? Wardle: Yes. And that -- that's exactly what we did in the Paramount Cadence product. We also did that in another project that we did out in the Mill District Square in Harris Ranch and functionally it works just fine. But as Jonathan noted, that does give you an apron area to park your trash receptacles on out of the alley itself and functionally we are not aware of any issues in any of those projects. Perreault: Any additional questions for the applicant? Just out of curiosity, is -- you're not having -- obviously, you wouldn't be making a -- sending an application if you hadn't already had this discussion, but I'm surprised that the senior community is -- is wanting to purchase, you know, next to a state highway and, then, of course, Ten Mile is going to be widened and, then, we have got Costco and Tree Farm could get some congestion there. Is that -- it sounds like that's going to be a deterrent to the -- to your -- your customer. Wardle: Madam Chair, it hasn't been an issue that we are aware of at Paramount Cadence, which is also on Chinden, which will also have the experience of two additional lanes within the next year or so. The only real interesting concern that's been raised is the fact that some of these people would like to have an eight foot wall around themselves, so that nobody could ever, you know, come over a berm or crawl over a fence or something, but, you know, we are not into -- we are creating a sense of security, but not a sense of isolation. We want these elements in the community to be functionally associated with their neighbors, frankly, and so just as in Paramount where it's separated by a collector street, this particular product is also separated from the conventional single family community and Bainbridge by collector streets, Tree Farm and Lost Rapids. But visually they are not going to show, you know, a substantial difference, because they will Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 15, 2019 Page 19 of 25 have the same type of fencing from one side of the street to the other. The buffers will look the same. These will be a little different in the sense that these will all be, essentially, single story homes, some with -- some areas that might have a little bit of a bonus space in -- in the pitched roof area, but, essentially, this is going to be a lower level community and not quite as imposing physically structurally as their neighbors to the south across the collector roadways. So, we are comfortable with it and interesting the design materials and construction materials in the units anticipate those types of additional noise along a highway, but that's, again, part of the purpose that the city has required the additional berm heights and walls and so forth that help attenuate some of those concerns. Appreciate the opportunity to discuss them with you. Thank you. Perreault: Well, the reason I asked is because I know, obviously, a big part of our role is -- is to decide what's the best and highest use and -- and this is a large piece of property on a state highway and I think that there is, you know, traditional questions we want to ask because of the unique -- I realize that there has already been a decision made with the DA that this will be allowable,, but just -- just wanted to get your thoughts on it, so -- Wardle: Well, Madam Chair, I have just one -- one additional comment. Being part of that particular age qualified group we can always take our hearing aids out if we want to get a little bit more peace and quiet, so -- thank you. Perreault: Thank you very much. Anymore questions -- Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Mike, if I could just -- can I touch base on Cadence at Paramount. A couple of things there to compare them. What's the berm and wall height there at Paramount about Chinden? Wardle: Madam Chair and Commissioner Cassinelli, it's the same. The one at Paramount is a combination of berm and, then, if you have driven the highway there a lot you have noticed that there are some lower areas and that's where there is a wall and it's more of a decorative structure, but it's not continuous. So, it's a combination of the height of the berm, lower berm with the wall on top that accomplishes the objective. So, that's -- that's ten feet. That meets the requirements. In fact, in some areas it's probably higher than that. Cassinelli: And -- and the Cadence there, are their homes that back right up to Chinden? Wardle: Yes, sir. Cassinelli: And has that been an issue with selling those properties as far as noise there? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 15, 2019 Page 20 of 25 Wardle: Those properties have sold quickly and let me just note -- you will see in the center of this particular schematic where the alley wraps around, we have got exactly that circumstance in Paramount. It's virtually the same. And those units also -- very quickly, they are all occupied. Have not -- have not heard any feedback that expresses concern for that, other than the fact that somebody could walk over the top of that berm if they opted to. Cassinelli: They could pole vault it I guess. Wardle: Yes. Cassinelli: Thank you. Wardle: Thank you. Perreault: Any additional questions. Thank you very much. Wardle: Thank you. Perreault: Anyone here that would like to testify? Weatherly: Madam Chair, no one signed up to testify. Perreault: Is there anyone in the public that would like to testify? Okay. So, if there are no additional questions for the applicant -- I assume you have nothing else to add, let's go ahead and take a motion to close the public hearing. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: I move we close the public hearing on Bainbridge North, item No. H-2019- 0074. Holland: Second. Perreault: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for Bainbridge North, H-2019-0074. All those in favor say aye. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 15, 2019 Page 21 of 25 Holland: Overall I feel like it looks like a nice development. I like that it's more of an R- 15 right next to the Costco, because I think it's nicer to have that density mix, but it's not -- I like the way that the lots are laid out where they are smaller, but single level. It makes a nice community. My only concern actually is just that it's a senior restricted housing community, because I always like when anybody can have access living in a community, but that's my own personal preference. So, it seems like we have passed a lot of senior housing lately. Otherwise, no big concerns. I think if they work with staff on alternative compliance for noise abatement on the highway I don't have any big concerns with that, because I know our staff will find something that works well with the applicant and no concerns with their other requests to change Section 8-A-13, so -- Perreault: Okay. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: On all I can see a pretty good project and Cadence in Paramount to be a witness of that if it's selling very well. I don't think the -- the sound buffer -- I think they can come to an agreement of that. I don't think Brighton is going to put in something that's not going to work. They are going to want to sell those and that was kind of why asked those questions how that compares. So, I'm -- I think concrete would be better, but, again, I think if -- if they feel that the mix of materials they want to -- that they want to use to match what's -- what's further to the west is going to be adequate, then, I think that -- I do like -- had a couple of pathway comments. The path in the southwest corner, I like that, how it ties in and I'm fine with the language of going with the or to keep the path in the northeast corner. I think it would deter people that may be over at Costco to be just kind of randomly walking into the -- into that development as well. So, I think that having that or language that they are requesting -- I'm good with that. Perreault: Yeah. I think one is to speak to what Bill is -- is mentioning. I agree, I like it in that northwest corner, because -- I can understand the concerns, but so much people being able to access Costco, but people not coming in from that area. And, then, I also understand the -- thinking about making it pedestrian accessible and was that -- can I get some clarification on that? Is that recommendation -- is that really something that's essentially wanting to require or is that just a recommendation? On the pathway change. Allen: Madam Chair, it is a conditional of approval. Perreault: Oh, it is. Allen: Staff doesn't really care how the connection happens, but right here as it's proposed the site plan for the Costco, that has yet to be approved, does not show a pedestrian walkway on the Costco site from this pathway. So, basically, this pathway would just dump people out in the driveway where all the traffic enters the Costco site. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 15, 2419 Page 22 of 25 Perreault: Okay. So, they don't have a site plan that shows where they -- they intend to access to this -- Allen: They do not. Perreault: Okay. Any additional thoughts? McCarvel: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I just -- talking about the pathway, I guess my first thought is that it makes sense to have it a little closer down to the building, whenever that site does get approved, just because -- then you're not having all those pedestrians walking through the parking lot. But overall I like -- I do like the new layout. To me it just seems better to have that space spread out throughout the land. It looks good. I would be in support of it. Perreault: Okay. Seal: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Seal. Seal: I would also like to compliment them on the design of this. Considering the intended use of it I like the fact that it's -- I mean it looks like it's fairly maintenance free for the people that are going to be living there. So, there is not a lot of -- there is ample open space. There is the clubhouse and there is things like that, but there is not a lot of things on their property to necessarily -- that they are going to have to take care of on a day-to- day basis. Lawns to mow, trees to trim, things like that. It looks like that's all incorporated into the subdivision. So, I really appreciate that that time went into thinking about those things on these units. Also it -- I mean it fits really well into everything else. About the only thing I can say is it's right on Chinden, so it's -- it's a lot of houses going on there, but other than that everything is very good. Appreciate the time you have taken to develop this. Perreault: My thoughts. So, when I first started looking at the application I wasn't excited about it, because of the density and because the alley loads, so -- but I appreciate what you shared, because it -- it relieves my concerns quite a bit to know that there will be somebody on site who can have some oversight and be able to communicate with the homeowners association about the concerns. If that wasn't the case I would -- I would have asked some additional questions about that. Having -- having managed a large HOA, it seems like a nightmare to me, but all that to say I think the plan that -- that's presented here is better than the one that was originally shown -- the rendering that was originally presented and I like this -- this plan much better. So, I think it's great that -- that you have added the three common areas instead of the one -- one central common area and that you're going to be encouraging the social element of it, because that always Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 15, 2019 Page 23 of 25 makes for stronger neighborhoods, stronger -- what do you call it -- almost a culture that encourages the neighbors to take good care of their properties and that will really help with the density issues. So, all that to say it sounds like that everybody's pretty positive about it. So, are there any motions to be made? Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number H-2019-0074 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of August 15th, 2019, with the following modifications: That we would adjust Section 7-3-F requiring the sound attenuation wall and allow the developer to submit alternative compliance for substitute noise abatement proposal as allowed by the UDC. That we would delete condition 13 that proposes intersecting alleys, break up the block face and comply with UDC standards. And that condition number 13 is within Section 8-A-13 if we need more clarification on that. Otherwise, that the staff would work with the applicant on where that pathway on the east side of the boundary makes the most sense and that's it. Cassinelli: Second. Perreault: Okay. It has been moved and seconded to recommend approval with the stated modifications for file number H-2019-0074. All those in favor say aye. Okay. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Perreault: Why didn't we have a big crowd? Where is our people? All right. Parsons: Madam Chair? Madam Chair, Members of the Commission -- Perreault: What did I forget? Parsons: Well, I -- we talked about it at our prep meeting -- Perreault: Oh. Parsons: -- but I wanted to just share with the Commission that city staff is nearing its -- nearing completing the process of the Comprehensive Plan update and we are looking in the near future of submitting that application and getting that before this body for recommendation onto City Council and we have identified some dates in October. Ideally we would like to have it scheduled for October 17th, but in the case that we have a heavy workload or heavy hearing night -- hearing items on those -- that particular hearing date, we would like to at least have the Commission's consideration of having a special meeting on October 10th. So, what that would mean for your calendar would be, essentially, three Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 15, 2019 Page 24 of 25 public hearings in the month of October. So, I wanted to put that out for you -- to all of you for discussion this evening, whether or not that would work for your -- your -- your schedules as we head into the fall months. We certainly -- we want that application to be a standalone application, so that we can give it the due time that it needs, as it is an update, a new Comprehensive Plan that we are rolling out to you. So, there is a lot of items to go over. Our consultant needs a special date to come into town. He's -- he's struggling whether or not he can make it here either on the 3rd or the 17th. So, again, we want to give the consultant some options. But I will just open it up for any -- any conversations you may have on the idea of having a special meeting on the 10th or potentially looking at October 17th. Holland: I'm open both days right now, Bill. Cassinelli: I won't be here on the 17th. So, the 10th I think would be better. McCarvel: What time on the 10th? Evening or day? Parsons: Well, with a special meeting we have the opportunity to change that time, but we don't want to start too early in the day, we want to give the opportunity to the public to come out and participate in the process as well. But I'm certainly -- had a discussion with Caleb before this meeting started this evening and was open to the idea possibly starting a little earlier, maybe 4:30, 5:00 o'clock if that would work with you. McCarvel: I'm out on the 10th. My son's rehearsal dinner. Johnson: Madam Chair? Perreault: Yes. Johnson: Bill, Meridian Arts Commission has the room 3:00 to 5:00 that day. Parsons: So, it would have to be 5:00. Yeah. Yeah. It would have to be no earlier than 5:00. Cassinelli: Is there another day that week? Parsons: Yeah. It certainly doesn't have to be a Thursday either. It's open -- we will open it up to you. What works? Yet to be determined. Perreault: So, as -- as the time gets closer you will know whether we really need to schedule that third meeting. Parsons: Well, our target date for an application submittal is September. So, then, usually that leads to a hearing date in October. So, if we get a new applica -- if the application is submitted by us beginning of September, we are going to target the first hearing in October. If it happens more towards the middle of the month we are going to Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 15, 2019 Page 25 of 25 shoot for the middle of the month. But, again, the 17th is a potential. Right now we don't have -- we are just getting to that point where we are starting to schedule for the first hearing in October. So, I don't know -- I don't have a crystal ball and don't know what's coming in at this time to get on that agenda. But, again, we want to keep it a light agenda as it is an important topic for us to discuss at that hearing. Holland: Bill, could you send out a doodle poll maybe with a few options, so we could get back to you and see -- because I think it would be great to have as many Commissioners there as we can. Parsons: Yeah. Agree. Holland: Obviously, a couple of us have served on that comp plan committee, but would love to have everybody at the table. Parsons: Absolutely. I will -= I will go ahead and send Caleb an e-mail and maybe if Brian or -- Brian can set up something and get something out to the Commission. Thank you. Perreault: Thank you. Holland: Madam Chair? Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Holland: I move we -- Cassinelli: I move we adjourn. Holland: Second. Perreault: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for August 5th, 2019. All those in favor say aye. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:11 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) /_121N1060* 1 JESSICA PERREAULT - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK /rE IDIZIAN*,----- CjlDAHO PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING AGENDA August 15, 2019 Planning and Zoning Public Hearing Outline and Presentations Meeting Notes: Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2019 Zoning Map Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Zoning Map Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Changes to Agenda: Item 3A, Verasso Village North (H-2019-0073) has been withdrawn by the applicant. The required neighborhood meeting was not held in accord with the requirements of UDC 11-5A-6C. Item #3B: Elevate Franklin Storage (H-2019-0076) Application(s): ➢ CUP Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 2.74 acres of land, zoned R-15, located at 3755 W. Perugia St. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: Existing & future MFR to the north & west, zoned R-15; a church to the east, zoned C-N; and SFR & MFR in the development process to the south across Franklin Rd., zoned R-15 & R-40. History: This property was annexed in 2005 with an L-O zoning district and a rezone was recently approved & in process for R-15 zoning. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MHDR (TMISAP) Summary of Request: A CUP is requested for a residential storage facility consisting of 401 storage units on 2.74 acres of land in the R-15 district. The proposed facility is a component of the MFR development to the north and will provide a variety of storage u nits ranging in size from 5’ x 5’ to 10’ x 20’ and consists of 47,813 square feet of storage area overall. Access is proposed via W. Perugia St. & an emergency access is proposed via N. Umbria Hill’s Ave. Street buffer landscaping & parking are proposed in accord with UDC standards. The Kennedy Lateral runs along the west boundary of this site; the Council previously approved the waterway to remain open and not be piped. Building elevations were submitted for the perimeter storage structures as shown; construction materials are proposed to cons ist of ledgestone, corrugated horizontal metal panels, flat metal panel accent bands, hardiepanel staggered edge shingles & standing seam roof. Compliance with the standards in the ASM is required; the ASM prohibits pre-fabricated steel panels as field materials for building facades except when used with a minimum of two other qualifying field materials and meeting all other standard fenestration and material requirements. The structures will be reviewed for compliance with the design standards at the time of submittal of CZC & DR prior to building permits. Written Testimony: Rick Stewart, Babcock Design (Applicant) – requests condition #B.3 in Section VIII is modified to reflect Council approval of a waiver to UDC 11-3A-6 for the Kennedy Lateral to remain open & not be tiled. Staff Recommendation: Approval with the change to condition #B.3 Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2019-0076, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of August 15, 2019, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2019-0076, as presented during the hearing on August 15, 2019, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2019-0076 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #3C: Bainbridge North (H-2019-0074) Application(s): ➢ DA modification ➢ Preliminary Plat ➢ Planned Unit Development Private Street & Alternative Compliance does not require Commission/Council action; the decision maker is the Director. Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 35.57 acres of land, zoned R-15, located at the SEC of W. Chinden Blvd/SH 20-26 and N. Tree Farm Way. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: SFR homes are currently under development to the north in the R-15 zone and to the west & south in the R-8 zone; commercial uses are planned to the east in the C-G zone. History: This property was annexed in 2018 along with the property to the east and included in a DA. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MDR (3-8 units/acre) Summary of Request: A modification to the DA is proposed to update the conceptual development plan for the site. The existing & proposed plan is for a mix of SFR attached & detached units for seniors age 55 and older; the layout of the development is the only thing that has changed. The existing plan depicts a central common area surrounded by building lots; the proposed plan depicts a gated community with 3 large separate active and passive common areas dispersed throughout the development accessed by gated private streets. The Applicant also requests to amend provision #5.1.5 in the DA which requires the property to be subdivided prior to issuance of any building permits to allow (1) permit for the community center to be issued prior to subdivision of the property. This application does not require action from the Commission, only the City Council. The proposed preliminary plat consists of 165 building lots and 13 common lots on 35.57 acres of land in the R-15 zoning district and is proposed to develop in (2) phases as shown on the phasing plan. A Planned Unit Development is proposed for a mix of attached and detached age-qualified 55+ dwelling units that incorporate a variety of housing types and setbacks unique to unit and site design. The development is proposed to be gated for security purposes and have private streets, alleys and a common driveway for access to the units within the development. Deviations to the typical R-15 building setback requirements are proposed as shown & as noted in the staff report; and to UDC 11-6C-3B.5, which requires alleys to be designed so that the entire length is visible from a public street. Access is proposed via (2) gated private driveways from the adjacent collector streets (Tree Farm & Lost Rapids); private streets, alleys and a common driveway are proposed internally within the subdivision for access. Qualified open space & site amenities are proposed in excess of UDC standards. A minimum of 10% (3.56 acres) open space is required; 26.37% (9.38 acres) is proposed. A minimum of (2) site amenities are required; a 10’ multi-use pathway is proposed within the buffer along Chinden, a pathway connection is proposed to the east to the commercial development for interconnectivity, and a community clubhouse, pool and outdoor activity complex are also proposed. Noise abatement is required for residential uses adjoining a state highway. A 6’ wood fence on top of a 4’ berm is proposed; wood fencing does not qualify as a sound attenuating material, wall materials are required to consist of impervious concrete or stucco or other appropriate sound attenuating material. Monotonous walls are also not allowed & must vary in color and/or texture in accord with UDC standards. A revised plan is required with the final plat that is consistent with UDC standards; or the Applicant may request alternative compliance for a substitute noise abatement proposal in accord with ITD standards & prepared by a qualified sound engineer. Conceptual building elevations are proposed for the SFR attached & detached units as shown; traditional alley-loaded homes and patio homes are proposed. All attached units are required to comply with design standards in the ASM. Written Testimony: Mike Wardle, Brighton Corp. – In agreement w/staff report except for the following modifications to the conditions: #3.f in Section VII which requires a sound attenuation wall to provided adjacent to SH 20-26 to allow the Developer to submit Alternative Compliance for a substitute noise abatement proposal as allowed by the UDC; and deletion of condition #13 as the proposed intersecting alleys break up the block face & comply with UDC standards. Staff is amenable to these changes. Staff Recommendation: Approval w/conditions in the staff report & the amendments requested by the Applicant. Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- 2019-0074, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of August 15, 2019, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2019- 0074, as presented during the hearing on August 15, 2019, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2019-0074 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) EIDIAN,+=- DAJ PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING AGENDA August 15, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 4 A Item Title: Public Hearing for Verraso Village North (H-2019-0073) By Chad Olsen. Located at 3542 E. Tecate Ln. 1. Request: To Modify the Current Conditional Use Permit (H-2018-0071) to reduce the number of dwelling units in the multi -family development from 56 to 37 and update the development plan for the site Meeting Notes: I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 3.A . Presenter: Estimated Time for P resentation: Title of I tem - Public Hearing for Verasso Village North (H-2019-0073) by C had Olsen, L ocated 3542 E. Tecate L n. C lic k Here for Applic atio n Materials AT TAC HM E NT S: Description Type Upload D ate Request to W ithdraw A pplication C over Memo 8/12/2019 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda August 15, 2019 – Page 3 of 55 1 Adrienne Weatherly From:Chad Olsen <chadrbx@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, August 09, 2019 3:05 PM To:Meridian City Clerk; Kevin Holmes Subject:CUP Mod application 3543 Tecate Please withdraw my application until futher notice in an effort to obtain additional documentation. Thanks, Chad Olsen Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda August 15, 2019 – Page 4 of 55 EIDIIAN�- PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING AGENDA August 15, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 4 B Item Title: Public Hearing for Elevate Franklin Storage (H-2019-0076) By Ten Mile Development., Located at 3655 W. Perugia St. 1. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for a residential storage facility on 2.74 acres of land in an R-15 zoning district Meeting Notes: I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 3.B . Presenter: Estimated Time for P resentation: Title of I tem - Public Hearing for Elevate F ranklin Storage (H-2019-0076) by Ten M ile D evelopment, L L C , L ocated at 3755 W. Perugia St. C lic k Here for Applic atio n Materials C lic k Here to S ign Up to Tes tify at Hearing AT TAC HM E NT S: Description Type Upload D ate S taff Report S taf f R eport 8/12/2019 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda August 15, 2019 – Page 5 of 55 City of Meridian - Public Hearing Sign In Form Tools Details and Signatures For Public Hearing Hearing Date: 8/15/2019 Hearing Type: PZ Item Number: 3-B Project Name: Elevate Franklin Storage CUP Project No.: H-2019-0076 Active: A There are no signatures posted for this meeting type yet. Go Back To List Export To Excel © 2019 - City of Meridian, Idaho Page 1 of 1 http://internalapps/SIGNINFORMTOOLS/SignInFormDetails?id=294 8/16/2019 Page 1 STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: 8/15/2019 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Sonya Allen, Associate Planner 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: Elevate Franklin Storage H-2019-0076 PROPERTY LOCATION: 3755 W. Perugia Street I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Applicant has submitted an application for a conditional use permit for a residential storage facility on 2.74 acres of land in the R-15 zoning district. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 2.74 Future Land Use Designation MHDR (TMISAP) Existing Land Use Vacant/undeveloped Proposed Land Use(s) Residential storage facility Current Zoning L-O (R-15 zoning has been approved pending Ordinance and DA approval) Proposed Zoning NA Physical Features (waterways, hazards, flood plain, hillside) Kennedy Lateral runs along west boundary of site Neighborhood meeting date; # of attendees: 06/24/2019; 3 attendees (Applicant & Representatives) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda August 15, 2019 – Page 6 of 55 Page 2 Description Details Page History (previous approvals) AZ-05-016 (Silver Oaks DA #106002636 – requires CUP approval of all future development); CUP-05-024 expired); FP-06-011 (Lot 1, Block 1, Umbria Subdivision; MDA-10-011 (amended DA Inst. 111028916); H-2018-0109 (RZ from L-O to R-15); H- 2019-0072 (amended DA – Findings approved, DA not yet recorded) B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District Staff report (yes/no) No Requires ACHD Commission Action yes/no) No Access (Arterial/Collectors/State Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) Proposed access via W. Perugia St. (local street); secondary emergency access via N. Umbria Hills Ave. (local street) Fire Service No comment Police Service No comment COMPASS (Communities in Motion 2040) No Comments received C. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda August 15, 2019 – Page 7 of 55 Page 3 Zoning Map Planned Development Map III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant Ten Mile Development, LLC 1409 N. Main St., Ste. 109 Meridian, ID 83642 B. Owner: Same as Applicant C. Representative: Rick Steward, Babcock Design 800 W. Main St., Ste. 940 Boise, ID 83702 IV. NOTICING A. Newspaper notification published on: 7/26/2019 B. Radius notice mailed to properties within 300 feet on: 7/23/2019 C. Applicant posted notice on site on: 8/3/2019 D. Nextdoor posting: 7/23/2019 V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. Conditional Use Permit (CUP): A CUP is required for a residential self-service storage facility on 2.74 acres of land in the R-15 zoning district per UDC Table 11-2A-2. The Applicant requests a CUP for a 47,813 square foot storage facility. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda August 15, 2019 – Page 8 of 55 Page 4 B. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: None C. Existing Zoning L-O (R-15 zoning was approved with H-2018-0109 pending Ordinance approval and Development Agreement approval associated with H-2019-0072) D. Proposed Use Residential self-service storage facility E. Dimensional Standards: See UDC Table 11-2A-7 http://sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/index.php?book_id=&chapter_id=20919#s1165280 F. Specific Use Standards: The proposed use is subject to the following standards: (Staff’s analysis/comments in italic text) 11-4-3-47: SELF-SERVICE STORAGE FACILITY, RESIDENTIAL A. The facility is encouraged to accompany or be a component of a single-family or multi- family residential development with a conditional use permit in an R-15 or R-40 zone. The proposed facility is a component of the multi-family residential development to the north (i.e. Silver Oaks). B. The size of the facility shall be limited to thirty five percent (35%) of a residential development not to exceed a maximum of eight (8) acres. The multi-family residential development to the north consists of 10.78 acres of land; the proposed storage facility is approximately 26% of that area. C. The location of the facility may be located along an arterial roadway as a buffer to a residential development, but shall not take direct access from an arterial. Access to the facility shall be from a collector or local street only. The proposed facility is located along an arterial roadway as a buffer to the residential development to the north and takes access from a local street; direct access via the arterial street is prohibited. D. The hours of operation shall be limited to six o’clock (6:00) a.m. to ten o’clock (10:00) p.m. The proposed hours of operation are from 6:00 am to 10:00 pm. E. The use shall be limited to individual storage compartments which shall be used for residential related personal property including vehicles. The proposed use is consistent with this standard. F. Storage units shall not be used as dwellings or as a commercial or industrial place of business. The manufacture or sale of any item by a tenant from or at a residential storage facility is specifically prohibited. The Applicant should comply with this standard. G. The distance between structures shall be a minimum of twenty-five feet (25’). The maximum height of the buildings shall not exceed 35 feet. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda August 15, 2019 – Page 9 of 55 Page 5 The proposed site plan and building elevations comply with these standards. H. The storage facility shall be fully enclosed and screened from public view. The facility is proposed to be fully enclosed and screened from public view by the rear of the storage buildings. I. A minimum twenty-foot (20’) wide landscape buffer shall be provided along a collector or local road and a twenty-five-foot (25’) wide buffer adjacent to residential development. Landscaping shall be provided as set forth in subsection 11-3B-7C and 11- 3B-9C of this title. Landscape buffers in excess of 20’ are proposed adjacent to local streets (i.e. W. Perugia St. and N. Umbria Hill’s Ave.), landscaped in accord with UDC standards; the residential development to the north is separated from the storage facility by a local street. J. The facility shall have a second means of access for emergency purposes approved by the Meridian Fire Department. A secondary emergency access approved by the Fire Dept. is proposed via N. Umbria Hills Ave. K. No outside storage area shall be allowed. Materials shall not be stored within the required yards. The Applicant should comply with this standard. L. Buildings shall be designed to the architectural character of the residential area. The building design shall comply with the Traditional Neighborhood District (TND) design standards set forth in the City of Meridian Architectural Standards Manual. The Applicant should comply with this standard. M. Signage for the facility shall comply with Section 11-3D-8C, “Residential Signs in Residential Districts,” of this title. The Applicant should comply with this standard. Signage requires a separate permit. N. On-site auctions of unclaimed items by the storage facility owners shall be allowed as a temporary use in accord with Title 3, Chapter 4, “Outdoor Sales and Temporary Use Requirements.” The hours of the on-site auctions shall be limited to daylight hours sunrise and sunset) and specified on the temporary use permit application submitted to the Clerk’s office. The Applicant should comply with this standard. O. On-site management or contact information for on-call management shall be provided for the storage facility. If the use is unattended, the standards in accord with Section 11-3A- 16, “Self-Service Uses,” of this title shall also apply. The application materials shall also include a security plan for the proposed facility. The Applicant should comply with this standard. The use is proposed to be attended. P. No storage of fuel or hazardous materials shall be allowed. The Applicant should comply with this standard. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda August 15, 2019 – Page 10 of 55 Page 6 Q. The site shall not be used as a “vehicle wrecking or junk yard” as herein defined in Section 11-1A-1.” The Applicant should comply with this standard. G. Site Plan: A site plan was submitted that depicts a total of 401 storage units ranging in size from 5’ x 5’ to 10’ x 20’ consisting of 47,813 square feet of storage area. H. Access: Access via W. Perugia St.; secondary emergency access via N. Umbria Hills Ave. I. Parking: Per UDC 11-3C-6B.1, parking is based on gross floor area of office space for self-service storage facilities. A 507 square foot office is proposed, therefore, a minimum of one (1) parking space is required; three (3) spaces are proposed with one of those being an ADA van accessible space. Bicycle parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-6C and G. A minimum of one (1) space is required, two (2) are proposed. The associated multi-family development is currently experiencing issues with parking due to residents using the garages for storage rather than parking. The proposed storage facility should provide for the storage needs of residents and free up garage space for parking, which should reduce parking issues within the multi-family development. J. Sidewalks: Five-foot wide attached sidewalks exist along W. Perugia St. and N. Umbria Hills Ave.; a 5-foot wide detached sidewalk exists along W. Franklin Rd. K. Pathways: None required L. Landscaping A 20-foot wide street buffer is required to be constructed along N. Umbria Hills Ave. and W. Perugia St., both local streets; and a 25-foot wide buffer is required along W. Franklin Rd., an arterial street, as set forth in UDC Table 11-2A-7 and 11-4-3-47I. The proposed landscape plan is in compliance with the aforementioned standards. Landscaping is required to be provided within the buffers as set forth in UDC 11-3B-7C. A minimum density of one (1) tree per 35 linear feet of buffer is required along with shrubs, lawn or other vegetative groundcover. The proposed number of trees located within the required street buffers do not appear to meet the minimum requirements. Additional trees and/or relocation of trees within the required buffer area should be included on a revised landscape plan demonstrating compliance with this standard. M. Waterways: The Kennedy Lateral runs along the west boundary of this site. The City Council previously approved a waiver to UDC 11-3A-6 to allow the lateral to remain open and not be piped (FP-06- 011). N. Fencing: All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-6 and 11-3A-7. Fencing is not depicted on the plan. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda August 15, 2019 – Page 11 of 55 Page 7 To preserve public safety, Staff recommends fencing is installed along the Kennedy Lateral to prohibit access to the waterway in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-6C.3. Further, Staff recommends 6-foot all wrought iron fencing is provided consistent with that to the north installed with the multi-family development. O. Utilities All utilities for the proposed use are required to be installed at or below grade in accord with the City’s adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. The proposed development is required to connect to the City water and sewer systems, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. (See UDC 11-3A-21) P. Building Elevations Building elevations were submitted for the perimeter storage structures as shown in Section VII.C. Construction materials consist of ledgestone, corrugated horizontal metal panels, flat metal panel accent bands, hardiepanel staggered edge shingles and standing seam roof. The ASM prohibits pre-fabricated steel panels as field materials for building facades except when used with a minimum of two other qualifying field materials and meeting all other standard fenestration and material requirements (see 5.1I). All structures proposed to be constructed on the site except for those that are fully screened from view from all abutting property lines (i.e. those internal to the development, as applicable), are required to comply with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and 11-4-3-47L, the Traditional Neighborhood District (TND) design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual ASM) and the design elements in the TMISAP. Review of the elevations for compliance with these standards will take place with the Design Review application. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed conditional use permit with the conditions in Section VIII of this report. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda August 15, 2019 – Page 12 of 55 Page 8 VII. EXHIBITS A. Site Plan (dated: 6/24/2019) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda August 15, 2019 – Page 13 of 55 Page 9 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda August 15, 2019 – Page 14 of 55 Page 10 B. Landscape Plan (dated: 6/24/2019) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda August 15, 2019 – Page 15 of 55 Page 11 C. Building Elevations (dated: 6/24/2019) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda August 15, 2019 – Page 16 of 55 Page 12 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS A. Planning Division 1. Future development of this site shall comply with the provisions in the Development Agreement associated with H-2019-0072 and the conditions contained herein. The Rezone Ordinance associated with H-2018-0109 shall be approved by City Council and the Development Agreement modification associated with H-2019-0072 shall be recorded prior to submittal of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application for this site. 2. The Developer/Owner shall comply with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3- 47, Residential Self-Service Storage Facility. The application submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review applications shall demonstrate compliance with these standards. 3. The site/landscape plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application shall be revised as follows: a. To preserve public safety, a fence shall be installed along the Kennedy Lateral to prohibit access to the waterway in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A- 6C.3. Six-foot tall wrought iron fencing should be constructed on the site along the Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda August 15, 2019 – Page 17 of 55 Page 13 Kennedy Lateral in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-6 and 11-3A-7 consistent with that installed to the north in the associated multi-family development. b. Depict trees within the street buffers as set forth in UDC 11-3B-7C. A minimum density of one (1) tree per 35 linear feet of buffer is required along with shrubs, lawn or other vegetative groundcover; trees must be located within the required buffer as opposed to outside of the buffer. c. In the Site Information table on Sheet AS101, update the required street buffer width along W. Perugia St. and N. Umbria Hills Ave. to 20 feet. 4. The hours of operation for the storage facility shall be limited to 6:00 am to 10:00 pm in accord with UDC 11-4-3-47. 5. On-site management or contact information for on-call management shall be provided for the storage facility as set forth in UDC 11-4-3-47. 6. Submit a security plan for the proposed facility with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application as set forth in UDC 11-4-3-47. 7. All future structures shall comply with the design standards listed UDC 11-3A-19 and 11-4-3-47L, the Architectural Standards Manual including the Traditional Neighborhood District (TND) design standards, and the design elements noted in the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan. Note: The ASM prohibits pre-fabricated steel panels as field materials for building facades except when used with a minimum of two other qualifying field materials and meeting all other standard fenestration and material requirements (see 5.1I). 8. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review applications are required to be submitted to the Planning Division and approved prior to submittal of building permit applications. B. Public Works Department 1. Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. 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. The applicant shall provide easement(s) for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way (include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat, but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian’s standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement (on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor, which must include the area of the easement (marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2” x 11” map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted, reviewed, and approved prior to development plan approval. 3. All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being developed shall Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda August 15, 2019 – Page 18 of 55 Page 14 be tiled per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work, the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 4. 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. 5. Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections (208)375-5211. 6. Street signs are to be in place, water system shall be approved and activated, and at a minimum, a compacted gravel road base shall be in place prior to applying for building permits. 7. All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. 8. Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 9. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 10. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 11. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 12. All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. 13. 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. 14. The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 15. At the completion of the project, the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 16. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20% of the total construction cost for all completed sewer, water and reuse infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. C. Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ): http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/174582/Page1.aspx Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda August 15, 2019 – Page 19 of 55 Page 15 D. Ada County Highway District (ACHD): http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?id=174396 E. Park’s Department http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?id=174310&dbid=0 F. Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District (NMID) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/174697/Page1.aspx IX. FINDINGS Conditional Use Permit (UDC 11-5B-6E) The Commission shall base its determination on the Conditional Use Permit request upon the following: a. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. Staff finds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and dimensional and development regulations of the R-15 district (see Analysis, Section V for more information). b. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in accord with the requirements of this Title. Staff finds that the proposed use is consistent with the TMISAP future land use map designation of MHDR and is allowed as a conditional use in UDC Table 11-2A-2 in the R-15 zoning district. Further, staff finds the proposed use of the site is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that the proposed storage facility will provide a needed service within close proximity to residential uses. 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. Staff finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the operation of the proposed residential self-service storage facility should be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing and intended character of the area. d. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Staff finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the proposed use will not adversely affect other property in the area. The Commission should weigh any public testimony provided to determine if the development will adversely affect other properties in the vicinity. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda August 15, 2019 – Page 20 of 55 Page 16 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. Staff finds that essential public services are available to this property and that the use will be adequately served by these facilities. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda August 15, 2019 – Page 21 of 55 EIDIAN?- PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING AGENDA August 15, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 4 C Item Title: Public Hearing for Bainbridge North (H-2019-0074) By Brighton Investments LLC., Located at the SE Corner of W. Chinden Blvd./SH20-26 and N. Tree Farm Way 1. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 165 building lots and 13 common lots on 35.57 acres of land in the R-15 zoning district and; 2. Request: A Planned Unit Development incorporating a variety of housing types with deviations to the typical R-15 building setback requirements. 3. Modification to the Development Agreement (Inst. #2018-047368) to update the conceptual development plan for the site. Meeting Notes: I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 3.C . Presenter: Estimated Time for P resentation: Title of I tem - Public Hearing for B ainbridge North (H-2019-0074) by Brighton Investments, L L C , Located at the S E corner of W. Chinden Blvd./S H 20-26 and N. T ree F arm Way C lic k Here for Applic atio n Materials C lic k Here to S ign Up to Tes tify at Hearing AT TAC HM E NT S: Description Type Upload D ate S taff Report S taf f R eport 8/14/2019 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda August 15, 2019 – Page 22 of 55 City of Meridian - Public Hearing Sign In Form Tools Details and Signatures For Public Hearing Hearing Date: 8/15/2019 Hearing Type: PZ Item Number: 3-C Project Name: Bainbridge North PP, PUD, MDA Project No.: H-2019-0074 Active: ►9 There are no signatures posted for this meeting type yet. Go Back To List Export To Excel © 2019 - City of Meridian, Idaho Page 1 of 1 http://internalapps/SIGNINFORMTOOLS/SignInFormDetails?id=295 8/16/2019 Page 1 HEARING DATE: 8/15/2019 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Sonya Allen, Associate Planner 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: H-2019-0074 Bainbridge North LOCATION: SEC of W. Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26 and N. Tree Farm Way (NE ¼ of Section 27, T.4N., R.1W.) I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Applicant has submitted the following applications:  Modification to the Development Agreement (Inst. #2018-047368) to update the conceptual development plan for the site;  Preliminary Plat consisting of 165 building lots and 13 common lots on 35.57 acres of land in the R-15 zoning district;  Planned Unit Development incorporating a variety of housing types with deviations to the typical R-15 building setback requirements;  Private Street for internal gated privately owned streets within the development; and,  Alternative Compliance to the following UDC standards: 1) Table 11-3C-6, which requires parking pads to be provided in addition to garage spaces, to not be required to provide parking pads due to the age restricted (55+) residents and the anticipation they will have fewer vehicles; 2) 11-3F-4.A.4, which restricts development to no more than 50 dwelling units with a gated entrance to the development; 3) 11-3F-4A.6, which doesn’t allow common driveways to be accessed off private streets; 4) 11-3F-4B.2b, which requires private streets to have a travel lane of 24’ or 26’ as determined by the Fire Marshall relative to the height and size of the proposed structures that adjoin the private street; and, STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda August 15, 2019 – Page 23 of 55 Page 2 5) 11-3F-4B.2d, which requires all drive aisles to be posted as fire lanes with no parking allowed and the curbs next to the drive aisle to be painted red. Note: The private street and alterative compliance applications are reviewed by the Director; Commission/Council action is not required. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Acreage 35.57 Future Land Use Designation MDR (3-8 units/acre) Existing Land Use Vacant/undeveloped Proposed Land Use(s) SFR Current Zoning R-15 Proposed Zoning NA Lots (# and type; bldg/common) 165 building/13 common Phasing plan (# of phases) 2 phases Number of Residential Units (type of units) 165 Density (gross/net) 4.64 units/acre (gross); 8.97 units/acre (net) Open Space (acres, total [%] / buffer / qualified) 9.38 acres (26.37%) Amenities Regional pathway, community center Physical Features (waterways, hazards, flood plain, hillside) NA Neighborhood meeting date; # of attendees: 1/16/19 and 6/13/19 (see application for list of attendees) History (previous approvals) H-2018-0004 (AZ - DA #2018-047368, PP) Ada County Highway District  Staff report (yes/no) Yes  Requires ACHD Commission Action (yes/no) No Access (Arterial/Collectors/State Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) (1) Access via N. Tree Farm Way and (1) access via W. Lost Rapids Dr., both collector streets; private streets internally Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross Access No stub streets were required to the commercial property to the east Existing Road Network N. Tree Farm Way and W. Lost Rapids Dr., both collector streets, are existing Existing Arterial Sidewalks / Buffers Detached sidewalks exist along the collector streets Proposed Road Improvements None Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda August 15, 2019 – Page 24 of 55 Page 3 Fire Service  Distance to Fire Station 1.8 miles from Fire Station #5  Fire Response Time 4:00 minutes under ideal conditions  Resource Reliability 81% (does not meet targeted goal of 85% or greater)  Risk Identification 1 (current resources would be adequate)  Accessibility Meets all required access, road widths and turnarounds  Special/resource needs Won’t require an aerial device  Water Supply Requires 1,000 gallons per minute for one hour  Other Resources NA Police Service  Distance to Police Station 8 miles  Police Response Time 5 minutes  Calls for Service 402 within one mile of site between 4/1/2018 and 3/31/2019  Accessibility No issues with access  Specialty/resource needs None  Crimes None  Crashes None West Ada School District  Distance (elem, ms, hs) No comments received  Capacity of Schools  # of Students Enrolled Wastewater  Distance to Sewer Services 0 feet  Sewer Shed North Black Cat Trunkshed  Estimated Project Sewer ERU’s See application  WRRF Declining Balance 13.69  Project Consistent with WW Master Plan/Facility Plan Yes – Flows committed with annexation Water  Distance to Water Services 0 feet  Pressure Zone One  Estimated Project Water ERU’s See application  Water Quality None  Project Consistent with Water Master Plan Yes  Impacts/Concerns Distance to nearest City Park (+ size) Directly across the street from 7.5 acre City park Distance to other key services Within a half mile of a grocery store (Walmart) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda August 15, 2019 – Page 25 of 55 Page 4 C. Project Area Maps III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Brighton Investments, LLC – 2929 W. Navigator #400, Meridian, ID 83642 B. Owner: Same as Applicant C. Representative: Michael D. Wardle, Brighton Corporation – 2929 W. Navigator #400, Meridian, ID 83642 Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Zoning Map Planned Development Map Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda August 15, 2019 – Page 26 of 55 Page 5 IV. NOTICING Planning & Zoning Posting Date City Council Posting Date Newspaper Notification 7/26/2019 Radius notification mailed to properties within 300 feet 7/23/2019 Public hearing notice sign posted on site 8/1/2019 Nextdoor posting 7/23/2019 V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. Future Land Use Map Designation (https://www.meridiancity.org/compplan) and Comprehensive Plan Policies (https://www.meridiancity.org/compplan): Medium Density Residential (MDR) – The MDR designation allows smaller lots for residential purposes within City limits. Uses may include single-family homes at gross densities of 3 to 8 units per acre. The Applicant’s proposal to develop the site with a mix of single-family attached and detached homes consisting of a total of 165 units at a gross density of 4.64 units per acre (net density of 8.97 units per acre) is consistent with the MDR FLUM designation. Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this application and apply to the proposed use of this property (staff analysis in italics):  “Provide for a wide diversity of housing types (single-family, modular, mobile homes and multi-family arrangements) and choices between ownership and rental dwelling units for all income groups in a variety of locations suitable for residential development.” (3.07.03B) The proposed mix of attached and detached units will contribute to the diversity in housing types in the northern portion of the City. Staff is unaware if the proposed units will be owner occupied or rental units.  “Provide housing options close to employment and shopping centers.” (3.07.02D) The proposed development will provide housing options in close proximity to the existing and future employment and shopping centers along the Chinden Blvd. and Ten Mile corridors.  “Require open space areas within all development.” (6.01.01A) Qualified open space is proposed to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3.  “Permit new development only where urban services can be reasonably provided at the time of final approval and development is contiguous to the City.” (3.01.01F) Urban services can be provided to this development, which has been annexed into the City.  “Restrict private curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets.” (3.06.02D); Access is proposed via the adjacent collector streets; access via a local street is not available. Direct access to W. Chinden Blvd. is prohibited  “Require pedestrian access connectors in all new development to link subdivisions together to promote neighborhood connectivity as part of a community pathway system.” (3.03.03B) A pathway connection is proposed to the east to the future commercial development for pedestrian connectivity; no other neighborhoods adjoin this site. A 10-foot wide segment of Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda August 15, 2019 – Page 27 of 55 Page 6 the multi-use pathway is required to be constructed along Chinden Blvd. to provide pedestrian connectivity to the area. B. Proposed Development Applications: Development Agreement Modification: Modification to the Development Agreement (DA) (Inst. #2018-047368) to update the conceptual development plan for the site. The existing and proposed plan is for a mix of single-family attached and detached units for seniors age 55 and older; the layout of the development is the only thing that has changed. The existing plan depicts a central common area surrounded by building lots; the proposed plan depicts a gated community with 3 large separate active and passive common areas dispersed throughout the development accessed by gated private streets (see Section VII.A). The Applicant also requests to be allowed to obtain one (1) building permit for the clubhouse prior to the final plat recording. Staff is amenable to this request to support the marketing of the development and recommends the existing DA provision which prohibits any building permits from being issued on the subject property until it is subdivided is amended accordingly (see Section VIII.A.1a). Preliminary Plat: The proposed preliminary plat consists of 165 building lots and 13 common lots on 35.57 acres of land in the R-15 zoning district and is proposed to develop in two (2) phases as shown on the phasing plan (see Section VII.B). Planned Unit Development: A Planned Unit Development is proposed to enable the provision of a mix of attached and detached age-qualified 55+ dwelling units that incorporate a variety of housing types and setbacks unique to unit and site design. The development is proposed to be gated for security purposes and have private streets, alleys and a common driveway for access to the units within the development. Deviations to the typical R-15 building setback requirements are proposed as noted below (F); and to UDC 11-6C-3B.5, which requires alleys to be designed so that the entire length is visible from a public street. Private Streets: Gated private streets are proposed internally for access to the lots in the development. This application requires approval from the Director and does not require Commission/Council action. Alternative Compliance: Alternative Compliance is requested to the following UDC standards: 1) Table 11-3C-6, which requires parking pads to be provided in addition to garage spaces, to not be required to provide parking pads due to the age restricted (55+) residents and the anticipation they will have fewer vehicles; 2) 11-3F-4.A.4, which restricts development to no more than 50 dwelling units with a gated entrance to the development, to allow 165 units with a gated entrance; 3) 11-3F-4A.6, which doesn’t allow common driveways to be accessed off private streets, to allow one (1) common driveway to be accessed off the adjacent private street; 4) 11-3F-4B.2b, which requires private streets to have a travel lane of 24’ or 26’ as determined by the Fire Marshall relative to the height and size of the proposed structures that adjoin the private street, to allow 29-foot street sections; and, 5) 11-3F-4B.2d, which requires all drive aisles to be posted as fire lanes with no parking allowed and the curbs next to the drive aisle to be painted red, to allow parking on one side of the street with the opposite side signed no parking with red painted curbs. This application requires approval from the Director and does not require Commission/Council action. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda August 15, 2019 – Page 28 of 55 Page 7 C. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There are no existing structures on this site; detached sidewalks exist along the abutting collector streets (N. Tree Farm Way and W. Lost Rapids Dr.). D. Proposed Use Analysis: The proposed single-family attached and detached dwellings are listed in UDC Table 11-2A-2 as principal permitted uses in the R-15 zoning district. E. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2A-7): Future development is subject to the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-7 for the R-15 zoning district as follows: The Applicant proposes deviations to some of these standards with the PUD as follows (see PUD Site Plan in Section VII.E):  Street setback to living area (local): from 10’ to 6’ for traditional - alley garage & alley park side Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda August 15, 2019 – Page 29 of 55 Page 8  Street setback to living area (alley): from 10’ to 6’  Rear setback: from 12’ to 6’ for traditional - alley garage & alley park side No deviations to the setbacks are requested or approved to the setbacks along the periphery of the planned development. F. Access (UDC 11-3A-3, 11-3H-4): Access is proposed via two (2) driveways from the abutting collector streets (N. Tree Farm Way from the west and W. Lost Rapids Dr. from the south) – local street access is not available to this property; direct access via Chinden Blvd./SH-20/26 is prohibited. Private streets are proposed on Lot 55, Block 1 for internal access within the development; alleys are proposed off of private streets for traditional alley-loaded units. Private streets are not typically intended for single-family developments; however, because the development is proposed to be gated, creates common mews through the site design and is part of a planned unit development, Staff is of the opinion private streets are appropriate. Private streets are required to comply with the design and construction standards listed in UDC 11-3F-4. ACHD has approved the private street connection(s) to the public street(s) contingent upon the City approving the private street application. Alternative Compliance is requested to the following private street standards: 1) 11-3F-4.A.4, which restricts development to no more than 50 dwelling units with a gated entrance to the development, to allow 165 units with a gated entrance; 2) 11-3F-4A.6, which doesn’t allow common driveways to be accessed off private streets, to allow one (1) common driveway to be accessed off the adjacent private street; 3) 11-3F-4B.2b, which requires private streets to have a travel lane of 24’ or 26’ as determined by the Fire Marshall relative to the height and size of the proposed structures that adjoin the private street, to allow 29-foot street sections; and, 4) 11-3F-4B.2d, which requires all drive aisles to be posted as fire lanes with no parking allowed and the curbs next to the drive aisle to be painted red, to allow parking on one side of the street with the opposite side signed no parking with red painted curbs. Staff is of the opinion the proposed design includes innovative design features based on New Urbanism such as a walkable secure/gated neighborhood, neo-traditional design, pedestrian connectivity to the future commercial development to the east and a variety of housing types and sizes and therefore, provides an equal means of meeting the intent and purpose of the aforementioned regulations. Therefore, the Director approves the requests for Alternative Compliance to the private street standards. G. Parking (UDC 11-3C-6): Off-street parking is required for each dwelling unit in accord with UDC 11-3C-6, based on the number of bedrooms per unit; garage spaces as well as outside parking pads are required. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda August 15, 2019 – Page 30 of 55 Page 9 Alternative Compliance to UDC Table 11-3C-6 is requested to not be required to provide outside parking pads due to the age restricted (55+) residents and the anticipation they will have fewer vehicles. Because 29’ wide private streets are proposed within the development, parking is allowed on one side of the street and should be provided on the street side adjacent to the alley accessed units rather than the patio homes with front accessed garages to allow for more spaces that aren’t encumbered by driveways. Planning and Fire Dept. Staff are concerned there will not be adequate parking for guests. Therefore, Staff recommends a minimum of 14 additional parking spaces are provided between the two large common areas on Lots 112 and 154 for additional guest parking as a provision of the Alternative Compliance request. With the additional parking, the Director approves the Alternative Compliance request. One parking space per every 500 square feet of gross floor area is required for non-residential uses. The community center is proposed to be in the 6,000-7,000 square foot range which would require 12-14 spaces. The PUD site plan depicts 28 parking spaces, exceeding the minimum requirements, off the private streets on either side of the community center near the southern portion of the development. The extra spaces will contribute to the guest parking needed for the site. H. Pathways (UDC 11-3A-8, 11-3H-4C-4): A detached 10-foot wide multi-use pathway is required to be constructed with a public use easement within the street buffer along W. Chinden Blvd. per UDC 11-3H-4C.4. A micro- pathway is proposed to the east to the future commercial development at the northeast corner of the development. Landscaping is required adjacent to pathways in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C. Although a pathway is needed for interconnectivity with the commercial development to the east, the proposed location between Lots 31 and 32 is not ideal as it connects to a driveway at the entrance of the future commercial development from Chinden Blvd. – there is no pathway connection planned on the commercial site which will present a safety hazard to pedestrians. Therefore, Staff recommends the pathway is shifted further to the south in the vicinity of Lot 41, Block 1 in alignment with the sidewalk on the north side of the Costco building; or, the Applicant coordinate with the developers of the Costco site to provide a safe pedestrian connection elsewhere between the two developments that avoids pedestrian/vehicular conflicts. Depict one (1) additional pathway for unrestricted access to pedestrians and bicycles within the proposed development in accord with UDC 11-3F-4A.4c in the vicinity of Lot 67, Block 1. I. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): Detached sidewalks exist along the abutting collector streets (N. Tree Farm Way and W. Lost Rapids Dr.); a detached sidewalk/pathway is required along W. Chinden Blvd.; detached sidewalks are proposed internally adjacent to private streets. J. Parkways (UDC 11-3A-17): Parkways are required to be constructed per the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17E and landscaped per the standards in 11-3B-7C. Eight-foot wide parkways are proposed abutting all private streets except where attached sidewalks are proposed adjacent to Lot 133, Block 1 where parking is proposed adjacent to the community center. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda August 15, 2019 – Page 31 of 55 Page 10 K. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): Landscaping is required within street buffers (11-3B-7C), adjacent to pathways (11-3B-12C), within parkways (11-3A-17E and 11-3B-7C), and within common open space areas (11-3G-3E) in accord with UDC standards. L. Qualified Open Space (UDC 11-3G-3): A minimum of 10% qualified open space is required to be provided within the development; based on 35.57 acres of land, a minimum of 3.56 acres is required. The qualified open space exhibit in Section VII.D depicts 9.38 acres (or 26.37%) of qualified open space consisting of parkways, street buffers along collector streets and internal common open space areas. Although a few of the areas counted do not meet the requirements for qualified open space (i.e. end caps), the proposed open space far exceeds UDC standards without those areas. M. Qualified Site Amenities (UDC 11-3G-3): A minimum of two (2) site amenities are required to be provided within the development based on 35.57 acres of development area. A 10-foot wide multi-use pathway is proposed within the street buffer along W. Chinden Blvd., a pathway connection is proposed to the east, and a community clubhouse, pool and outdoor activity complex are proposed as amenities exceeding the minimum UDC standards. N. Private Open Space (UDC 11-7-4B) In addition to the afore-noted common open space & site amenity requirements, a minimum of 80 square feet of private, usable open space is required to be provided for each residential unit in a planned unit development. This can be satisfied through porches, patios, decks and enclosed yards; landscaping, entryway and other accessways do not count toward this requirement. The Applicant proposed patio areas, porches and abutting yard space(s) in excess of 80 s.f. for each unit. O. Noise Abatement (UDC 11-3H-4D) Noise abatement is required for residential uses adjoining state highways (i.e. US 20-26/Chinden Blvd.) as set forth in UDC 11-3H-4D. The applicant has submitted a cross-section of the noise abatement proposed along Chinden Blvd. consisting of a 4-foot tall berm and 6-foot tall wood fence (see Sheet PPL1.5 of the landscape plan in Section VII.C). Wood fencing is not qualify as a noise attenuating material; wall materials are required to consist of impervious concrete or stucco or other appropriate attenuating material. Additionally, monotonous walls are not allowed and must have vary in color and/or texture every 300’ and/or the wall should be staggered every 300’ in accord with the standards in UDC 11-3H-4D.3. A revised detail of the proposed noise abatement should be submitted with the final plat application that complies with this standard. P. Subdivision Design & Improvement Standards (UDC 11-6C-3) Alleys (UDC 11-6C-3B.5): Alleys are required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11- 6C-3B.5. Parking is not allowed within alleys; “No Parking – Fire Lane” signs should be installed accordingly within the development. The parallel parking spaces off the alleys are allowed. Alleys are required to be designed so that the entire length is visible from a public street; none of the proposed alleys are visible from public streets as private streets are proposed within the development. Deviation from this standard is requested with the PUD to allow the alleys as Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda August 15, 2019 – Page 32 of 55 Page 11 proposed. Staff is of the opinion the proposed overall design of the development includes innovative design features based on New Urbanism such as a walkable secure/gated neighborhood, neo-traditional design, pedestrian connectivity to the future commercial development to the east and a variety of housing types and sizes and therefore, provides an equal means of meeting the intent and purpose of the aforementioned standard. Therefore, the Director approves the requests for Alternative Compliance. Common Driveways (UDC 11-6C-3D): One common driveway is proposed on Lot 5, Block 1 providing access to Lots 6 and 7, Block 1. Common driveways are required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3 as follows: The driveways for Lots 4 and 8 are required to be located on the opposite side of the shared property