Loading...
2024-03-21 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Thursday, March 21, 2024 at 6:00 PM MINUTES PRESENT Commissioner Brian Garrett Commissioner Maria Lorcher Commissioner Patrick Grace Commissioner Matthew Sandoval ABSENT Commissioner Enrique Rivera Commissioner Jared Smith Chairperson Andrew Seal ADOPTION OF AGENDA Adopted CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\] Approved Motion to approve made by Commissioner Garrett, Seconded by Commissioner Sandoval. Voting Yea: Commissioner Garrett, Commissioner Lorcher, Commissioner Grace, Commissioner Sandoval 1. Approve Minutes of the March 07, 2024 Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 2. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Everbrook Academy at Amity (H-2023- 0051) by Paul Tucci, located at 4845, 4855 and 4867 S. Tavistock Ave. ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\] ACTION ITEMS 3. Public Hearing for Taylor Annexation (H-2023-0062) by Robert Taylor, located at 3840 E. Overland Rd. Recommend Approval to City Council Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2023-0062 A. Request: Annexation of 1.01 acres of land with an R-2 (Low-Density Residential) zoning district for the purpose of connecting to City utilities. Motion to recommend approval to City Council made by Commissioner Grace, Seconded by Commissioner Sandoval. Voting Yea: Commissioner Garrett, Commissioner Lorcher, Commissioner Grace, Commissioner Sandoval 4. Public Hearing for Cityside Storage (H-2023-0058) by Peter Stuhlreyer, Designhaus Architecture, LLC., located at 2755 N. Eagle Rd. Recommend Approval to City Council Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2023-0058 A. Request: Conditional Use Permit to allow for a 4-story self-storage facility and increase the building square footage from 32,500 to 135,000 on 2.08 acres of land in the C-G zoning district. B. Request: Development Agreement Modification to modify the existing Development Agreement to allow a 4-story self-storage facility and increase the building square footage from 32,500 to 135,000 on 2.08 acres of land in the C-G zoning district. Motion to recommend approval to City Council made by Commissioner Garrett, Seconded by Commissioner Grace. Voting Yea: Commissioner Garrett, Commissioner Lorcher, Commissioner Grace Voting Nay: Commissioner Sandoval ADJOURNMENT 7:44 PM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To view upcoming Public Hearing Notices, visit https://apps.meridiancity.org/phnotices --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting March 21, 2024. Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of March 21, 2024, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Vice-Chairman Maria Lorcher. Members Present: Commissioner Maria Lorcher, Commissioner Patrick Grace, Commissioner Brian Garrett and Commissioner Matthew Sandoval. Members Absent: Commissioner Andrew Seal, Commissioner Enrique Rivera and Commissioner Jared Smith. Others Present: Tina Lomeli, Kurt Starman, Bruce Freckleton, Stacy Hersh, Linda Ritter and Dean Willis. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE _X Brian Garrett X Maria Lorcher X Matthew Sandoval X Patrick Grace Enrique Rivera Jared Smith Andrew Seal - Chairman Lorcher: Good evening. Welcome to the Planning and Zoning Committee -- Committee meeting for March 21 st, 2024. At this time I would like to call the meeting to order. The Commissioners who are present for this meeting are at City Hall and on Zoom. We also have staff from the city and the attorney -- city attorney and the city clerk's office, as well as the City Planning Department. If you are joining us on Zoom this evening we can see that you are here. You may observe the meeting. However, your ability to be seen on screen or talk will be muted. During the public testimony portion of the meeting you will be unmuted and, then, be able to comment. Please note that we cannot take questions until the public testimony portion. If you have a process question during the meeting, please e-mail cityclerk@meridiancity.org and they will reply as quickly as possible. If you simply want to watch the meeting, we encourage you to watch the streaming on the city's YouTube channel. You can access it -- access it by -- at meridiancity.org/live. With that let's begin with roll call. Madam Clerk. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Lorcher: The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. There are no changes tonight. Can I get a motion to adopt tonight's agenda? Sandoval: So moved. Garrett: Second. Grace: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All in favor please say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 21,2024 Page 2 of 30 MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] 1. Approve Minutes of the March 07, 2024 Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 2. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Everbrook Academy at Amity (H-2023-0051) by Paul Tucci, located at 4845, 4855 and 4867 S. Tavistock Ave. Lorcher: The next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda. We have two items on the Consent Agenda. To approve the minutes of March 7th of 2024 P&Z meeting and facts, findings and conclusions of law for Everbrook Academy, File No. H-2023-0051 . Could I get a motion -- a motion to accept the Consent -- Consent Agenda as presented? Garrett: So moved. Sandoval: Second. Lorcher: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the Consent Agenda -- Agenda. At this time I would like to explain the public hearing process. Starman: Madam Chair, I might have missed it, but did we take a vote on that, a motion and second -- Lorcher: All those in favor say aye. Excuse me. Any opposed? All right. Motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] Lorcher: At this time I would briefly like to explain the public hearing process. We will open each item individually and begin with the staff report. Staff will report their findings on how the items adhere to our Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code. After staff has made their presentation the applicant will come forward to present their case and respond to staff comments. They will have 15 minutes to do so. After the applicant has finished we will open the floor to public testimony. Each person will be called only once during the public testimony. The Clerk will call the names individually for those who signed up on our website in advance to testify. If you -- you can come to the microphones in Chambers or you will be unmuted on Zoom. Please state your name and address for the record and you will have three minutes to address the Commission. If you have previously sent pictures or a presentation for the meeting, it will be displayed on screen and our Clerk will run the presentation. If you have Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 21,2024 Page 3 of 30 established that you are speaking on behalf of a larger group, like an HOA, where others from the group -- from that group will allow you to speak on their behalf, you will have up to ten minutes. After all of those who have signed up in advance have spoken, we will invite any others in Chambers who wish to make -- to testify and that includes on Zoom. If you wish to speak on a topic you may come forward in Chambers or press the raise hand button or if you are only listening on a phone please press star nine and wait for your name to be called. If you are listening on multiple devices, such as a computer and a phone, please, be sure to mute those extra devices, so we do not experience feedback and we can clearly hear you. When you are finished, if the Commission does not have any questions for you, you will return to your seat in Chambers or be muted on Zoom and no longer have the ability to speak. And please remember we will not call on you a second time. After all testimony has been heard the applicant will be given another ten minutes to come back and respond. When the applicant is finished responding to questions and concerns, we will close the public hearing, so that the Commissioners will have an opportunity to discuss and hopefully be able to make final recommendations or decisions to City Council as needed. ACTION ITEMS 3. Public Hearing for Taylor Annexation (H-2023-0062) by Robert Taylor, located at 3840 E. Overland Rd. A. Request: Annexation of 1 .01 acres of land with an R-2 (Low- Density Residential) zoning district for the purpose of connecting to City utilities. Lorcher: Tonight I would like to open the public hearing for Item No. H-2023-0062, annexation of 1 .1 acre in an R-2 zoning district for the purpose of connecting city utilities. We will begin with the staff report. Hersh: Good evening, Members of the Commission. The applicant has submitted an application for annexation and zoning. The site consists of 1 .01 acres of land, currently zoned R-1 in Ada county, located at 3840 East Overland Road. History on the property is none. The Comprehensive Plan FLUM designation is mixed use regional. The applicant proposes to annex a 1 .01 acre parcel, including the adjacent right of way to the section line of East Overland Road with an R-2 zoning district. A legal description and exhibit map for the annexation area is included with the application. The property has been what -- is within the city -- the city's area of city impact boundary. The reason for the annexation is the water table for the existing well on the single family residential property failed late last year and the applicant had to hook up to city water and sewer service. No -- no development or redevelopment of the property is proposed at this time and the use will remain residential for the foreseeable future. The applicant has entered into an agreement with the city for extension of domestic water and sewer service outside Meridian city limits for the subject property. This agreement allowed the property to hook up to city water and sanitary service with this connection for the private -- private well and septic system. A provision of the agreement requires the property F Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 21,2024 Page 4 of 30 owner to apply for annexation of the property into the city as proposed with this application. Due to the presence of an existing home on the property with the intention to maintain its residential use, an R-2 zoning district is requested as a place holder zoning district until the property redevelops in the future. Opting for a zoning district within the mixed use regional designation would create a nonconforming use. For example, a single family residence dwelling on an acre is not a permitted use in a commercial zoning district and it fails to meet density requirements for an R-15 or R-40 zoning district, which is not preferred. Prior to redevelopment a rezone should be requested and development proposed consistent with the commercial FLUM designation. Single family detached dwellings are listed as a personally permitted use in the R-2 zoning district. To ensure future development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in the land use desired for this property staff recommends a development agreement as a provision of the annexation pursuant to the Idaho Code section, which requires the property to be rezoned and the agreement modified to include a conceptual development plan prior to any change in use and/or development of the property. The proposed existing home appears to comply with the dimensional standards of the district. Access to the property is currently from East Overland Road, with future redevelopment of the property access via East Overland Road and interconnectivity with adjacent properties will be evaluated in accordance with the provisions listed in the UDC. Off-street parking is required to be provided in accordance with the standards in the UDC for single family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. The existing home does not meet the required off-street parking spaces per the UDC Table for a three bedroom. Four parking spaces are required, at least two in the enclosed garage and other spaces may be enclosed or a minimum of a ten by 20 foot parking pad. The existing home does not have an enclosed two car garage, whoever there is an existing 30 by 20 foot driveway. The existing home is recognized as nonconforming due to the off-street parking requirements in the UDC. Per the UDC no existing structure containing a nonconforming use may be enlarged, extended, constructed, reconstructed, moved or structurally altered, except through the approval of a conditional use permit. As a result of the nonconformity, the applicant is required to apply for a conditional use permit for any future expansions on the property or attain compliance by constructing a new two car garage. Overland is improved with an existing seven foot wide attached concrete sidewalk abutting the site in accordance with the UDC standards. Staff is not recommending that the sidewalk be replaced with any -- with a seven foot detach sidewalk. The Meridian Pathways Master Plan map indicates a planned pathway on the north side of the Five Mile Creek to be constructed by the city in the future. The applicant should submit a dedicated easement for the pathway to the city. Connection to city water and sewer services is required in accordance with the UDC. The applicant has entered into an agreement with the city for the extension of these water and sewer services outside of Meridian city limits for the subject property. The applicant is currently connected to these city utilities. Written testimony is none and staff does recommend approval of the annexation subject to the conditions and findings outlined in the staff report and that concludes staff's presentation and I stand for any questions. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 21,2024 Page 5 of 30 Lorcher: Commissioners, do you have any questions for staff? Would the applicant like to come forward? Starman: Sir, if you do want to speak you are welcome to come to the podium. You are not required to do so. I see you shaking your head. So, for the record -- for the record I will note the applicant has declined to comment and so, Madam Chair, you may proceed. Lorcher: Is there anybody signed up for public testimony? Lomeli: Thank you, Madam Chair. We do not have anybody signed up in person. There are a few attendees online if they would like to raise their hand and give testimony. Lorcher: We haven't had this before, so -- so you don't wish to speak. There is nobody here in Chambers, so can we close the public hearing? May I have a motion to close the public hearing? Garrett: So moved. Grace: Second. Sandoval: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Lorcher: All right. Commissioners, do you have anything to say about this application? Or a motion? Grace: Madam Chair, can I -- can I get a clarification? Is -- this is a -- I don't have the benefit of the -- the sheet that we normally get when I'm present in the City Hall spaces. So, this is -- this is a recommendation, as I understand it, to City Council; is that accurate? Lorcher: Commissioner Grace, no, this is -- an annexation -- we are not -- Starman: Madam Chair, Commissioners, Commissioner Grace, that's -- your comment, Commissioner Grace, is accurate. This is a recommendation to the City Council relative to the annexation request. So, you are a recommending body for this -- for this particular application. Grace: Okay. With that, Madam Chair, I would take stab at a motion here, if that's appropriate. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 21,2024 Page 6 of 30 Lorcher: Okay. Grace: So, after considering all staff and applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval of File No. H-2023-0062 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 21 st, 2024, with no modifications. Sandoval: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to approve File No. H-2023-0062, annexation to Meridian City Council. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. 4. Public Hearing for Cityside Storage (H-2023-0058) by Peter Stuhlreyer, Designhaus Architecture, LLC., located at 2755 N. Eagle Rd. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit to allow for a 4-story self-storage facility and increase the building square footage from 32,500 to 135,000 on 2.08 acres of land in the C-G zoning district. B. Request: Development Agreement Modification to modify the existing Development Agreement to allow a 4-story self-storage facility and increase the building square footage from 32,500 to 135,000 on 2.08 acres of land in the C-G zoning district. Lorcher: The second item on the agenda is Item No. H-2023-0058 for a conditional use permit for Cityside Storage and a DA modification to allow a four story self-service storage and increase the square footage of a building on 2.0 acres of land in the C-G zoning district. We will begin with the staff report. Ritter: Good evening. I'm Linda Ritter, associate planner. Madam Vice-Chair and Commission, this evening the applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for -- and a DA modification to construct a 54.5 foot four story 135,000 square foot self-service storage facility containing 777 units and 15 exterior -- 15 exterior drive-up self-storage units in climate control structures for a total of 792 units with a global footprint of 32,500 square feet on 2.8 acres of land, zoned C-G, located at 2755 Eagle Road. Access to the site is on the existing private road, North Cajun Lane, which is this lane back here. Ustick Road east from North Eagle Road there is no direct access to the property from North Eagle Road. It is required -- there is a total of eight parking spaces that are proposed, which exceeds the UDC minimum standard as parking is based on the square footage of the office space, which is 862 square feet. There is existing a 20 foot landscape buffer, with a ten foot detached sidewalk along Eagle Road. The property owner is proposing an additional ten feet of landscape along Eagle Road that shall be installed per the standards of the UDC. A 25 foot wide buffer -- landscape buffer is required for the residential land uses to the west as set forth in the UDC. There is Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 21,2024 Page 7 of 30 existing landscaping on the multi-use pathway along the southern property boundary, which was installed with the previous development. There are no existing trees on this site, other than the landscaping along the pathway, which will not be removed and protected during construction. Per the Parks Department multi-use pathways already exist in this area and no additional pathways are required. Pedestrian lighting along Eagle Road is being required with this development and shall meet the UD -- UDC standard for posting. Historical type lighting will be required per the City of Meridian standards. It sets the height of these lightings will be 14 feet. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed structure. Building materials consist of metal panels and stone pattern tiles. Final design is required to comply with the design standards of our architectural standards manual and the recorded agreement. The site plan depicts the stucco wall, enclosing the property as fencing for the property. As you can see this is like renderings for the proposed structure. This is an aerial of the site and it's surrounded by residential on the west side and on the south and this is commercial along Eagle Road here and across the street on the east -- on the east side this is a commercial area and this area is -- sorry -- are filled with apartments. So, this is a zoning map showing what is surrounding the property. And this is looking west on the property. And this is looking east. And this is looking north. So, the development agreement -- the existing development agreement only allows users, such as retail, restaurant and office. A storage facility is not considered office nor retail and is defined -- and retail is defined as the use of a site that offers merchandise to the public for monetary compensation. The use includes, but is not limited to, convenience stores, food stores, apparel and accessories stores, books, computers and music stores, electronics, appliances, floors, furniture and home furnishings, general health, personal care stores, hobby, office supplies, stationery, gift stores, specialty stores, sporting goods and used merchandise stores. So, as you can see our code does not define storage as retail. Existing development also has a maximum square footage of the building in the C-G portion of the project shall not exceed 32,500 square feet. So, the applicant's request is almost four times the square footage for the proposed storage facility being allotted to the existing commercial business within the subdivision. The new DA will add storage facilities as a use. It will increase the building square footage to 135,000 square feet, with a building footprint of 32,500 square feet. So, this is the comparison table that I did showing what the square footage of the existing retail services are out there and the height of the different retail services and residential areas. Staff is recommending -- because of the type of -- because of the development agreement that is there staff is recommending the applicant enter into a new development agreement as there are too many elements subject to the previous agreement. The new DA should also include parcel number R0945580265, which is -- is another parcel that is owned by the applicant, along with the revised concept plan and commercial/office building elevations showing future development of this parcel. A provision in the new DA will limit the height of all the buildings to a maximum height of 35 feet. Staff is requesting that we received this 15 days prior to the City Council hearing -- hearing. The applicant should provide a revised concept plan, commercial office building elevation and legal description of the property that will be subject to the new DA. And, again, the comparison tables that I showed you is a valuable tool for assessing the proposed development impacts of neighborhood where it has visual 10 1 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 21,2024 Page 8 of 30 harmony and overall character. So, a 64 percent increase in height compared to the tallest building in the immediate area is a significant difference and that warrants careful consideration. Again -- let me go back to this one. Sorry. The applicant stated that the scale of the building will make the project much more economically feasible, since the high cost of the land can be spread across more units. The applicant can also state that the proposed height of 54.5 feet conforms with the existing C-G zoning allowance of 65 feet, which was a significant consideration in the developer's decision to purchase the land. Although the applicant has put forth several arguments in favor of the proposed location building scale, emphasizing the transition with the existing residential area, economic feasibility and adherence to design regulations, it is important to remember there is an existing development agreement that regulates the use -- the uses and square footage of buildings on the property. It is also crucial to consider the visual and architectural harmony within the surrounding context. So, this picture provides a snapshot of the height difference with the existing structure and the proposed self- storage facility. So, as you can see there is a significant difference in the height that's been requested and the height of the buildings that are along Eagle Road there on that west side. So, staff feels that the proposed height will not be harmonious with the adjacent residential and commercial uses and will impact these uses as it may lead to overshadowing of neighboring structures or altering the character of the area, which are a concern. So, the visual impacts to this portion of the height of the building may disrupt the visual harmony of the surrounding areas, it could potentially create lines or clash with the existing aesthetics. It could create overshadowing -- the height of the building might cast shadows over the neighboring structures and impact the natural light and potentially their functionality. And, again, the character of the neighborhood, the proposed development, may alter the character the neighborhood or area, maintaining compatibility with the existing function is crucial -- crucial for preserving overall aesthetics and functionality of the neighborhood. So, staff feels that the storage facility would not meet the dimensional standards for -- would meet the dimensional standards for setbacks, landscape buffers and parking requirements. However, the development agreement does not allow for storage facility as a use -- as a use without an amendment to this agreement -- to the existing DA agreement. And, furthermore, in doing research on this, the CUP that was approved in 2006 limited the building -- where did my page go? The water conditions added to the development agreement based on -- now I can't find -- they were concerned about the compatibility of the residential -- the commercial area with the residential area, so they added -- made sure that they would add something to the development agreement that the -- the nonresidential buildings would have a max square footage of 65,000 square feet, but only one -- the maximum square footage of one single building they cannot exceed the -- half of the maximum request, which is 65,000 square feet. So, staff also finds that the proposed storage facility, if approved at the request of height and square footage would not maintain compatibility with the existing structures, which is crucial not only for, again, esthetics, but also functional integration with the new development community. Therefore, staff recommends that the building height not exceed 35 feet in height, which is consistent with the adjacent structures in the area and staff is -- but staff is not opposed to additional square footage as long as the applicant will keep the structures at a maximum height of 35 feet. There was no written testimony for this. And, again, staff 11 1 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 21,2024 Page 9 of 30 will recommend approval of this proposed modification to the development agreement and conditional use permit subject to conditions and the findings outlined in the -- in our staff report. And at this time I would stand for any questions that you may have. Lorcher: Would the applicant like to come forward. Hosac: Thank you, Linda. Appreciate it. Lorcher: Hi. Can you, please, state your name and address for the record, please. Hosac: My name is Ken Hosac and I'm the CEO from of Hosac Ventures and the owner of the property and developer of the property. Lorcher: Could you also list your address, please? Hosac: My home address is 1403 West Camelback Lane in Boise. Lorcher: Okay. Hosac: I put it on the sign-up sheet as well. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you. Hosac: All right. So, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, my name is Ken Hosac, again, I'm CEO of Hosac Ventures. I'm the owner of the property via my ownership entity, which is called HV55, Hosac Ventures 55, and, then, I am also a -- the developer of the property via a development entity that I call Hosac Ventures and happy to be here. Linda, thank you very much. You did a great job on the staff report. I wanted to also introduce my team, if I can go there. The architect Designhaus Architecture. So, Peter Stuhlreyer and his team had been working on these concepts with me for over a year now. Probably close to two years. And, then, I have bought -- as land use consultants I have brought in Rodney Evans and Ben Semple. And, obviously, we have been having a lot of exchanges with them over the last few days in preparation. The -- this site should be very familiar to the City of Meridian, both from the standpoint of planning staff, P&Z, City Council, both current members and former members, because this has been up in front of you guys for 20 years -- last 20 years. It's -- it's a very very challenging -- you know, from a development perspective it's a very very challenging site to develop and I will go into the details on that. So, if you look at the two photos -- and I shifted everything 90 degrees to the left, so on this north is now to the left, so that you can see the full property, but the -- our application was for the big lot, 2755, and, then, staff asked that I actually show my concepts what I'm thinking about for that back lot. So, I will be talking about that. The other thing is that dotted yellow line right below the text of the right line, that was the former property line and it just didn't make sense, so I worked with Pat Tealey, we did a lot line adjustment and we shifted the lot line right to that access road, Discount Tire, because that's an easement and it was a natural break between the two lots. So, from a -- you know, when I bought 12 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 21,2024 Page 10 of 30 this three years ago I knew that this was going to be a challenge to develop. The access to this site is incredibly poor. I mean it's horrible. Without access to Eagle Road any traffic from the site has to go through either that residential street, which is Cajun Lane, North Cajun Lane, or it has to go through the commercial parking lot that you see where those red lines are and the red line where it crosses into the parking lot, we have an easement there. We gave -- we took that easement in exchange for giving Discount Tire that easement and when I say they, I'm talking about all the people before me. What makes this even worse is that it's bordered by residential on two sides and so you see to the right, which is the south, is Carol Subdivision. People that live on Leslie -- East Leslie Drive and, then, on the bottom, which is actually to the west, all these you know, townhomes part of the Bienville Square Subdivision No. 3. Are there any neighbors here? Okay. That will be good. That's the first neighbor feedback we have, so -- Grace: Madam Chair and Ken, I hate to interrupt you. I'm sorry. I'm just having a hard time hearing you. I'm online here. I wonder if you could just put that microphone just a little closer, sir. Hosac: Okay. How about this? Grace: That's perfect. Thank you. Lorcher: We have one Commissioner online. Hosac: Okay. Grace: Thank you. Hosac: That's Commissioner Grace? Lorcher: Yes. Hosac: Okay. So, anyway, it's a challenging development. If I could -- and, hopefully, this is better. And thanks for letting me know, because a lot of my team is online virtually, when you ask -- wondering who those people were, I have a lot of my -- my team on there. I have -- my wife Lori is here. My brother. My nephew, so I have all the support I can, so -- but, anyway, if I could -- let's see. I'm a PowerPoint expert, but this has me befuddled. And you said there was going to be a delay, so maybe that was it. Okay. So, if I could wave my magic wand what I would do is I would -- it's just really -- I would add access to Eagle Road. I would create a right-in, right-out intersection there exactly opposite the existing one on the other side of the street and I would take advantage of the existing deceleration lane that goes into Carol Subdivision. I would just extend that and that would make this site very usable. But apparently I'm the only one that wants to do that and I know that staff doesn't. I know this -- the Commission doesn't. I know City Council doesn't. I know ACHD doesn't. I know ITD doesn't. So, relax, I'm not asking for it. But that's just the fact. But what I wanted to do is recognize F13] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 21,2024 Page 11 of 30 that -- you know, I read through the staff report. There is a lot of common ground in that and I'm very happy that the project has been approved with the condition of the height. I mean that's -- that's a big deal, but I think it recognizes that this location is a very sensitive area when you are transitioning from commercial to residential. You know, traffic -- you know, for self-storage, the use of self storage has low traffic counts, low parking conflicts, less noise. Neighborhood compatibility is pretty high. There is no neighborhood objections -- and I will add the word to date, because, you know, we will find out in ten minutes. Yeah, we don't agree -- self storage is not retail and I agree with Linda on this, because UDC gets to call that, but you talk to real estate -- commercial real estate brokers that specialize in self-storage, everyone in the industry considers it quasi retail and I'm not going to try to make that point to argue not doing a DA, but I just want everyone to understand that it actually is a good compatible fit for that area. We agree on access parking, sidewalks, landscaping, fencing, outdoor lighting, utility, dimensional standards and I think everyone is relieved we are not actually asking for access to Eagle Road. So, the only issue we have is the proposed condition of height doesn't work and so I will just go through that. So, I look at the key discussion items between the staff -- the applicant and the staff, it really boils down to three things, use, height and square footage and, really, the key thing is the height. The height is what drives the square footage, but also I want to go through the background of use, because I want to explain my pass -- my thought process for getting to this self-storage use, because, frankly, it wasn't my number one pick. I didn't even think about it when I bought the site. So, I read -- and as part of my due diligence, I looked at the zoning, which, you know, obviously, it's C-G, let's me go up to 65. 1 looked at the current DA, which limits us to office, retail, restaurant and I thought great, I had worked with John Price when he helped my father develop the CitySide Lofts in downtown Boise, a 77 unit condo project, right at the edge of the connector. John Price, 15 years ago did a fabulous job. So, I called up John. He is retired. But -- so, he basically connected me with the folks in the office and I said, hey, I want to do some concepts and so the first concept they did was commercial, exactly what the DA wants. Office. Retail. Restaurants. It's about 20,000 square feet across three buildings with access -- I had two -- two versions, one with access to Eagle Road and one without and, then, I reviewed it with my commercial real estate broker, who is Jim Hosac, he is in the room and -- but more importantly I reviewed it with my banker and my banker now is chief credit officer at one of the local community banks and I do all my banking with them. She is fabulous. And they both said that without Eagle Road access this project is dead on arrival and my banker actually went to the next step and said, look, I love you, Ken, we bank with you all the time, but I don't think the bank would finance this as a dead- end project. It's literally at a dead end and she said if you were to try to fill that up with restaurant users, retail users, office, you would have to lower the lease rate so much that it would be below your cost to compete with all the people that do have access. It made me sad, because that's why I bought the property. That's kind of what I was looking at. So, then, my father, who is a real estate developer, he would -- he had a civil engineering firm here. He has done a ton of projects here in Meridian, west Boise, downtown Boise, the Highlands. He offered to take a stab and so he took that project and he took all seven -- he took -- created one subdivision with seven lots and I liked it, because from a risk standpoint I can phase that, I can do retail, office, restaurant. I can 14 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 21,2024 Page 12 of 30 do build to suit. Build to spec. And I can really reduce the risk. But he said it just doesn't work without access to Eagle Road. So, if this -- and, by the way, I already said this. Staff had asked me to show my concept for the back lot, that other lot, so, you know, again, that's the one to the north of this lot adjacent to him. So, it's a simple seven story -- or, excuse me -- seven story. Single story, 7,000 square foot office building with a separate parking lot, just to try to make it easy. So, there is nothing fancy back there and I -- the reason Linda wanted me to include this is I think the concept is we do one DA modification that covers both, so we don't have to come back here. I also -- so, at this point it became really clear that even though I wanted to, the retail, restaurant, office wasn't going to work on this and there is a reason this is the last undeveloped lot in that commercial subdivision. So, I had the architect look at smaller things. Vertically integrated residential. I mean this is -- there is a housing shortage and so we did two concepts, one that was 36 units, one that was commercial 8,000 and, anyway, did that, did a podium story -- four story podium with 56 units. It actually -- the next thing is it's a permitted use, so I don't need a conditional use permit. I don't need to come here for that and -- but I would have to look at the development agreement to see -- if there is a commercial element of this that might meet the standards for the development, but it's another discussion, so -- so, looked at garden style apartments, with access to Eagle Road, et cetera. Looked at self-storage. Did a single story, 28,000 square feet across nine buildings. At that point that's when I brought in the team at Designhaus -- Designhaus, because they are self-storage experts and we are kind of multi-family design and that's where we got this design. So, the reason I'm going through these concepts with you is I really wanted to do retail, office and restaurant. That's what I thought I could do. It's not possible at that space without -- without access to Eagle Road and, you know, if I can't -- if I'm unable to make this work and I sell the project, you are going to be dealing with this for years. So, I did go get a lot of neighborhood feedback. A hundred percent positive. They would rather see -- and I met with representatives of each of the two HOAs to the east -- or to the west and they were a hundred percent supportive. So, I took a long time on this and there are a lot of benefits that are in the narrative, but the bottom line is there is a high neighborhood happiness factor for doing self-storage and I don't think staff questions that. So, let me just go into a couple of the other key things -- and looking at that clock. The issue is the building height. I'm zoned at 65. We proposed 55. Staff came back at 35. 