line away from the common driveway; solid fencing adjacent to common driveways is prohibited unless separated by a minimum 5-foot wide landscape buffer; an exhibit should be submitted with the final plat application depicting the setbacks, fencing, building envelope and orientation of the lots and structures accessed by the common driveway; lots abutting the common driveway that aren’t taking access from the driveway should also be depicted with driveways on the opposite side of the lot from the common driveway; a perpetual ingress/egress easement is required to be filed with the Ada County Recorder, which shall include a requirement for maintenance of a paved surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment. Alternative Compliance is requested to 11-3F-4A.6, which doesn’t allow common driveways off of a private street (see analysis above under V.G). Block face: In residential districts, the UDC (11-6C-3F) limits block faces to 750’ in length without an intersecting street or alley; except where a pedestrian connection is provided in which case the maximum block face may be extended up to 1,000’ in length, or with Council approval where block design is constrained by certain site conditions as detailed in UDC 11-6C-3F.3 which include when the property abuts an arterial street or highway as is the case in this instance. The face of Block 1 on the north side of W. Silver River Ln. (Lots 9-29) exceeds the maximum block length of 750’ at approximately 1,000’ and a pedestrian connection is not provided which would allow the block length to extend to 1,000’. The City Council may approve a block face up to 1,200’ in length where block design is constrained by site conditions that include an abutting arterial street or highway such as this; Council approval is required – otherwise the plat must be reconfigured to comply with this standard. Q. Waterways (UDC 11-3A-6): There are no waterways that exist on or cross this site. R. Fencing (UDC 11-3A-7): All proposed fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. Six-foot tall wood fencing is proposed around the perimeter of the development with 5-foot tall clear vision metal fencing along interior common areas. Note: Wood fencing is not allowed along the northern boundary as a sound attenuating material for noise abatement adjacent to the state highway as mentioned above. S. Utilities (UDC 11-3A-21): All development is required to connect to the City water and sewer system unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. Street lighting is required to be installed within the development in accord with the City’s adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda August 15, 2019 – Page 33 of 55 Page 12 T. Pressurized Irrigation System (UDC 11-3A-15) An underground PI system is proposed to be provided to each lot in the subdivision in accord with UDC 11-3A-15. The system will be operated and maintained by the Homeowner’s Association. U. Storm Drainage (UDC 11-3A-18) An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. Design and construction shall follow Best Management Practice as adopted by the City. V. Building Elevations (UDC 11-3A-19 | Architectural Standards Manual): Conceptual building elevations are proposed as shown in Section VII.F for the single -family alley-loaded and patio home units. All attached structures are required to comply with the residential design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. An administrative design review application must be submitted to the Planning Division and approved prior to submittal of building permit applications; one design review application may be submitted for the overall development. W. Planned Unit Developments (UDC 11-7-4E) In approving the planned development, the Council may prescribe appropriate conditions, additional conditions, bonds, and safeguards in conformity with this title that: 1. Minimize adverse impact of the use on other property. 2. Control the sequence and timing of the use. 3. Control the duration of the use. 4. Assure that the use and the property in which the use is located is maintained properly. 5. Designate the exact location and nature of the use and the property development. 6. Require the provision for on-site or off-site public facilities or services. 7. Require more restrictive standards than those generally required in this title. 8. Require mitigation of adverse impacts of the proposed development upon service delivery by any political subdivision, including school districts, which provides services within the city. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) VI. DECISION A. Staff/Director: Staff recommends approval of the subject applications with the conditions in Section VII in accord with the Findings in Section XI. The Director has approved the requests for private streets and alternative compliance. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda August 15, 2019 – Page 34 of 55 Page 13 VII. EXHIBITS A. Existing & Proposed Conceptual Development Plan for Development Agreement Existing (included in DA #2018-047368): Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda August 15, 2019 – Page 35 of 55 Page 14 Proposed: Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda August 15, 2019 – Page 36 of 55 Page 15 B. Preliminary Plat & Phasing Plan (date: 6/6/2019) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda August 15, 2019 – Page 37 of 55 Page 16 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda August 15, 2019 – Page 38 of 55 Page 17 C. Landscape Plan (date: 6/6/2019) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda August 15, 2019 – Page 39 of 55 Page 18 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda August 15, 2019 – Page 40 of 55 Page 19 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda August 15, 2019 – Page 41 of 55 Page 20 D. Qualified Open Space & Site Amenity Exhibits (date: 6/6/2019) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda August 15, 2019 – Page 42 of 55 Page 21 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda August 15, 2019 – Page 43 of 55 Page 22 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda August 15, 2019 – Page 44 of 55 Page 23 E. PUD Site Plan (Units & Setbacks) & Site Amenity Plan Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda August 15, 2019 – Page 45 of 55 Page 24 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda August 15, 2019 – Page 46 of 55 Page 25 F. Building Elevations Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda August 15, 2019 – Page 47 of 55 Page 26 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION 1. Within six (6) months of Council’s approval of the findings for the amended development agreement and prior to submittal of a final plat application, the developer shall sign and obtain Council approval of the amended development agreement that includes an updated development plan as shown in Section VII.A and includes the following revision to condition #5.1.5: a. Prior to issuance of any buildings other than the community center on the subject property, the property shall be subdivided. A building permit is allowed to be issued for the community center prior to recordation of the final plat. Prior to submittal of a building permit application, a Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application is required to be submitted and approved by the Planning Division. 2. The preliminary plat included in Section VII.B, dated 6/6/19 shall be revised as follows: a. Depict one (1) additional pathway for unrestricted access to pedestrians and bicycles within the proposed development in accord with UDC 11-3F-4A.4c in the vicinity of Lot 67, Block 1. b. Depict 14 additional parking spaces for guests on Lots 112 and 154 in addition to those proposed at the community center on Lot 133; the spaces shall be distributed between the two lots. c. Depict zero lot lines on those lots that have shared walls. 3. The landscape plan included in Section VII.C, dated 6/6/19 shall be revised as follows: a. The pathway on Lot 2 between Lots 31 and 32, Block 1 shall be shifted further to the south in the vicinity of Lot 41, Block 1 in alignment with the sidewalk on the north side of the future Costco building to the east; or, the Applicant shall coordinate with the developers of the Costco site to provide a safe pedestrian connection elsewhere between the two developments that avoids pedestrian/vehicular conflicts. b. Depict one (1) additional pathway for unrestricted access to pedestrians and bicycles within the proposed development in accord with UDC 11-3F-4A.4c in the vicinity of Lot 67, Block 1. c. Depict landscaping adjacent to pathways in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11- 3B-12C. d. Depict the location of the gates across the private street entries to the development; the gates shall be located a minimum of 50 feet back from the ultimate edge of right-of-way to the connecting public street to allow sufficient stacking distance as set forth in UDC 11-3F-4A.4. e. Depict 14 additional parking spaces for guests on Lots 112 and 154 in addition to those proposed at the community center on Lot 133; the spaces should be distributed between the two lots. f. The detail (#3) for the noise abatement buffer for residential uses adjacent to SH- 20/26/Chinden Blvd. shown on Sheet PPL1.5 shall be revised to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3H-4D.3. Wood fencing doesn’t qualify as a sound attenuating material. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda August 15, 2019 – Page 48 of 55 Page 27 4. Private streets within the development are required to comply with the design and construction standards listed in UDC 11-3F-4. Exception: Alternative Compliance was approved to UDC 11-3F-4A.6 to allow the common driveway off of the private street; to UDC 11-3F-4A.4b to allow the development to exceed 50 dwelling units in a gated development; and to UDC 11-3F-4B.2b, d to allow 29-foot wide private streets with parking one side of the street. 5. Parking is only allowed on one side of the internal private streets; the opposite sides shall be signed “No Parking – Fire Lane.” Parking should be provided on the sides in front of the alley accessed units rather than in front of the patio homes with front accessed garages. 6. No parking is allowed in alleys or within street sections where medians are proposed; install “No Parking – Fire Lane” signage accordingly. The parallel parking spaces off the alleys are allowed. 7. Off-street parking shall be provided for this site as set forth in UDC 11-3C-6 except that Alternative Compliance was approved to UDC Table 11-3C-6 not requiring outside parking pads to be provided for single-family residential units. 8. An exhibit shall be submitted with the final plat application for the lots accessed by the common driveway that depicts the setbacks, fencing, building envelope and orientation of the lots and structures in accord with UDC 11-6C-3D. Driveways for abutting properties that aren’t taking access from the common driveway(s) shall be depicted on the opposite side of the shared property line away from the common driveway. Solid fencing adjacent to common driveways is prohibited unless separated by a minimum 5-foot wide landscaped buffer. 9. Provide address signage at the street for homes on Lots 6 and 7, Block 1 accessed by the common driveway for emergency wayfinding purposes. 10. A perpetual ingress/egress easement shall be filed with the Ada County Recorder for the common driveway, which shall include a requirement for maintenance of a paved surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment. A copy of the recorded easement shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. 11. Alleys are required to be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3B.5. Exception: Alternative Compliance was approved which allowed the alleys to be designed so that the entire length is not visible from a public street since private streets are proposed within the development. 12. Provide a minimum of 80 square feet of private open space for each residential unit as required by UDC 11-7-4B in addition to the common open space & site amenity requirements in UDC 11-3G-3. This can be satisfied through porches, patios, decks and enclosed yards; landscaping, entryway and other accessways do not count toward this requirement. 13. The face of Block 1 on the north side of W. Silver River Ln. (Lots 9-29) exceeds the maximum block length of 750’ required by UDC 11-6C-3F; Council approval is needed to exceed the block face standard. Otherwise the plat shall be reconfigured to comply with this standard. 14. All attached structures are required to comply with the residential design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. An administrative design review application shall be submitted to the Planning Division and approved prior to submittal of building permit applications; one design review application may be submitted for the overall development. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda August 15, 2019 – Page 49 of 55 Page 28 B. PUBLIC WORKS Site Specific Conditions: 1. A street light plan will need to be included in the final plat application. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-7 of the City's Design Standards. A streetlight future installation agreement shall be executed for the required lights on Chinden Blvd. General Conditions: 2. Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. 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. 3. Per Meridian City Code (MCC), the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. 4. The applicant shall provide easement(s) for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way (include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat, but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian’s standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement (on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor, which must include the area of the easement (marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2” x 11” map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted, reviewed, and approved prior to development plan approval. 5. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water (MCC 12-13-8.3). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-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 prior to receiving development plan approval. 6. All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 7. All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work, the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42- 1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda August 15, 2019 – Page 50 of 55 Page 29 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. 9. Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections (208)375-5211. 10. Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated, road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded, prior to applying for building permits. 11. A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, etc., prior to signature on the final plat. 12. All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. 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 the issuance of a plan approval letter. 14. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 15. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 16. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 17. All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. 18. 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. 19. The design 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 the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 20. The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 21. At the completion of the project, the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda August 15, 2019 – Page 51 of 55 Page 30 22. A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272. 23. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the amount of 125% of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer, water and reuse infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 24. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20% of the total construction cost for all completed sewer, water and reuse infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?id=174247 D. POLICE DEPARTMENT http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/174818/Page1.aspx E. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?id=174313 F. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (DEQ) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/174583/Page1.aspx G. NAMPA-MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT (NMID) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/174695/Page1.aspx H. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT (ACHD) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/175610/Page1.aspx Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda August 15, 2019 – Page 52 of 55 Page 31 IX. FINDINGS A. PRELIMINARY PLAT (UDC 11-6B-6) In consideration of a preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat, the decision-making body shall make the following findings: 1. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; Staff finds that the proposed plat is in substantial compliance with the Medium Density Residential FLUM designation contained in the Comprehensive Plan. Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals, Section VII, of the Staff Report for more information. 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Staff finds that public services are available and will be provided to the subject property upon development. (See Exhibit B of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers.) 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City’s capital improvement program; Because City water and sewer and any other utilities will be provided by the developer at their own cost, Staff finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Based on comments provided in Exhibit B from the public service providers (i.e., Police, Fire, ACHD, etc.), Staff finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development. (See Exhibit B for more detail.) 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and Staff finds the proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare. ACHD and ITD consider road safety issues in their analyses. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. Staff is not aware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features on this site that need to be preserved. B. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (UDC 11-7-5): Upon recommendation from the Commission, the Council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing, review the application. In order to grant a planned development request, the Council shall make the following findings: 1. The planned unit development demonstrates exceptional high quality in site design through the provision of cohesive, continuous, visually related and functionally linked patterns of development, street and pathway layout, and building design. Staff finds the proposed PUD demonstrates a high quality of development and site design with amenities that provides unique housing options for those 55 and older in the community. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda August 15, 2019 – Page 53 of 55 Page 32 2. The planned unit development preserves the significant natural, scenic and/or historic features. Staff is unaware of any significant natural, scenic and/or historic features that may exist on this site. 3. The arrangement of uses and/or structures in the development does not cause damage, hazard, or nuisance to persons or property in the vicinity. Staff finds the proposed use and development of this property will not cause damage, hazard or nuisance to persons or property in the vicinity. 4. The internal street, bike and pedestrian circulation system is designed for the efficient and safe flow of vehicles, bicyclists and pedestrians without having a disruptive influence upon the activities and functions contained within the development, nor place an undue burden upon existing transportation and other public services in the surrounding area. Staff finds the internal private streets should provide for safe internal access to homes within the development and proposed pedestrian pathway will provide a safe bicycle and pedestrian route to the adjacent commercial development. 5. Community facilities, such as a park, recreational, and dedicated open space areas are functionally related and accessible to all dwelling units via pedestrian and/or bicycle pathways. Staff finds the proposed subdivision amenities (i.e. swimming pool, community center and outdoor activity area) are accessible to residents within the development via internal sidewalks. 6. The proposal complies with the density and use standards requirements in accord with chapter 2, "District Regulations", of this title. Staff finds the proposed single-family residential use of the development is a principal permitted use in the R-15 zoning district and falls within the density desired in this area. 7. The amenities provided are appropriate in number and scale to the proposed development. Staff finds the proposed amenities are appropriate for this development and provide a variety of entertainment for residents. 8. The planned unit development is in conformance with the comprehensive plan. Staff finds the proposed PUD is in general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. C. PRIVATE STREET (UDC 11-3F-4) In order to approve the application, the Director shall find the following: 1. The design of the private street meets the requirements of this Article; The design of the proposed private streets complies with the standards listed in UDC 11-3F- 4A except as approved through alternative compliance. See analysis in Section V for more information. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda August 15, 2019 – Page 54 of 55 Page 33 2. Granting approval of the private street would not cause damage hazard, or nuisance, or other detriment to persons, property, or uses in the vicinity; and Staff does not anticipate the proposed private streets would cause any hazard, nuisance or other detriment to persons, property or uses in the vicinity if they are designed as proposed and constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3F-4B. 3. The use and location of the private street shall not conflict with the comprehensive plan and/or the regional transportation plan. The location of the private streets does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and/or the regional transportation plan. 4. The proposed residential development (if applicable) is a mew or gated development. The proposed gated residential development includes mews. D. ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE (UDC 11-3A-19.2A) In order to grant approval for alternative compliance, the director shall determine the following findings: 1. Strict adherence or application of the requirements is not feasible; OR While it’s feasible for the applicant to comply with UDC standards pertaining to off-street parking and private streets, the Director finds the proposed development offers a unique design as proposed with the planned unit development. 2. The alternative compliance provides an equal or superior means for meeting the requirements; and The Director finds the planned unit development proposed by the applicant as a whole provides an equal or superior means for meeting the requirements in that it contributes to the unique character and diversity in housing types available within the City. 3. The alternative means will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or impair the intended uses and character of the surrounding properties. The Director finds that the proposed alternative means will not be detrimental to the public welfare or impair the intended use/character of the surrounding properties and will actually contribute to the character and variety of housing types in this area of the City. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda August 15, 2019 – Page 55 of 55 oZo TREE FARM WAy 111111 .1111111111101 , 1 d % Mill pq' �1 INIoBei W W 1r II� _ _ �• N.co lO�er N. TREE FARM WAYS..- m w 1 N N, N L— l� J VI I U UN. i- -1 ���LLL..Ecc. , � � •- Z. N � � j 143r,31� PRO A sO Cyn b N. TREE FAR1i WAY l — eol% i � � b r r J U-) 0 ZM'7 1 BAINBRIDGE NORTH -2019 2 2018 DA CONCEPT 3 4 Condition 3.a Move Pathway (“or”) Conditions 2.a & 3.b Add Pathway Conditions 2.b & 3.e Add Guest Parking Conditions 2.b & 3.e Add Guest Parking 5 APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH “NEW” REQUIREMENTS 6 7 CADENCE (Paramount) 8 APPLICANT REQUESTS... • MODIFY CONDITION 3.f • DELETE CONDITION 13 RECOMMENDATION of APPROVAL to COUNCIL QUESTIONS?