1 was only aware that the 35 requirement was going to come out about three days ago. So, I really -- I think there are some options that we have to negotiate on this. We don't have to be at 55, but I wanted to walk through -- you know, a walk through the neighborhood to kind of see some of these pictures, so I'm going to do this quickly. So, on the -- first of all, retail -- this is the retail mecca of Idaho, when you combine Fairview and Ustick, there is no doubt that even compared to Boise Town Mall this is better. If you look to the west, one thing you notice about the townhomes -- and they are 30 feet. It's garages, blank walls, and small windows that are opaque that go to bathrooms and the reason for this is the same developer did this subdivision that was doing the commercial subdivision, Cory Swain. Cory Swain envisioned that there were going to be tall buildings and he designed these buildings specifically so that it wouldn't affect them, if you will, and here is the view from across the street. And, again, this is the full 55. 1 15 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 21,2024 Page 13 of 30 think we can go much lower and -- and my presentation just went down. Is there any way to pause the clock until I get it back? Lorcher: We will add a minute. Hosac: Thank you. Time out. And who is running the timer? Lorcher: The city clerk is. She will -- Hosac: Okay. If you are okay with letting me have an extra minute, then, what I would suggest is let it -- give me two minutes and, then, start the timer again. I -- it is distracting, but I also need the time to kind of walk through these pictures, if that's okay with you guys. Okay. So, I do need to go -- before you start it I do need to go back to where I was, though. Okay. This is not letting me go back. Lorcher: It looks like we ended with number 43. Hosac: Yeah. Here is where I was. I was on 30. Lorcher: Oh. Okay. Hosac: All right. So, I will go through these quickly. This is the view -- if you look at the view from their sidewalk at the building, yes, it is tall. I think there is some compromise we can do to get that down. If you look to the south, which is Carol Subdivision, this is -- I'm standing in the middle of this lot. I took it yesterday. There is -- they have been planning for tall buildings here for years. I mean these homes were built -- they have been through all the Cory Swain DA modifications. I was surprised that no one from Leslie Lane was here, because there were a ton of them here -- if you look at the top you can see that there are basically three lots that are directly south and they all have a ton of trees. My architect did a rendering from the backyard one of those and you can see that, you know, they are out building in the trees. They are not even going to see the project. We purposely massed the project away from the residential area and that's why we wanted the extra height, so that we can put it towards Eagle Road, towards Commercial Tire and away from the rest of the project. Discount Tire -- I reviewed the plans with their headquarters in Scottsdale. They loved it. We had proactively stepped the building back ten feet from -- from the boundary and all they wanted was the northbound traffic on Eagle Road to see their -- their side of the building. They are really happy with it. And this is the view from the southeast, again, where the neighbors are. So, I walked across the street -- not literally. This is what's being built. It's -- everything is four stories. So, this is directly across the street. This is a little bit to the southwest. This is the view down below of a self-storage project that was approved here at Planning and Zoning and by City Council. I will talk about that later. Just directly across the street. The application was 50 feet -- 42 to 50 feet. This -- walking down the street, the Boise Co-op, I thought this was an interesting point of how you are able to put four story buildings right next to two story buildings and make them look good. I don't think anyone argues that this is an issue. So, on the renderings, again, I F16] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 21,2024 Page 14 of 30 kind of mixed these through. This is across the street from the west. This is the full 54 feet. If we get that down it will be less of a contrast. But, again, we didn't know that we had to. So, what's typical for self-storage? I looked at three projects. The U-Haul project on Franklin, the U-Haul project on Overland and the box storage project across the street. Fifty for four story, 39 for a three story, about 50 for -- you know, 42 to 50. Here is the U-Haul. Here is the other U-Haul. Here is the box storage and this is the box storage application with the Mayor's signature. So, one thing about economic feasibility, I wanted to just go through as -- the revenue is directly proportional to the number of floors, but the construction cost is not. The construction cost is a fixed element in a variable element and what that means is as you -- and I did this chart. As you reduce the stories it's basically cutting, you know, from four to three to two, is cutting -- cutting it to 75 percent of revenue, 50 percent of revenue. But the cost, because of the fixed costs of land, the landscaping, the foundation, the site plan, the utilities, you are spreading it across fewer floors. So, one more thing. As -- as a developer we have strong incentives for reducing the height of each floor and reducing the height of the building. It's -- it's more costly to build and it's more costly to operate, because you are heating extra space. If you shrink the space it's less space. So, we are all for bringing this down. So, anyway, I think the path to compromise on this is to recognize that this is a subjective nature of determining neighborhood fit and based on the renderings I showed you, based on the compatibility, based on talking to the neighboring HOAs, they do not see it as incompatible. They are so relieved that it's not, you know, thousands of cars a day with drunk drivers trying to get to their apartment. They recognize -- you know, but I think everyone recognizes the project is not feasible without four stories. I hired two feasibility consultants, 70 grand -- or seven grand each, and they basically said four stories. So, we understand the city wants to reduce the height. There is no neighborhood objections. We -- you know, we want to recognize zoning height. So, what we are proposing is a compromise of 48 feet. It's less than the 55 feet that's in there. It's higher than 35, but 45 -- or 48 is the least heights that we wouldn't get to and still be four stories, because this project doesn't haunt for four stories. Nothing I want to say is -- for square footage, in my 20 seconds left, with 32 -- the maximum of 32,500 is building footprint. I have always known that. The way these are created is -- and this is how -- you know, look at that floor area ratio with a lot, they look at all the lots and they want to see how much is the building footprint versus this. The DA wasn't there, so I called Cory Swain, the developer, and his recollection was that was the building footprint and I only had three days to research it, so -- I will stop there and I understand I may have another ten minutes as a rebuttal? Thank you. So, do we turn it over to comment or do you have questions for me now? Lorcher: So, the next step is we will take public testimony and, then, we will ask you to come back up and if there is other questions we could ask you at that time. Hosac: Thank you. Lorcher: Okay. Madam Clerk, is there anybody signed up for public testimony? Lomeli: Thank you, Madam Chair. I have Veda Ballard. F17] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 21,2024 Page 15 of 30 Lorcher: If you can, please, state your name and address for the record, please. Ballard: Veda Ballard. 646 West Sedgewick here in Meridian. I'm pleased with the idea that it's coming down in height. That excites me. My interest in this whole thing is I own three properties that are across the street from this building. Two directly across on North Cajun. I'm a little bit concerned. We go from a hundred -- or excuse me -- 32 50 -- 32,500 square feet, so that doesn't just include one -- one level. It includes the other -- the other building that he is talking about that I -- I have never seen. Is that true? Lorcher: No. The building -- the footprint of the building would be 3,250. It would be like the size of the actual building, but, then, the actual volume of the building he is suggesting as 135,000 square feet. Ballard: That's a big jump. Lorcher: It a big jump, but he is -- he has suggested in this presentation that it would go from 54 -- 54 feet down to 48 feet. Ballard: Yeah. I'm excited -- I'm excited about that. I saw the original plans. They sent them to me and I'm quite thrilled with them. I'm delighted and I don't have a problem with that. It's the idea that we have this huge giant up there and I guess I don't have a chance that I'm going to talk against the giant across the street in a very pretty residential neighborhood and I note the setback and it's kind of a park-like area in front of it and I thrilled with that. I'm just concerned with the height. It just takes -- it's like all of a sudden the homes are downtown, instead of being out in residential, nice neighborhood of Meridian. It's just going to make all the difference in the neighborhood if they are that height. So, that's my concern and I don't mind telling you about it. Lorcher: Thank you very much. Is there anybody in Chambers that would like to testify? Lomeli: Madam Chair, no one else has signed up online or anybody here. If anybody online would like to raise their hand they may. Lorcher: All right. The applicant may come forward. Hosac: Okay. So, I just want to say that -- that's very courageous if you need me to come up and be able to do that. So, thank you very much for the feedback. Yeah. This is a -- again, this is a very, very difficult piece of land to develop and, again, you know, when I talk about feasibility -- actually, let we go back to the original intent of the sub -- of this subdivision. So, Cory Swain, when he -- when he had that -- had the entire Bienville Square area, which now consists of Bienville Square Commercial, it consists of the Bienville Square -- Bienville Square Subdivision No. 3, which is where she has three of the units. A majority of the -- of the units in that area are owned by investors, by the way. It's just -- it's well over 50 percent, if not closer to 70. And, then, Jackson Square, 18 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 21,2024 Page 16 of 30 and, as you know, these -- this is a very vocal neighborhood. You know, these are the people that came in here for the Oasis Nightclub. These are the people that have come in here for the -- for Villa Sports Center that you guys had discussed. These are the people that are coming in for the massive apartment building that replaced it. This is the only neighborhood feedback that I have gotten around this and I wish -- and, again, I know Linda is doing a great job on this. We could -- if we had known -- because this didn't really come up in our last two pre-application meeting. Linda asked about three floors. We discussed it verbally. But it wasn't in the staff report. So, you know, if I had known a little bit earlier, we might have been able to negotiate something a little bit, but at this point in the game it's just -- it's a really tough time to do this. The other thing I would say is on the square footage, again, I think -- I'm glad that you have counsel. I think it's worth looking into. I reached out to -- like to determine this building footprint issue, which you brought up and so I'm addressing it as part of my -- especially after that. I really believe that it was 32,500 feet, but the DA was written so poorly it didn't really decide that. But that's what architects do is they limit the building footprint and, then, you control the heights through zoning and other things like that. I called Cory Swain -- or I sent him an e-mail and he came back and -- last night confirmed that his recollection is that it was the footprint. I reached out to our good friend Bob Unger, who -- and thankfully he is retired and living in France, but he has been helping for the last couple of years. I wasn't able to get him. I reached out to Idaho Mutual Trust, which also on this property during the turmoil, their real estate attorney at the time Ben Slaughter, just by coincidence, happens to be my current real estate attorney and so I reached out to him and he said this is so long ago he can't be for sure, but to him it made sense that it would be the building permit. He reached out to Dan Bureau at Idaho Mutual and Dan said I have no idea. So, I think the intent there is that it would be the building footprint. You control it. But I think there is work -- if -- so my recommendation, you know, kind of in closing, is that, you know, obviously, we are seeking approval from the Planning and Zoning Department and if I were to write the motion -- and I understand that that's a very -- you know, I'm trying to be humble about this, but if I were to suggest a recommended motion I would recommend that we lower the maximum height to 48 feet. I would like to actually keep it at 54 or 50, because I think it's in our mutual best interest to have some discussion around the parapet at the top and trying to get some vertical articulation in it and -- but if we were to -- if we were to approve 54 or -- or 50 1 would give you my personal commitment that I would do everything possible to get this as low as possible and maximize that height per floor. The first floor we are a little constraint, because we want to keep the noise inside the units and the first floor needs to be a little higher for us to have indoor loading trucks. Need a little bit of height to be able to back a truck in there and keep it inside. But every floor above that would be the bare minimum and, you know, we might be able to get it down to, you know, 44 without the parapet, but, then, again, it's -- it's -- you know, you don't want that U-Haul look where you have a flat line that goes across a city block. I think there is some opportunity to articulate it. In fairness to the neighbors, we don't need to do that on the back side of the project at all. I mean if we are going to have that height it's possible you get that height on the Eagle Road side and maybe, you know, start with a 45 foot building and you do two feet, get it up there to 47. But, anyway, that's why I'm recommending that -- that we consider at a minimum approving 48 feet. F-19 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 21,2024 Page 17 of 30 It -- as you walk through the neighborhood I think I'm -- hopefully I was able to convey through all the renderings that we did -- looking at the way that the subdivision was designed, the way Cory Swain designed it, knowing that there were going to be tall buildings and -- and, then, I just -- you know, if we are going to modify the DA, just make it clear by adding the word footprint. It just makes it clear. I opened Pandora's Box by trying to specify the gross square footage and I should have never done that. And, then, you know, consider -- I don't know how important vertically integrated residential is to this commission, but consider adding -- making sure that that specific is -- is a use in the development agreement. It might be considered already in there, because it's got that commercial element, but if that's something you want to work on that's something to do, too. I would say the -- one other thing on the height is it is incredibly important to me that the development agreements say that that only applies to self-storage, because if I can't do it -- if the numbers don't work and I can't do a project and I have to sell that land, I can't have that -- I need to let someone else fight that battle, not me, and so I can't artificially constrain to a certain height. On the CUP no changes. I mean a lot of those conditional use -- but, you know, the color -- I think Linda made a comment about, you know, that's not really compatible. I'm not a color guy. The architect said what color do you want and I said my favorite color is green. So, it's green in there. But the reality is when we get serious about this it's going to be compatible with the neighborhood. Compatible with -- it's going to be a lot more neutral, probably with the surrounding environment. What I'm hoping that you hear from me is -- I have no issues working with staff to make this a great project, but I need four stories -- or I should say the project needs four stories to be viable and I will do everything I can to minimize the height of those four stories. Let me just look at one last thing. Okay. Yeah. Like I said, I'm a PowerPoint expert, but I always -- there it is. I at least have the mouse button go back. Yeah. So, this is -- this is the slide I wanted to talk about. It's the -- you know, keep the maximum building footprint at 32,500. 1 think that's adequate. Reduce the height to 48 or maybe a little higher if we want to work out that vertical articulation. Only for self-storage. Reserve the right to build a conforming use for a permitted use. And, you know, we can look at what the DA -- it's supposed to be about building footprint and we do change it as necessary, which is a -- so, I think that the last thing I would say, just to kind of recap where I came from, this is over the last three years I have put a lot of time, effort and money into trying to get this development. I really wanted to do retail and restaurant and office. I -- I own office buildings around here as investment property and it's a great time to own office, by the way. But that was my original intent, but it does not work without Eagle Road access and whether you are working with me or anyone else, it's got to be a use that's feasible and right now the numbers don't haunt with any of the other alternatives, except for self-storage and the reason the neighbors like it, again, you have got maybe 20 cars a day versus hundreds of thousands of cars. You have no parking conflict. The people that go there are not going to park in other people's spots, they are going to their unit to get -- you know, unload and load, and that's important to the commercial folks. They were very clear and that's one of the reasons that they support it. You are not going to have noise. You have internal units. Internal loading docks. You are not going to have incompatibility with neighbors. You are not going to have in-fighting -- what you get when you put in any other use there. People are always fighting across the street it seems. HOA battles and stuff like that. 20 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 21,2024 Page 18 of 30 It's a very very easy, compatible use for the neighborhood and -- and it really is -- I think after looking at this, after hiring consultants, feasibility consultants, and all the work I have put on this, this is the ideal use for the transition from commercial to -- to residential and I respect your feedback. But I -- the -- the representative from the HOA, Leann, also lives across the street and she is the -- she is on the board of the HOA for that complex and she is the one that basically said, look, compared to all the other uses this is the one we want, so -- questions? Lorcher: Commissioners, do we have any questions for the applicant? Grace: Yeah. Sorry, Commissioner Sandoval, you can -- you can go if you had a question. I didn't mean to interrupt you. Sandoval: Okay. Hosac: With Commissioner Sandoval I know where to look. Sandoval: Yeah. My -- my question is for the applicant. So, there is a lot of conflict between what's in the staff report and what you are proposing. Would you prefer a continuance so you can talk about that? I know you mentioned several times that you haven't had a lot of time to prepare, only a couple days. Would that be in your best interest? Hosac: You know, I -- really, if I get a recommendation right now for 48 feet and maybe clean up the language to support that, we are done. I have to present this to City Council regardless, because it's a development agreement modification and so this is -- I mean this is going to -- whether it's an appeal or whether it's a -- you know, just quick one to basically support the recommendations -- the updated recommendations, I don't know which one it's going to be, but I don't think I need a continuance. I do know that if I do have to appeal this to City Council that I'm going to have to have counsel with me. My old tennis partner Joann Butler was my favorite person and it's so sad that she is not with us anymore, but, you know, I have to have someone like Jeff Wardle or someone like that, because the absolute fact is this doesn't work without four stories. I have paid 15,000 for market feasibility, they look at democratic -- demographics, competition. They look at development cost. They look at the unit mix. They look at revenue. This is not a subjective thing. It's very very objective and for this location it's got -- it has to be four stories. So, you know, right now the -- the 35 feet to me -- I can only do two stories, because you have to have that extra high first floor to get the trucks inside and, then, you get -- you need a floor and you need some articulation. At that feet you can stand up on the -- on the townhomes on their roof and look down on the roof of my building. So, I think, you know, with them at 30 feet and with us at 48 feet, given that that 48 is actually the Eagle Road side, not the back side, and given that we massed the building all the way to Eagle Road and we are using our courtyard where people drive in as a buffer to the residential, we are presenting -- it's an L-shaped, so we are presenting the end of an L to that neighborhood. So, this -- to answer your question, I don't think I need a continue, I just need an approved with 48 was kind of what I had put on there 21 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 21,2024 Page 19 of 30 and maybe clean up some of the language to support it or a denial and I will take it to City Council. Sandoval: Thank you. Lorcher: Any follow up or are you good? Sandoval: I'm good. Lorcher: Commissioner Grace, did you have a question? Grace: Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, I had a couple. So, Mr. Hosac, do you say that 48 feet is your absolute minimum that you can -- that you can go to? Hosac: Yes, if you count parapet -- that parapet as part of that. If -- and that's another way of approving it is if you approve to the roofline -- I will tell you exactly what I need. I need 12 feet for the first floor, 11 feet for the next three floors, so that's 45 and, then, a parapet and if you can approve the roof height at 45, give or take a couple of inches, and -- and let staff kind of look at different concepts for how high the parapet would be based on what is something that you need to make it fit the nature and character of the environment, not make it look like a flat haircut across the brow. Grace: Okay. Thank you for that. So, can you tell me a little bit more about -- some of the residents -- and, then, the only comment we received is not in favor of this, can you -- can you just give a little more explanation as to why -- what -- what you did to talk to the residents, what you did to reach out to the neighbors? Hosac: Yeah. I went to the Idaho State Business entity website. I printed down -- I printed out the annual reports that list the officers for HOAs, both of them -- both BS No. 3, as well as Jackson Square, and I went out and reached out to all them and met with them. I met with the Jackson Square -- actually attended a different neighborhood meeting for that big massive apartment complex that was going to replace Villa Sport and met -- and, obviously, there were a bunch of the Jackson Square folks that were involved in that and I met with them personally, showed them the renderings. They love the fact that you don't have drunk drivers driving through there at night like -- like any other use would. And, then, you know, I didn't mention this, but I'm president of the Commercial Owners Association and it's a master association that also includes the -- the residential. BS No. 3. It's really complicated and bizarre and I have agreed with Leann -- I have been negotiating with her to basically give them their independence, so lit doesn't roll up into our commercial association. I don't think it should. But it's conditional on getting a shared use permit, but -- so I have reviewed this with Leann. She has been keeping all of the other board members in the loop on that, but there is two big informational signs sitting in front of the park -- you know, the project right now. There is a mailer that we sent out for our neighborhood meeting. We had zero attendees. We had a mailer sent out for this meeting and we had one brave soul that chose to show up here. It's because they don't see it as an issue, frankly. And -- and, F22 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 21,2024 Page 20 of 30 again, the neighborhood happiness factor, which is this proprietary matrix that I created personally to measure neighborhood opinion -- actual opinions of, you know, how they feel about traffic, parking, noise, compatibility, the neighborhood happiness factor on this is very very high. So, I -- I just don't think that's an issue. In fact, the only objection I have heard tonight was to the height and I'm proposing to lower it significantly. I mean I -- you know, they -- I would just like to go back to that -- my path to compromise chart which shows that. Grace: Yeah. Okay. I -- Hosac: So, yeah, I'm -- I propose right now the proposed height of 55 is 85 percent of what's allowed in the C-G zone. Staff was asking for 54 percent of what's allowed in the C-G zone and, again, that would be two stories. That, frankly, is -- that's a taking. I mean if -- if you look at that, but I'm not going to go there now. But the proposed compromise -- I'm trying to get it to 74 percent of what's allowed in the C-G zone and -- Grace: Can I -- can I just stop -- interrupt you. There is an existing DA, though; right? Hosac: Yes. Yeah. In fact, the only reason I'm here is the DA does not talk about height whatsoever. It has a building footprint of 32,500. The only reason I'm here is because self-storage is not considered retail by the UDC, even though the rest of the commercial real estate world views it as quasi-retail. I mean we have people in the front office, we are selling boxes, we are trying to sell a product. Our product is the self- storage unit. Everybody for self-storage -- they are looking for areas heavy in retail, with high visibility, which is perfect on Eagle Road. So -- but, yeah, the development agreement does not say retail and I would argue that I just made a very good case why with the development agreement that you can't develop anything there. Grace: That may be so. I mean I don't know, but -- I don't know. I guess I just -- maybe I just take issue with the -- with the idea that -- that it's a possible taking at 50 at 54 percent. There is an agreement in place for -- for what needs to occur there and but, anyway, I -- I appreciate your answers. Thank you for indulging me. I didn't -- I don't want to take up all of the conversation and -- and that's all I have, Madam Chair. Hosac: And I would just say, you know, the current -- the current DA, the current zoning, if I could -- with the -- with the building footprint, if I can get the parking inside the building, I can build, what, a four story, five story, six story office building there. I would probably have to have the first two floors of parking. I wouldn't need a DA. I wouldn't need a conditional use permit. The neighbors would hate me and that's the thing I want you to consider is the neighbors do not want me to do the permitted use -- what's allowed by the DA, what's allowed by the zoning, and do what I'm supposed to do. It doesn't work, because the way that you can get in and out of that parking garage is through that North Cajun Way or through the -- the commercial lot, but that's what I'm allowed to do. So, that's why I'm not -- if I'm being steered towards doing retail, office, restaurants, it's going to be a really hard project. It's going to need Eagle Road access. I'm going to have to fight ITD to get it. It's going to be multi-year project. So, yeah, I -- if F23] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 21,2024 Page 21 of 30 you want me to come down from 65 feet to be able to do self-storage, I'm -- I'm agreeable to that and I think I'm just asking to have us meet in the middle and be able to access and have to fight it if you want me to come down 65. Whichever. Lorcher: Commissioners, are there any other questions for the applicant? All right. Thank you very much. At this time I would like to take a motion to close the public hearing. Garrett: So moved. Sandoval: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Okay. Public hearing closed. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Lorcher: Commissioners, we have heard a lot of information tonight. I wanted to ask the city attorney what our purview is tonight, because we are not the deciding factor here, this goes to City Council for the DA modification; correct? Starman: Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, this is a little atypical. Oftentimes the Commission is the deciding body with regard to conditional use permits. In this instance, however, the conditional use permit is linked to the request to modify the development agreement and for that reason the Commission is not a deciding body tonight, you are making a recommendation to the City Council relative to the development agreement modification request, as well as the conditional use permit. So, you are making recommendation tonight on both topics and, actually, really under the city's code or even development agreement it is really a department director recommendation, but I know staff has asked and is interested in hearing the Commission's recommendation on that. I'm sure the City Council is as well. Lorcher: Okay. Well, I guess I just have a few comments. I wish there was at least some written testimony from the neighbors to support the project, because right now we have one neighbor who likes the idea of self-storage, but doesn't like the height and all of the other comments that you have made or are -- are from you and not directly from them. I'm not saying that that's not true, but we can't really get a pulse for what's happening in the neighborhood. I guess in sense we can, because nobody's made any comments, whether it's positive or negative. But, you know, the HOA presidents, you know, aren't here to be able to corroborate based on what you are saying. The second thing is is with the height -- height there is a DA modification in place and I think as a Council we are limited to that based on the application in front of us. It doesn't mean that we can't add to the -- to the motion tonight, but we are not the deciding body what the height should be, except what's written in the DA modification and -- and the UDC says it's -- it's 35 feet and its intended uses are not self-storage. So, those things are already written. So, I feel like a little bit in that sense our hands are tied, but when we 24 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 21,2024 Page 22 of 30 do make a motion we can kind of make some recommendations to City Council on that. So, Commissioners, what other things would you like to say? Garrett: Yeah. I have a comment. I am -- I am in agreement with the gentleman, that I think 48 feet is acceptable, given the fact that I understand the economic necessity of four stories. I think that makes it a viable project and the fact that it's a storage use, as opposed to other uses. So, I would support a modification to the -- by staff to 48 feet from the 35. As they said, I think that's completely acceptable. I'm not saying that the lack of HOA is here, but I think that's a -- if they were adamant about it on the negative side, I'm sure they would have been here. So, I think it's a positive sign that they are not here. Lorcher: Commissioners, any other comments? Grace: Yeah. Madam Chair. I would -- first, I would -- I want to thank Mr. Hosac. I appreciate his testimony about the feasibility, the economics involved, and I appreciate the things that he has tried to do to make this, you know, amenable and reasonable with -- with the surrounding community in terms of pushing the building as far as you can toward Eagle Road and having more of the office building on the north lot, but I -- I'm not sure I'm in favor of any modification of the -- of the staff's recommendation to this. I heard a lot of testimony tonight, but, honestly, I have to say it was -- it was really all about what's in the best interest of the project and the developer and I didn't hear anything about what's in the best interest of the city and that -- that concerned me a little bit and I do appreciate the work that went into this and what he -- what the -- what Mr. Hosac is trying to do to make it, you know, less intrusive to the neighborhood. I guess respectful to my -- Commissioner Garrett, I guess I would look at this as -- as I would -- I would probably move this forward as is and -- and maybe let the -- the City Council have to, you know, sort of go through that again and -- or maybe -- maybe what's a better idea is that the recommendation is for the applicant to get with staff and try to figure something out here that works. I do agree with Mr. Garrett, if there was a lot more disapproval of this from the neighbors' side, I would like to think we would have heard those folks and we didn't. So, I do think there is room to work here. I do think there is some negotiating room here between -- between the applicant and how high this building is and I think height is probably the only issue. So, I would prefer to move this through as is. So, that's -- that's -- that's where I'm at with this. Thank you. Lorcher: Commissioner Sandoval, do you have any comments? Sandoval: I do. Looking at this more -- looking through the lens of consistency with the neighboring property heights, the visual impact and I just don't it see it being there. Personally I think we should recommend denial just based on the height and the applicant being not able or really willing to work with staff very much on the height or ask for a continuance, but that would be my course of action. Lorcher: Well, I think the applicant indicated he would not like a continuance and understanding that we are not the deciding factor here and that it gives you time to be F25] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 21,2024 Page 23 of 30 able to work with staff on the DA modification and the conditional use permit, we are not in a position -- I do not believe we are in a position to change any heights of anything, because the DA modifications are already in place. That DA -- that development agreement would have to be changed in order for that to happen; correct? Starman: Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, I will expand upon that a bit in the sense that though there is an existing development agreement in place, I don't believe that development agreement contains an explicit height limit. What's being discussed this evening -- and we have a request to amend or modify that development agreement and the staff recommendation is that if the City Council entertains an amendment, one aspect of that amendment should be a height limitation and the recommendation from staff is 35 feet. Lorcher: Okay. Starman: So, that's sort of the lay of land there and while I have the microphone let me just for the record -- I wanted to clarify there was a comment made -- I'm paraphrasing now -- that the -- in reference to the UDC and -- that it has a 35 foot height limit. That is -- that's not the case. As the applicant mentioned, the actual -- for this zoning district the height limit in the city's zoning ordinance is 65 feet -- Lorcher: Yeah. Starman: -- but because we are dealing with a development agreement and a request to modify, the recommendation from staff is that -- as part of that modification that that -- the 35 foot limit be part of that modification, so -- Lorcher: And as well as the usage currently under the DA does not allow storage; correct? Starman: Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, that's another proposed modification to the development -- the current existing development agreement is that right now, self- storage is not an allowed or permitted use, so part of the modification is to modify the permitted uses to allow self-storage as well. Ritter: Madam Chair, if I may. So, the applicant is saying that he is unclear about the 32,500 square feet, saying whether it's the total square footage or if it's the building footprint. The DA is very specific that it's the overall square footage for the building. So, it's not the footprint. The developer Cory Swain who developed this site in the March 14th, 2006, presentation to the City Council, the planning director stated that the developer requested the max -- maximum square footage. So, he suggested that condition, basically because of the close proximity of the existing and future residential uses and he wanted to ensure that when this property was developed it was in a fashion that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan destination and not negatively impact nearby properties. F26] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 21,2024 Page 24 of 30 Lorcher: Okay. Thank you. Starman: And, Madam Chair, one last clarification for the record while there was some -- some comments I think from the applicant if I recall about sort of there is a denial this evening, for example, by the Commission, that there would be an appeal to City Council and I sort of addressed this earlier in a different way, but that's -- that's not quite the case. What -- really, as I mentioned earlier the Commission is making -- is not making a decision at all, you are making a recommendation to the City Council, so there is no decision to appeal, you are making a recommendation. The Council will make a decision and that -- that decision would be potentially appealable, but you are not making a decision, you are making a recommendation. Lorcher: A recommendation. Okay. Grace: And, Madam Chair and Council, if we -- if we move to recommend approval as written, sort of -- sort of with the staff comments and conditions, that's how it would be approved, but we could offer modify -- recommended modifications to it; correct? Starman: Madam Chair and Commissioner Grace, that is correct. So, part of your recommendation could be to say, as you often do for applications of this nature to say, you know, a motion could potentially be, just hypothetically, you know, a motion to approve the staff recommendation, but with change X, Y and Z. In that case it would be a recommendation to Council. But certainly the Commission has the ability and the prerogative to deviate from what staff recommended and make a recommendation that would be slightly different or drastically different for that matter. Grace: Sure. Thank you. Lorcher: Any other comments from Commissioners? A possible motion? Grace: Madam Chair, I will throw one out just to see if it's -- if it's something the rest of the Commission is -- is tracking with, but this is File No. 0058; is that correct? Lorcher: Correct. Grace: After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval of File No. H-2023-0058 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 21 , 2024, with no modifications. Lorcher: Do I have a second? Starman: So, Madam Chair, if there is no second that motion dies and you can entertain a new motion. Lorcher: Okay. F27] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 21,2024 Page 25 of 30 Garrett: Okay. I will propose a motion that after considering all staff, applicant and public testimony I move to recognize the approval to the City Council of File No. H- 2023-0058 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 21 st, 2024, with the following modifications: That the height be set to no later -- no greater than 48 feet and same footprint of 32,500. Lorcher: The footprint -- the entire -- okay. So, the footprint of the building, but the square footage to be the 135,000 or -- Garrett: That is correct. Lorcher: Do I have a second? Starman: So, Madam Chair, if there is no second to that motion that motion also dies and you may entertain another motion. Lorcher: Okay. So, we are just making a recommendation to City Council. The DA in place is very specific that the maximum square feet of the building should not be greater than 32,500 square feet and the height being 35,000 square feet. Starman: So, Madam Chair, sorry to interject, but just for clarity, the -- I may have misheard what you just said, but I just want to clarify. To the best of my knowledge -- we will ask staff to confirm -- but the existing DA, to the best of my knowledge does not include a height restriction today. Lorcher: Oh, no height. Oh, the condition -- the usage. Okay. I will start again. Thirty- two thousand five hundred square feet is the building size in the current DA and currently storage is not an approved use for this space, even though the zoning says 65 feet, but this already has a DA on it; correct? Starman: Yes, ma'am. Madam Chair, that's accurate. Lorcher: Okay. So, we need to put a motion -- or recommendation together for City Council with those two items in place, intended use and building footprint based on the current application that we have in front of us. Grace: Madam Chair, if it helps at all, I'm not opposed to the intended use. I don't think the staff was either. I think the intended use is fine. I will rely on the applicant that the neighbors will probably prefer something like that than maybe a busy restaurant or something. I don't have any issue with that. I don't have any issue with the footprint necessarily either. It's -- it's sort of the height is the issue for me and maybe the -- maybe the recommendation to City Council should be that P&Z -- if anyone feels this way, but the P&Z, you know, approves it, but there has got to be some discussion and negotiation with regard to the height. Staff's -- staff's looking at 35, applicant needs a minimum -- minimum of 48. 1 would like to believe there is some -- some elegant solution to that. I don't know. I'm not a developer. I understand the economics F28] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 21,2024 Page 26 of 30 involved as the applicant described, they are razor thin, but I would like to find a way to get to where maybe both parties want to go. I'm not sure if that helps at all, Madam Chair. Lorcher: Our -- our motion needs to -- I think address those two items on whether it's a denial or approval to City Council, because either way they are going to look at those things; right? The -- the DA needs to be the -- the intended use is not there, so it needs to get there and the square foot is there and he wants to increase it. Currently there is no height restriction in the DA, but there is a square footage and an intended use. So, those two items need to be whether it's approved or deny, the -- in the verbiage of our motion. Sandoval: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Sandoval. Sandoval: So, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the height based on staff's findings inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan specifically 3.07.00? That's a question for staff. Ritter: Even for the allowed uses? Is that what we are -- Sandoval: For the height. You spoke to the visual impact not being harmonious with the existing area, overshadowing character site design, and overall inconsistence with Comprehensive Plan 3.07.00. Ritter: Yes, I did. Sandoval: Okay. Ritter: So, basically, based on where this is located -- it's like an in-fill development and what is around it is not the same height that they are proposing and that's why we are saying it doesn't fit in on the west side of Eagle Road with what's actually there. So, basically, the way staff sees it is that it is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, because it does not fit in with the surrounding area and it will create all those issues that are outlined in my presentation. Sandoval: Thank you. Starman: So, Madam Chair, this -- I'm always reluctant to kind of go this next half a step. I'm going to do so in an effort to be helpful, but if I'm not being helpful and if I'm stepping out of my lane, just smack me, but -- so two thoughts where one is clearly there is some different opinions amongst the Commissioners present this evening, so two -- two potential ideas for you. One is you can reopen the public hearing and continue the item until you have more Commissioners present. Those Commissioners would have to review the record and be prepared to get up to speed and be prepared to 29 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 21,2024 Page 27 of 30 act, but that would be an option if you are not able to -- you know, if there is not sufficient votes to reach a decision tonight. That's an option for you. The second is this would be a very artful motion, but I will put it out there and it's really -- I'm sure the City Council would appreciate a more specific and concrete recommendation, but an artful form of a motion could be to say you recommend -- the Commission recommends approval in terms of the proposed modifications to the development agreement in terms of the additional use of self-storage, maintaining 32,500 square feet as a footprint and the recommendation to Council is that the height be less than 54.5 feet as determined by the City Council. Or something of that nature. That would be very artful way to do it to get you to -- potentially to a decision tonight. It doesn't give great input to the Council in terms of what that height ought to be, but that's an idea for you as well. Lorcher: Commissioners, any thoughts? So, if we want to wait for other Commissioners, it would be a continuance, then, for us? Starman: Yeah. Madam Chair, if you -- if you decide you would -- you are not able to make a decision and you need your additional Commissioners present to do so, my recommendation would be to reopen the public hearing and continue it to a date certain and, then, have those -- the Commissioners that are absent that will participate next time review the record thoroughly and be prepared to act and, then, you can act at that point in time. Lorcher: Okay. The applicant did indicate he wasn't interested -- really interested in a continuance, but we need the Commissioners to -- can we discuss that as Commissioners? Starman: You may, Madam Chair. Yeah. And that's -- really at the end of the day it's -- if you need additional time to gather information or to consult with all the Commissioners and that would provide value to the discussion, really it's your decision -- it's really your prerogative if you choose to continue. Certainly we try to be very deferential and respectful to applicant's wishes, but ultimately at the end of the day is if the Commission needs more time and more information and you are not -- don't have sufficient information this evening to make a decision, at the end of the day it's your decision if you needed to continue the meeting for two weeks -- or the hearing. Lorcher: Commissioners, do you feel like we can do a motion or should we reopen the public hearing? Garrett: I could live with that artful recommendation where there is no specific height, but a cap on it. Grace: Madam Chair, I -- I agree. I -- you know, in the end what we are giving is a recommendation to City Council. They -- they have the authority to do what they feel is best in this situation. I feel like we probably would only be hurting the applicant if we -- if we kicked it down the road to add a couple more Commissioners to the -- to the discussion who may or may not end up with a motion that the City Council likes or 30 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 21,2024 Page 28 of 30 doesn't like. We just don't know. I think it's open to some reasonable interpretation and I'm guessing the City Council may have -- may also have some differing opinions. So, with that said I tend to agree with Commissioner Garrett that maybe we -- we tell the Commission what we do think is okay in the modification to the DA, but with regard to the one sticking point we simply say no more than this number. It's up to you to decide what you feel is reasonable. How we say that in a motion, though, is -- Lorcher: Want to try? Sandoval: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Sandoval. Sandoval: Okay. I'm in agreement. I think we can get to a decision tonight here really specifically -- maybe mentioning that recommended maximum height and -- I would likely be in favor of that. Lorcher: Al right. Commissioners, who would like to give a motion? Garrett: Well, I can step in and if I'm not good at the end of it on the recommendation, so I will need some assistance, but after considering all staff and applicant and public testimony I move to recommend the approval to the City Council File No. H-2023-0058 as presented to the staff report for the hearing date -- for the hearing date of March 21 st, 2024, with the following modifications: That the height limitation would be capped at 48 feet and -- what was your remainder? Starman: So, Commissioner, so my -- the -- I will put air quotes around this -- the artful motion that I mentioned earlier would be -- the last part of the motion simply would be to say to recommend to the Council as presented in the staff report, but with the modification that the height be less than 54.5 feet as determined by the Council. Garrett: Okay. Okay. I will modify my recommendation that the height would be less than 54 feet as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Committee. Grace: Can I clarify that the motion would also approve the -- the modified use as a storage facility and that would keep the footprint of the -- of the facility at 32,500 square feet? Starman: Madam Chair and Members of the Commission, I will defer to the motion maker as well, but that's how I would interpret the motion, because the motion was to make the recommendation consistent with the staff report and those items that Commissioner Grace just mentioned are all incorporated into the staff report. So, I believe the motion does capture those items. Grace: Okay. Great. Thank you. F31 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 21,2024 Page 29 of 30 Lorcher: Okay. Grace: So, I will second that, then, if that's the motion. Lorcher: Let me recap really fast then. Grace: Sure. Lorcher: So, it has been moved to approve File No. H-2023-0058 as a recommendation to the City Council with the modifications that the height be less than 54.5 feet, that the -- the footprint of 32,500 feet of the building and to consider self-storage as an intended use. Is that what -- was that it? Garrett: Yes. Starman: And, Madam Chair, just one quick note for the record. So, I -- those last two items are embedded in the staff report, so you are accurate -- your summary of the motion I think is accurate. I thought I heard you say 3,000 -- Lorcher: Thirty-two thousand -- Starman: -- 32,500. Lorcher: -- five hundred feet. Starman: So, I just wanted to clarify that particular. Lorcher: All right. Do we all have it or do you need me to say it again? Garrett: No. Starman: We are good. Lorcher: All right. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed? Sandoval: Nay. Lorcher: So, we have two with one and so -- Starman: So, Madam Chair, we will need -- because there is four members present this evening you need a majority, so three -- it requires three affirmative votes. The Chair is permitted to vote. I know sometimes Mr. Seal does not, but you are permitted to vote, so I would -- I will leave it at that. Lorcher: All right. I will cast my vote as yes. So, we have three in favor and one not in favor. F32] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 21,2024 Page 30 of 30 Starman: So, the motion does carry. You have finished that item. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. THREE ABSENT. Lorcher: All right. That one's done. And then -- I have kind of gotten caught up in the weeds here. I think we need one more motion to adjourn. Garrett: I will move to adjourn. Sandoval: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn this meeting. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much, everyone. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7.44 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS. ) APPROVED 4 1 4 12024 MARIA LORCHER - VICE-CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK F33 W IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Approve Minutes of the March 07, 2024 Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 3 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 7,2024 Page 35 of 35 (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS. ) APPROVED 3 21 24 ANDREW SEAL - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK 38 W IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Everbrook Academy at Amity (H- 2023-0051) by Paul Tucci, located at 4845, 4855 and 4867 S. Tavistock Ave. F39 CITY OF MERIDIAN C� E IDIAN --- FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND I D A H O DECISION& ORDER In the Matter of the Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a daycare facility,Located at 4845, 4855,and 4867 S. Tavistock Avenue in the C-N Zoning District,by Paul Tucci, Oppidan,Inc. Case No(s).H-2023-0051 For the Planning& Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: March 7, 2024 (Findings on March 21, 2024) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of March 7, 2024, incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of March 7, 2024, incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of March 7, 2024, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of March 7,2024, incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the"Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975,"codified at Chapter 65,Title 67,Idaho Code(I.C. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code,and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has,by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian,which was adopted April 19,2011,Resolution No. 11-784 and Maps. 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-5A. 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s)received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this decision,which shall be signed by the Chairman of the Commission and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk upon the applicant,the Planning Department,the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2023-0051 Page 1 40 7. That this approval is subject to the conditions of approval in the attached staff report for the hearing date of March 7,2024, incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the Planning & Zoning Commission's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § I I- 5A and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant's request for a Conditional Use Permit is hereby approved in accord with the conditions of approval in the staff report for the hearing date of March 7,2024,attached as Exhibit A. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits Notice of Two(2)Year Conditional Use Permit Duration Please take notice that the conditional use permit,when granted, shall be valid for a maximum period of two(2)years unless otherwise approved by the City in accord with UDC 11-5B-6F.1. During this time,the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground. For conditional use permits that also require platting,the final plat must be signed by the City Engineer within this two(2)year period in accord with UDC 11-5B-6F.2. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11-513-6.F.1,the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the use not to exceed one(1)two(2)year period.Additional time extensions up to two (2)years as determined and approved by the Commission may be granted. With all extensions,the Director or Commission may require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11. E. Judicial Review Pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-652 1(1)(d), if this final decision concerns a matter enumerated in Idaho Code § 67-6521(1)(a), an affected person aggrieved by this final decision may,within twenty-eight (28)days after all remedies have been exhausted,including requesting reconsideration of this final decision as provided by Meridian City Code § 1-7-10, seek judicial review of this final decision as provided by chapter 52,title 67, Idaho Code. This notice is provided as a courtesy; the City of Meridian does not admit by this notice that this decision is subject to judicial review under LLUPA. F. Notice of Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis Pursuant to Idaho Code §§ 67-652 1(1)(d) and 67-8003, an owner of private property that is the subject of a final decision may submit a written request with the Meridian City Clerk for a regulatory takings analysis. G. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of March 7,2024 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2023-0051 Page 2 F41 By action of the Planning&Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the 21 st day of March ,2024. COMMISSIONER ANDREW SEAL, CHAIRMAN VOTED COMMISSIONER MARIA LORCHER,VICE CHAIRMAN VOTED COMMISSIONER BRIAN GARRETT VOTED COMMISSIONER JARED SMITH VOTED COMMISSIONER PATRICK GRACE VOTED COMMISSIONER MATTHEW SANDOVAL VOTED COMMISSIONER ENRIQUE RIVERA VOTED Andrew Seal, Chairman 3-21-2024 Attest: Chris Johnson, City Clerk 3-21-2024 Copy served upon the Applicant,the Planning and Development Services divisions of the Community Development Department,the Public Works Department and the City Attorney. By: Dated: 3-21-2024 City Clerk's Office CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2023-0051 Page 3 F42 Exhibit A E IDIA 4*,-- STAFF REPORT I D A H O COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING March 7,2024 Legend DATE: Project Location � TO: Planning&Zoning Commission FROM: Linda Ritter,Associate Planner rr�.. ... 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2023-0051 - R Everbrook Academy at Amity—CUP p� LOCATION: 4845,4855, and 4867 S. Tavistock y. i Avenue, in the NW 1/4 of Section 33, Township 3N.,Range I E. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Conditional use permit(CUP) for a daycare center providing childcare for up to 120-150 students in the C-N zoning district. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 1.509-acres Future Land Use Designation Office Existing Land Use Vacant/undeveloped land Proposed Land Use(s) Daycare Center Current Zoning Neighborhood Business District(C-N) Physical Features(waterways, None hazards,flood plain,hillside) Neighborhood meeting date;#of 07/31/2023 attendees: History(previous approvals) CPAM-15-001,AZ-15-004(DA#2015-061375);H-2016- 0092(MDA#2016-119080);H-2018-0087(CUP for cell tower);H-2018-0127(MDA-2nd Addendum to DA #2019-033207);H-2019-0134(MDA—3"Addendum DA #2020-059662);H-2020-0080(MDA 4t'Addendum DA 2020-117720);H-2020-0055 Hill's Century Farm North No.1 Final Plat Page 1 43 uuruu ■ •--�r�111111111J^ -�_■�11111l1'� ���P■ /1111 Legend Legend Project Location Project Location a��■■IIIIIIIIIIIII � ■__ \_11�p■._I 1111 MIN IIIIII 11111111111�1 ■■.' - • - ■ - ■111 �11 _ ,,, . rl111 ( __ ■ - r _ Q111111__�r. �_AA - Q' I�11 17♦llrN� �� - - E moonlit �11111111111�........■ IEEE - 1■ Ifn►l uuuuuu'- grA�11�`�� nll■■n rylm � RAI __.__ ME_ fill ' s Legend u `r�r - • - •Project Location y L-II��Ifrr r 1 ■ i• ■■amp Droject Location 1 1fl u nn un� � x••�r 111111111� T_-111111lf s Q�■ 1111 US-■ IIIIq =��- 1111 Ilgllllllll aJ�i' _ ■ -p ua it 11 Planned Parcels MOi p IIIIIIIIIII■�.■-• \� ■__ 111: fC __�p_Ir\�■-_ 11: �C - II i IIIIIIIII�Q_.■ 1 11■IIII■_lul■111 11 room -. ees 1�III/5e!_e_ee��esleesl!.4! iu rr A■r11� u!■!1'----------------- ■■ `�ii: lnni� ■LW ✓��ii:- � . 111111 ■■J in nlrri __!�i r 111�1� ■■ Q C���r T Qi�l i- :A.rIiiY II i� q A Y� ■corn _-tl ■MEN ■ - � u'➢iY��,, i ��I� g iuuuuu�unl 111\�! � ■ i ■ 11�� - ��i�in �� \ 111111111111■ III11 � 111111111111`� _ III 11111 LI�S` 1111 i1i1i1f ' �iillll'� um1�1 • 1 -• '�p1r _ntlurlrl pprurll �,`�I ��\��_■■1111M. lr�� �1 /f�� ✓ .�� �_�i r11r) i • • • • • • • •. • ' ll • � • m IV. NOTICING Planning&Zoning Posting Date Newspaper Notification 2/20/2024 Radius notification mailed to properties within 500 feet 2/16/2024 Site Posting Date 2/16/2024 NextDoor posting 2/26/2024 V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. Future Land Use Map Designation(https://www.meridiancity.or /�compplan) Mixed-Use Neighborhood(MU-N): The purpose of this designation is to assign areas where neighborhood-serving uses and dwellings are seamlessly integrated into the urban fabric. The intent is to avoid predominantly single-use developments by incorporating a variety of uses. Land uses in these areas should be primarily residential with supporting non-residential services.Non- residential uses in these areas tend to be smaller scale and provide goods or services that people typically do not travel far for(approximately one mile) and need regularly. Employment opportunities for those living in the neighborhood are encouraged. Connectivity and access between the non-residential and residential land uses is particularly critical in MU-N areas. Tree- lined,narrow streets are encouraged. The proposed use of a Daycare Center(more than 12 children) is a community-serving commercial use that fits within the future land use designation of MU-N. The proposed use can serve both the immediate area and the nearby community at large. The proposed location is adjacent to commercial development and existing residences to the south and southeast. Staff finds the proposed use will provide a needed use for the nearby community and offer employment opportunities beyond typical retail jobs. The daycare use is a needed use throughout the City and providing it nearby residential meets many of the City's desired outcomes for commercial development. Specific policies are noted and analyzed below but Staff finds the proposed use to be consistent with the future land use designation of Mixed-Use Neighborhood, especially in combination with the existing commercial uses in the Hills Century Farm North and Commercial subdivisions. B. Comprehensive Plan Policies (https://www.meridianciny.or /g compplan): • "Encourage and support mixed-use areas that provide the benefits of being able to live, shop, dine,play,and work nearby,thereby reducing vehicle trips, and enhancing overall livability and sustainability"(3.06.02B).As noted, the subject area is part of a mixed-use designation on our future land use map. Stafffinds adding a daycare use in this location introduces a needed community serving use to the immediate area and is located within walking distance of several existing residences. Further, this property will have convenient pedestrian access to the adjacent subdivision to the south, therefore promoting overall sustainability and the benefits of having a supportive commercial use nearby residential. • "Encourage the development of supportive commercial near employment areas" (3.06.02C). The subject daycare is proposed within an existing commercial development and is also directly north of the Hill Farm North No. 2 subdivision and east of the Hill's Farm Commercial No. 2 subdivision which will include multiple commercial uses. Therefore, the proposed daycare should provide a supportive use to all of the businesses along this E. Amity Road frontage. Page 3 ■ • "Locate smaller-scale,neighborhood-serving commercial and office use clusters so they complement and provide convenient access from nearby residential areas, limiting access to arterial roadways and multimodal corridors."(3.07.02B). See above analysis—Staff finds the proposed location and use to be consistent with this policy. • "Require appropriate building design, and landscaping elements to buffer, screen, beautify, and integrate commercial,multifamily, and parking lots into existing neighborhoods."(5.01.02D). The location of the subject daycare is proposed within an existing commercial development with drive aisles to the north and access to the site from a private drive off Tavistock Avenue. The Applicant is required to provide a landscape buffer along the private drive to the north and a 20 foot wide landscape buffer will be constructed to the south providing for additional screening between this commercial development and the existing subdivision to the south. An 11,300 square foot daycare center is proposed in the C-N zoning district which is designed to accommodate a maximum of 120-150 students and 15-25 employees.A daycare center requires Conditional Use Permit(CUP)in the C-N zoning district as set forth in UDC Table 11-2B-2 and is subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-9. Specific Use Standards: The proposed use is subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11- 4-3-9—Daycare Facility, as follows: A. General standards for all child daycare and adult care uses, including the classifications of daycare center; daycare,family; and daycare,group. 1. In determining the type of daycare facility,the total number of children at the facility at one time, including the operator's children,is the determining factor. The applicant proposes to provide childcare for up to 120-150 children; because the daycare plans to provide care for more than 12 children, it's classified as a daycare center. 2. On site vehicle pick up,parking and turnaround areas shall be provided to ensure safe discharge and pick up of clients. On-site vehicle pick-up,parking and turnaround areas are provided. For safety,Staff recommends the row ofparking on the east side of the property be restricted to Staff members only and signed accordingly. 3. The decision-making body shall specify the maximum number of allowable clients and hours of operation as conditions of approval. The maximum number of allowable clients should be limited to those specified in this application (i.e. 150). 4. The applicant or owner shall provide proof of criminal background checks and fire inspection certificates as required by title 39, chapter 11,Idaho Code. Said proof shall be provided prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy. The applicant or owner shall comply with all State of Idaho and Department of Health and Welfare requirements for daycare facilities. The Applicant shall provide this information to the Planning Division as required. 5. In residential districts or uses adjoining an adjacent residence,the hours of operation shall be between 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. This standard may be modified through approval of a conditional use permit. Residential use exists on the property to the south, zoned R-15. The proposed hours of operation are Monday through Friday from 6:00 am to 8:00 pm, which will not exceed Page 4 ■ regulated hours. 6. Prior to submittal of an application for an accessory daycare facility in a residential district,the applicant or owner shall hold a neighborhood meeting in accord with subsection 11-5A-4.B of this title.Notice of the neighborhood meeting shall be provided to all property owners of record within one hundred(100) feet of the exterior boundary of the subject property. Not applicable The applicant shall not exceed the maximum number of clients as stated in the approved permit or as stated in this title,whichever is more restrictive. B. Additional standards for daycare facilities that serve children. 1. All outdoor play areas shall be completely enclosed by minimum six-foot non-scalable fences to secure against exit/entry by small children and to screen abutting properties. The applicant is proposing a 6-foot-tall vinyl fence around the playground area which provides screening and is non-scalable. 2. Outdoor play equipment over six(6)feet high shall not be located in a front yard or within any required yard. All playground equipment is located within the rear of the building enclosed by a 6-foot- tall vinyl fence that will screen the playground equipment. 3. Outdoor play areas in residential districts adjacent to an existing residence shall not be used after dusk. The daycare is not located within a residential district but is adjacent to an existing residence. Compliance with these standards is required. C. Additional standards for family daycare facilities conducted as home occupation accessory uses. 1. In no way shall the family daycare emit lighting,noise, fumes, smoke, dust, odors, vibrations,or electrical interference that can be observed outside the dwelling. A sign may be displayed for advertising the family daycare facility in accord with the standards set forth in subsection 11-3D-8.B of this title. 2. Off-street parking shall be provided as set forth in section 11-3C-6 of this title, in addition to the required off-street parking for the dwelling. These standards are not applicable. Based on the above analysis, Staff deems the proposed use to be in compliance with the specific use standards as required if the Applicant complies with the conditions of approval in Section VIII.A. Dimensional Standards: Future development should be consistent with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2B-3 for the C-N zoning district. Access: Access is proposed on the site plan from S. Tavistock Avenue onto a private drive. Parking: Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC 1I- 3C-6 for non-residential uses which requires one(1)space per 500 square feet of gross floor area. Based on 11,300 s.f., a minimum of 23 spaces are required; a total of 35 spaces are proposed, including two(2)ADA compliant spaces. Page 5 47 A minimum of one(1)bicycle parking space is required to be provided for every 25 vehicle spaces or portion thereof per UDC 11-3C-6G;bicycle parking facilities are required to comply with the location and design standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C.A bicycle rack capable of holding a minimum of two (2)bicycles has been provided in accordance with this requirement and depicted on the site plan. Pedestrian Walkways: A continuous internal pedestrian walkway that is a minimum of 5-feet wide is required to be provided from the perimeter sidewalk to the main building entrance and should be distinguished from vehicular driving surfaces through the use of pavers, colored or scored concrete, or bricks as set forth in UDC 11-3A-1913.4. The applicant is proposing to match the existing sidewalk along the private drive with a 5-foot wide sidewalk within the landscape buffer along the entire frontage of the property. The sidewalk will facilitate pedestrian connectivity and easy access throughout the development. There is also a 6-foot wide pathway along the entire length of the west side of the property. Landscaping: Parking lot landscaping is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C as shown. A 20-foot wide landscape buffer is required to be provided to adjacent residential uses in the C-N zoning district per UDC Table 11-2B-3; landscaping is required to be installed within the buffer in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-9C. Landscaping shall comply with the requirements in UDC 11-3B. A residential use exists to the south of the property requiring the 20-foot landscape buffer. Street buffer landscape along the private drive is required to be installed. Landscaping for the pathway on the west side of the property shall be installed per UDC 11-3B-IZ The site/landscape plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application should reflect compliance with this standard. Outdoor Lighting: All outdoor lighting is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11- 3A-1IC. Light fixtures that have a maximum output of 1,800 lumens or more are required to have an opaque top to prevent up-lighting; the bulb shall not be visible and shall have a full cutoff shield in accord with Figure 1 in UDC 11-3A-I IC. Mechanical Equipment: All mechanical equipment on the back of the building and outdoor service and equipment should be incorporated into the overall design of buildings and landscaping so that the visual and acoustic impacts of these functions are fully contained and out of view from adjacent properties and public streets as set forth in UDC 11-3A-12. If mechanical equipment is proposed to be roof-mount, all equipment should be screened and out of view as noted above. Building Elevations: Conceptual building elevations were submitted for a single-story building as shown in Section VII.0 that incorporate a mix of materials consisting of cultured stone, exterior insulation finishing system(or equivalent), fiber cement siding,precast stone sills and glass with an asphalt shingle roofing. Final design is required to incorporate some of the same or similar design elements and materials as those in the development agreement and shall comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. Certificate of Zoning Compliance&Design Review: A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application is required to be submitted for the proposed use prior to submittal of a building permit application to ensure consistency with the conditions in Section VIII,UDC standards, design standards and the development agreement. Page 6 48 VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed conditional use permit with the conditions included in Section VIII per the Findings in Section IX. B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard this item on March 7, 2024. At the public hearing.the Commission moved to approve the subject Conditional Use Permit request. 1. Summary of the Commission public hearing: a. In favor: All b. In opposition: None c. Commenting: Paul Tucci d. Written testimony.None e. Staff presenting application: Bill Parsons,Planning Supervisor f. Other Staff commenting on application:None 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony: a. Lighting from the property which will be reviewed with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance. 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission. a. None. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. Condition No. 7 modified from 150 allowable clients to 156 or as determined by the building code. Page 7 ■ A. VII. EXHIBITS A. Proposed Site Plan 4H, Ez�ttt I----------- ---------4---1-------- --------------------------------------------------- ----------- PRIVATE DRIVE 'Ell U I . . .......... ... Q—a 9 --- - ------------ MAO -nag ju fly, ma Ing 1 —t go -I—q7 Page 8 F 50 B. Proposed Landscape Plan 11 < < * i 1 i !f$g I I IT I I a a L F i i C. Building Elevations and Rendering FS,EWIXI EIEVA,IplSGEN9KLN],B AL ® ns�E�vnTicN-nuewu E a U ji 8 E {j 0 e 00 0 - o00 0 0 0 o eoo ao 0 8 o 8 WES ""'"'°" `� ?•-i T ELEVATION EAST ELEtlAMN � .,. > 4fi w i - f_-_ � � � � � � �.mom.•PIhFI 3 Ili �.�'°" ` NoarN etFuanoN Page 9 F51 It I� u�ndi mrl�li I�I�Ilty; ■� I1 dl If111 I n ---- -- --- Illllllllll orm000000-00 ICI ICI Page VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING 1. Future development of this site shall comply with the previous conditions of approval and terms of CPAM-15-001,AZ-15-004 (DA#2015-061375);H-2016-0092 (MDA#2016- 119080); H-2018-0087 (CUP for cell tower); H-2018-0127(MDA-2nd Addendum to DA #2019-033207); H-2019-0134 (MDA—3rd Addendum DA#2020-059662); H-2020-0080 (MDA 4th Addendum DA 2020-117720); H-2020-0055 Hill's Century Farm North No.1 Final Plat and the conditions contained herein. 2. The applicant shall receive written approval of the City of Meridian Planning Division that the final property boundary adjustment is in conformance with UDC 11-613-8 prior to building permit issuance. 3. The fire truck turning radius submitted is not approved. The landscaped island may need to be altered in order to meet the requirements. Revise the site plan to meet the Fire Department requirements. 4. A maximum of five(5)additional trees needs to be added to the landscape planters per UDC 11-3B-8C. Three(3) on the east side of the property and one each in the landscape planters at the entrance to the property. 5. Compliance with the standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-9—Daycare Facility is required. 6. The applicant or owner shall provide proof of criminal background checks and fire inspection certificates as required by title 39, chapter 11, Idaho Code. Said proof shall be provided prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy.The applicant or owner shall comply with all State of Idaho and Department of Health and Welfare requirements for daycare facilities. 7. The maximum number of allowable clients shall be 1560 or as determined by the building code. as proposed with this appheation. 8. The business hours of operation shall be limited to the hours between 6:00 am 11:00 pm in accord with UDC 11-2B-3B. 9. Outdoor play equipment over six(6)feet high shall not be located in a front yard or within any required yard in accord with UDC 11-4-3-9B.2. 10. The row of parking on the east side of the building shall be restricted to staff member parking only and signs shall be erected accordingly. 11. Protect the existing landscaping on the site during construction,per UDC 11-313-10. 12. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application shall be submitted and approved for the proposed use prior to submittal of a building permit application. The design of the site and structure shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19;the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual and with the Development Agreement. 13. The conditional use permit is valid for a maximum period of two (2)years unless otherwise approved by the City. During this time,the Applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval,and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6. A time extension may be requested asset forth in UDC 11-513-6F. Page 11 53 B. PUBLIC WORKS https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.gyp x?id=331377&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty C. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=331382&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty D. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=331965&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty E. IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT(ITD) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=33224 7&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC hty F. BOISE PROJECT BOARD OF CONTROL https://weblink.meridiancioy.org/WebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=332247&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty IX. FINDINGS Conditional Use(UDC 11-5B-6) Findings: The commission shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request upon the following: 1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. Staff finds the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed development and meet all dimensional and development regulations of the C-Nzoning district. 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan and in accord with the requirements of this title. Staff ,finds the proposed daycare center is harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with applicable UDC standards with the conditions noted in Section VIII of this report. 3. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. Staff finds the design, construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed use will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood, with the existing and intended character of the vicinity and will not adversely change the essential character of the area. 4. 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 the proposed use will not adversely affect other properties in the vicinity if it complies with the conditions in Section VIII of this report. Page 12 54 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools,parks,police and fire protection,drainage structures,refuse disposal, water, and sewer. Staff ,finds the proposed use will be served by essential public facilities and services as required. 6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Staff ,finds the proposed use will not create additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes,materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic,noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. Stafffinds the proposed use will not be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by the reasons noted above. 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction,loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) Staff ,finds the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any such features. 9. Additional findings for the alteration or extension of a nonconforming use: a. That the proposed nonconforming use does not encourage or set a precedent for additional nonconforming uses within the area; and This finding is not applicable. b. That the proposed nonconforming use is developed to a similar or greater level of conformity with the development standards as set forth in this title as compared to the level of development of the surrounding properties. This finding is not applicable. Page 13 F551 E K IDIAN:--- iuAn Planning and Zoning Presentations and outline Changes to Agenda: Item #3: Taylor Annexation (H-2023-0062) Application(s): Annexation & Zoning Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 1.01 acres of land, zoned R-1, located at 3840 E. Overland Road History: Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Mixed-Use Regional (MU-RG) Summary of Request: The Applicant proposes to annex a 1.01-acre parcel, including the adjacent right-of-way to the section line of E. Overland Road with an R-2 (Low-Density Residential) zoning district. A legal description and exhibit map for the annexation area is included with the application. This property is within the City’s Area of City Impact boundary. The reason for annexation is the water table for the existing well on the single-family residential property failed late last year and the Applicant had to hook-up to City water and sewer service. No new development or redevelopment of the property is proposed at this time and the use will remain residential for the foreseeable future. The Applicant entered into an agreement with the City for extension of domestic water and sewer service outside Meridian city limits for the subject property (Inst. #2023-037612). This agreement allowed the property to hook up to City water and sanitary sewer service with disconnection from the private well and septic system. A provision of the agreement requires the property owner to apply for annexation of the property into the City as proposed with this application. Due to the presence of an existing home on this property with the intention to maintain its residential use, an R-2 zoning district is requested as a “placeholder” zoning district until the property redevelops in the future. Opting for a zoning district within the Mixed-Use Regional (MU-R) designation would create a non-conforming use. For example, a single-family residential dwelling on an acre is not a permitted use in a commercial zoning district and it fails to meet density requirements for an R-15 or R-40 zoning district, which is not preferred. Prior to re-development, a rezone should be requested and development proposed consistent with the Commercial FLUM designation. Single-family detached dwellings are listed as a principally permitted use in the R-2 zoning district per UDC Table 11-2A-2. To ensure future development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the land use desired for this property, Staff recommends a Development Agreement as a provision of annexation pursuant to Idaho Code Section 67-6511A, which requires the property to be rezoned and the agreement modified to include a conceptual development plan prior to any change in use and/or development of the property. Dimensional Standards: The proposed existing house appears to comply with the dimensional standards of the district. Access: Access to this property is currently from E. Overland Road. With future redevelopment of the property, access via E. Overland Road and interconnectivity with adjacent properties will be evaluated in accordance with the provisions listed in UDC 11-3A-3 Parking: Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 for single-family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. The existing home does not meet the required number of off-street parking spaces per UDC Table 11-3C-6 for a three (3) bedroom home; four (4) parking spaces are required, at least 2 in an enclosed garage, other spaces may be enclosed or a minimum 10-foot by 20-foot parking pad. The existing home does not have an enclosed two-car garage; however, there is an existing 30-foot by 20-foot driveway. The existing home is recognized as non-conforming due to the off-street parking requirements in UDC 11-3C-6. Per UDC 11-1B-4, no existing structure containing a nonconforming use may be enlarged, extended, constructed, reconstructed, moved, or structurally altered except through the approval of a conditional use permit. As a result of the non-conformity, the Applicant is required to apply for a Conditional Use Permit for any future expansions on the property or attain compliance by constructing a new two-car garage. Sidewalks: Overland Road is improved with an existing 7-foot wide attached concrete sidewalk abutting the site in accordance with UDC standards. Staff is not recommending that this sidewalk be replaced with and 7-foot detached sidewalk. Pathways: The Meridian Pathways Master Plan Map indicates a planned pathway on the north side of the Five Mile Creek to be constructed by the City in the future. The Applicant should submit a dedicated easement for the pathway to the City. Easements shall be a minimum of 14’ wide (10’wide pathway + 2’ shoulder on each side). Utilities (UDC 11-3A-21): Connection to City water and sewer services is required in accordance with UDC 11-3A-21. The Applicant entered into an agreement with the City for extension of domestic water and sewer service outside Meridian city limits for the subject property (Inst. #2023-037612). The Applicant is currently connected to City utilities. Written Testimony: None Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the annexation subject to the Conditions and Findings outlined in the Staff Report. 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- 2023-0062 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 21, 2024, 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-2023- 0062, as presented during the hearing on March 21, 2024, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2023-0062 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #4: Cityside Storage (H-2023-0058) Application(s): Conditional Use Permit and DA Modification Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 2.08 acres of land, zoned C-G, located at 2755 N. Eagle Road. History: AZ 05-057, RZ-05-019, PP-05-019, CUP-05-052, PS-05-002, FP-07-012, and DA Instr. #1040107406 & #107044347; PBA- 2022-0021. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Mixed-Use Regional (MU-RG) Summary of Request: Modification to the existing Development Agreements (DA) (Inst. #104107406 amended as Inst. #107044347) to exclude the subject property and parcel #R0945580265, which limits the types of uses and building square footage to 32,500. The new DA would allow one of the properties to develop with a storage facility and increase the building square footage to 135,000 square feet with a building footprint of 32,500; and a Conditional Use Permit for a storage facility, self-service. Access: Access to the site is from the existing forty-foot (40’) private road N. Cajun Lane via Ustick Road or E. Seville Lane from N. Eagle Road. There is no direct access to the property from N. Eagle Road. Parking: A minimum of one (1) off-street parking space is required for every 500 square feet (s.f.) of gross floor area of the office space – parking is not required for the storage structures. Based on 862 s.f., a minimum of one (1) parking space is required. A total of eight (8) parking spaces are proposed, exceeding UDC the minimum standards. Landscaping: There is an existing twenty (20) foot landscape buffer with a ten (10) foot detached sidewalk along N. Eagle Road an arterial street. The property owner is proposing an additional ten (10) feet of landscaping along N. Eagle Road which shall be installed per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. A 25-foot wide buffer is required for the residential land use to the west as set forth in UDC Table 11-2C-3 and 11-4-3-34F, landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-9C. There is existing landscaping along the multi-use pathway along the southern property boundary which was installed with the previous development per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C. There are no existing trees on this site other than the landscaping along the pathway which will not be removed and protected during construction. Pedestrian Walkways: There is an existing detached ten (10) foot sidewalk along N. Eagle Road and an existing five (5) foot sidewalk along N. Cajun Lane. Per the Parks Department, multi-use pathways already exist in this area. No additional pathways are required with this project. Pathway Lighting: Pedestrian lighting along Eagle Road shall meet the requirements of UDC 11-3H—4C post and luminaire. Historical type lighting per the Meridian city standard specifications, except the height shall be fourteen (14) feet. Fencing: The site plan depicts a faux stucco wall enclosing the property. Building Elevations: Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed structure. Building materials consist of metal panels and stone pattern tiles. Final design is required to comply with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual (ASM) and the recorded agreement. Waterways: There are no waterways on the property. The Finch Lateral is located on the property to the south. Written Testimony: Staff Recommendation: Approval of the proposed modification to the Development Agreement and Conditional Use Permit subject to the conditions and the Findings outlined in the Staff Report. 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- 2023-0058, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 21, 2024, 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-2023- 0058, as presented during the hearing on March 21, 2024, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2023-0058 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) h2 Planning & Zoning March 21, 2024Commission Meeting ZoningAerialFLUM ZoningAerialFLUM preserving the overall aesthetics and functionality of the neighborhood.neighborhood or area. Maintaining compatibility with existing structures is crucial for The proposed development may alter the character of the Character of the Area: functionality.neighboring structures, impacting their natural lighting and potentially their The height of the proposed building might cast shadows over Overshadowing: with the existing aesthetic.harmony of the surrounding area. It could potentially create an eyesore or clash The disproportionate height of the building may disrupt the visual Visual Impact: of the area.such as visual impact, overshadowing neighboring structures, or altering the character building in the immediate area significantly. This excessive height can lead to issues The proposed building is set to exceed the height of the tallest Excessive Height: o land.” (3.07.00)“Encourage compatible uses and site design to minimize conflicts and maximize use of Looking WestLooking EastLooking EastLooking WestLooking NorthLooking West Square FootageHeight Development Name Address Height Development Name Address Square Feet Cityside Storage 2775 N. Eagle Rd 54.5’ Cityside Storage 2775 N. Eagle Rd 126,084 Discount Tire 2821 N. Eagle Rd 26’ Discount Tire 2821 N. Eagle Rd 6,947 Mason Retail Bldg 2847 N. Eagle Rd 30.2’ Mason Retail Bldg 2847 N. Eagle Rd 5,904 Mason Creek Retail Bldg 2959 N. Eagle Rd 25.46’ Mason Creek Retail Bldg 2959 N. Eagle Rd 7,682 Duplexes Bienville Square No. 2 & 3 – R-15 24.6’ Duplexes Bienville Square No. 2 & 3 – R-15 SFRs Bienville Square subdivision - R-8 35’ SFRs Bienville Square subdivision - R-8 Staff recommends .five (35) feet in height-shall not exceed thirtyservice storage facility, office, and retail -The future use of this site is limited to the self•outlined in the Staff Report. Agreement and Conditional Use Permit subject to the conditions and the Findings of the proposed modification to the Development approval W IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Taylor Annexation (H-2023-0062) by Robert Taylor, located at 3840 E. Overland Rd. Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2023-0062 A. Request: Annexation of 1.01 acres of land with an R-2 (Low-Density Residential) zoning district for the purpose of connecting to City utilities. 56 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : March 21 , 2024 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 3 PROJECT NAME : Taylor Annexation ( W2023 - 0062 ) Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify ( Please Print ) HOA ? ( mark X if yes ) If yes, please provide HOA name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 STAFF REPORT E IDIAN�-- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT I D A H O HEARING March 21, 2024 Legend - ----' DATE: Project Location 0 TO: Planning&Zoning Commission z Cy FROM: Stacy Hersh,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 F�J SUBJECT: Taylor Annexation AZ - H-2023-0062 J - -Eli E,___E-0 LAND=RD gA, ------ LOCATION: 3840 E. Overland Road in the Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 16, Township 3N,Range lE(Parcel —),/ #R4626240475) I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Annexation of 1.01 acres of land with an R-2 zoning district for the purpose of complying with the terms outlined in the consent to annex agreement for the existing home that is already connected to City utilities. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 1.01 acres Annexation Future Land Use Designation Mixed Use Regional(MU-R) Existing Land Use No change,continue existing single-family residential use Proposed Land Use(s) Single-Family detached residential Current Zoning Single-Family residential zone(R1)in Ada County Proposed Zoning R-2(Low Density Residential) Lots(#and type;bldg/common) 1 building lot - Phasing plan(#of phases) N/A Number of Residential Units(type N/A of units) Neighborhood meeting date 08/24/2023 Pagel [57] B. Community Metrics Description I Details Page Ada County Highway District • Staff report No (yes/no) • Requires No ACHD Commission Action es/no • Existing Existing curb,gutter,and sidewalk. Conditions • C1P/1FYWP PROJECT: South Meridian Iimprovements B- Overland Rd and Eagle Rd Project Description: Widen intersection to 7-lanes on Eagle Rd and 9-lanes on Overland Rd as per the 2020 CIP. Project to be done In coordination with the Idaho Transportation Department. Project Manager: choman -Cody Homan Design Year: 2025 Right-of-Way Year: Future Construction Year: FUT Project#: IN218-04 Access(Arterial/Collectors/State Overland Road is classified as a principal arterial roadway. H /Local)(Existin and Proposed) Proposed Road Improvements None Fire Service No comments received Police Service No comments received. Wastewater • Distance to Sewer Services No changes in public sewer infrastructure shown in record. Any changes must be approved by Public Works. • Sewer Shed • Estimated Project Sewer ERU's • WRRF Declining Balance • Project Consistent with WW Yes Master Plan/Facility Plan • Impacts/Concerns None Water • Distance to Services Water available at site. • Pressure Zone 4 • Estimated Project Water See application ERU's • Water Quality Concerns None Page 2 ■ • Project Consistent with Yes Water Master Plan • Impacts/Concerns None C. Project Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Legend 0 Legend Project Location n Project Location _J T L -..... - O w MU-RG f , �+ W a -� 0 0 w� DT an N N Q — P LA.J'.... D LA rn k m. sE LA �� — E-OVtRLAND RD a ~ PERAN ST a�ca Medium Density Residential Zonin Ma Planned Develo ment Map Legend R-40 0 Legend - - - -- --------- Project Location Project Location I z City Limits 1 R` R1 —Planned Parcels w J N e _ _ e G G E 0 LAND RD -E;- ---E=0 LAN D=RD ------ gh1 �P C-G 3 1 a. ESPERANTO ST R-15 a � o < � III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Robert Taylor, Owner-3840 E. Overland Road,Meridian,ID 83642 Page 3 59 B. Owner: Robert Taylor, Owner—3840 E. Overland Road,Meridian,ID 83642 C. Representative: Same as Applicant IV. NOTICING Planning& Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper notification published in newspaper 2/5/2024 Radius notification mailed to property owners within 500 feet 3/l/2024 Public hearing notice sign posted 3/10/2024 on site Nextdoor posting 3/4/2024 V. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS LAND USE: This property is designated as Mixed Use Regional(MU-R)on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM)contained in the Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of this designation is to provide a mix of employment,retail,and residential dwellings and public uses near major arterial intersections. The intent is to integrate a variety of uses together,including residential, and to avoid predominantly single-use developments such as a regional retail center with only restaurants and other commercial uses. Developments should be anchored by uses that have a regional draw with the appropriate supporting uses. For example, an employment center should have supporting retail uses; a retail center should have supporting residential uses as well as supportive neighborhood and community services. The standards for the MU-R designation provide an incentive for larger public and quasi-public uses where they provide a meaningful and appropriate mix to the development. The developments are encouraged to be designed consistent with the conceptual MU-R plan depicted. Due to the presence of an existing home on this property with the intention to maintain its residential use,an R-2 zoning district is requested as a"placeholder"zoning district until the property redevelops in the future. Opting for a zoning district within the Mixed-Use Regional(MU-R) designation would create a non- conforming use. For example, a single-family residential dwelling on an acre is not a permitted use in a commercial zoning district and it fails to meet density requirements for an R-15 or R-40 zoning district, which is not preferred. Prior to re-development, a rezone should be requested and development proposed consistent with the Commercial FLUM designation. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES(https://www.meridianciU.or /g compplan): Goals,Objectives, &Action Items: 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): • Encourage diverse housing options suitable for various income levels,household sizes, and lifestyle preferences. (2.01.01) The Plan aims to integrate mixed-use by incorporating a variety of uses, including residential. Residential uses should comprise a minimum of 10%of the development area, with gross densities Page 4 60 ranging from 6 to 40 units/acre. The current application seeks annexation of the property into the City to comply with the terms outlined in the consent to annex agreement,particularly due to the existing home already connected to City utilities. Specifics regarding the housing types and density will be addressed with future development. Given that the residential would be in a mixed-use center and at a higher density, it would likely lead to diversity in housing satisfying this goal. • "Permit new development only where it can be adequately served by critical public facilities and urban services at the time of final approval, and in accord with any adopted levels of service for public facilities and services."(3.03.03F) City water and sewer service is available and the existing home is already connected to City utilities in accordance with UDC 11-3A-21. • "Support infill development that does not negatively impact the abutting, existing development. Infill projects in downtown should develop at higher densities, irrespective of existing development." (2.02.02C) The proposed development will not likely impact the existing abutting developments to the east, west, and north, as they are all residential uses currently zoned RI in Ada County. • "Eliminate existing private treatment and septic systems on properties annexed into the City and instead connect users to the City wastewater system; discourage the prolonged use of private treatment septic systems for enclave properties." The existing home has already abandoned the existing septic system and is connected to the City wastewater system. VI. STAFF ANALYSIS A. ANNEXATION(AZ) The Applicant proposes to annex 1.01 acre parcel, including the adjacent right-of-way to the section line of E. Overland Road with an R-2 (Low-Density Residential)zoning district. A legal description and exhibit map for the annexation area is included in Section VIII.A. This property is within the City's Area of City Impact boundary. The reason for annexation is the water table for the existing well on the single- family residential property failed late last year and the Applicant had to hook-up to City water and sewer service.No new development or redevelopment of the property is proposed at this time and the use will remain residential for the foreseeable future. The Applicant entered into an agreement with the City for extension of domestic water and sewer service outside Meridian city limits for the subject property(Inst. #2023-037612). This agreement allowed the property to hook up to City water and sanitary sewer service with disconnection from the private well and septic system. A provision of the agreement requires the property owner to apply for annexation of the property into the City as proposed with this application. Single-family detached dwellings are listed as a principally permitted use in the R-2 zoning district per UDC Table 11-2A-2. The City may require a development agreement(DA) in conjunction with an annexation pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A. To ensure future development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the land use desired for this property, Staff recommends a Development Agreement as a provision of annexation pursuant to Idaho Code Section 67-6511A,which requires the property to be rezoned and the agreement modified to include a conceptual development plan prior to any change in use and/or development of the property. Page 5 61 Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2): The proposed existing house appears to comply with the dimensional standards of the district. Access: Access to this property is currently from E. Overland Road. With future redevelopment of the property,access via E. Overland Road and interconnectivity with adjacent properties will be evaluated in accordance with the provisions listed in UDC 11-3A-3. Parking(UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 for single-family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. The existing home does not meet the required number of off-street parking spaces per UDC Table 11-3C-6 for a three(3)bedroom home; four(4)parking spaces are required, at least 2 in an enclosed garage, other spaces may be enclosed or a minimum 10-foot by 20-foot parking pad. The existing home does not have an enclosed two-car garage;however,there is an existing 30-foot by 20-foot driveway. The existing home is recognized as non-conforming due to the off-street parking requirements in UDC 11-3C-6. Per UDC 11-IB-4, no existing structure containing a nonconforming use may be enlarged, extended, constructed, reconstructed, moved, or structurally altered except through the approval of a conditional use permit. As a result of the non-conformity, the Applicant is required to apply for a Conditional Use Permit for any future expansions on the property or attain compliance by constructing a new two-car garage(see figure below). Sidewalks(11-3A-17): Overland Road is improved with an existing 7-foot wide attached concrete sidewalk abutting the site in accordance with UDC standards. Staff is not recommending that this sidewalk be replaced with and 7-foot detached sidewalk. Pathways(UDC 11-3A-8): The Meridian Pathways Master Plan Map indicates a planned pathway on the north side of the Five Mile Creek to be constructed by the City in the future. The Applicant should submit a dedicated easement for the pathway to the City. Easements shall be a minimum of 14' wide(10'wide pathway+2' shoulder on each side). Utilities(UDC 11-3A-21): Connection to City water and sewer services is required in accordance with UDC 11-3A-21. The Applicant entered into an agreement with the City for extension of domestic water and sewer service outside Meridian city limits for the subject property(Inst.#2023-037612). The Applicant is currently connected to City utilities. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6. I1-3A-7): All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. The Applicant is not proposing fencing with this application. Page 6 F62 VII. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed annexation with the requirement of a Development Agreement per the provisions in Section IX in accord with the Findings in Section X. Page 7 63 VIII. EXHIBITS A. Annexation Legal Description and Exhibit Map Dart U Rl CENTURION ENGINECRS, INC. Conaulung Engineers, Land Surveyors, Planners 2323 S. Vida Ave Ste 206 Bols0, ID 837d5 Telephone 208.343.3361 I www.caniengr.com Annexation & Zone Land Description For- Robert Taylor Decdreber 27,2023 Lot 3,Block 2 of Jewell 5ubdivlsion as shown in Book 34 of Plats at Pages 2056&2057 records,Ada County,Idaho and adjoining right-of-way_Situate in the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 1 S.Townshlip 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Me ridian,Ada County, Idaho being more particularly described 21S follows; Commencing at the south quarter Corner of said Section 16; thence 589'59'45-W,483,11 feet along the southerly boundary of the southwest quarter of said Section 16 to the Paird of asg)nning Thence fddoa00'00"E,439.65 feet along the easterly boundary of said Lot 3(as extended to the southerly boundary of the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter)to the northeast comer Of said Lot 3; Thence N90000'OO W, 100 Net along the northerly boundary of sold Lot a to the northwest earner of sald lot 3; Thence 500°00'00"E,439,86 feet along the westerly boundary of said[got 3(as extended to the southerly boundary of the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter)to a point which fears N89'59'45"Er 749.26 feet from the SokghweSt comer of the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter of said Sectlon 16 and which point also bears SOW59'15"E, 1,332.50 feet from the southwest aaoWn corner of said Section 16; Thence N 89'59'45"E,104.OQ feet to the Point of Beginning. Coniaini%1.01 acres, more or less_ This description was prepared from information of record in the office of the Ada County. recorder.Jewell Subdlvislon Book 34, Pages 2056&2057 and Record of Survey No_8191.A new land sunray was not performed_ The basis of hearing for this description is said Jewell Subdivision, r a# t# � 4116 Q Page 8 F64 � ndj'■ a,�� U�� pj C VF03 �� r*T m 0 OO > tit Qa N I q S}}fl rr nyT irD Fit � N Lot 4, Block 2 of Jewell CA O Subdivision. Book 34, uPoge 2056 & M7 LJ m SO[r 00 4G'E #39 86' a L{•o�t�4�3. Block 2 of Jewelt "t k 3 SubdYision, Dx k 34, F 1*i Page 2{16G & 2057 �+. $ 1.01 Acres more or loseIMP S a Np4Op'OU1E 43486 CI Mfg Lot 2, Block 2 of Jewell Sub&Asion. Book 34, a z Page 2056 dr 2457 3 O L4 � N m � a- o m Page 9 F65] B. Site Map ilk 17 IF_+�Gil[�,(�� �efiM31'_ll�.r_'l'<r_ �L-�i:��.�p.•�,,�� ���r-, e e Page 10 ■ C. Existing Home F r J � Page 11 67 IX. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION 1. A Development Agreement(DA)is required as a provision of annexation of this property. Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance,a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian,the property owner(s)at the time of annexation ordinance adoption, and the developer. Currently, a fee of$303.00 shall be paid by the Applicant to the Planning Division prior to commencement of the DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six(6)months of the City Council granting the annexation. The DA shall, at minimum,incorporate the following provisions IF City Council determines annexation is in the best interest of the City: a. Prior to any change in use or redevelopment of the subject property, a rezone to a commercial and/or a higher density residential zoning district and a modification to this agreement shall be requested to include a conceptual development plan consistent with the Mixed-Use Regional Future Land Use Map (FLUM)designation and guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan. b. Future development of this site shall be consistent with the applicable standards in the city of Meridian's Unified Development Code. c. As a result of the non-conformity to the existing home due to the off-street parking requirements in UDC 11-3C-6,the Applicant/Owner is required to apply for a Conditional Use Permit for any future expansions on the property or attain compliance by constructing a new two-car garage. d. The Applicant shall submit a dedicated easement for the future pathway along the north side of the Fivemile Creek for the length of the property to the City. Easements shall be a minimum of 14' wide(10'wide pathway+2' shoulder on each side). B. PUBLIC WORKS No comments,Applicant has signed the agreement for extension of domestic water and sewer service outside Meridian City Limits (Inst. #2023-037612)and connected to City utilities. C. PARK'S DEPARTMENT https:llweblink.meridiancily.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=331534&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX D. ADA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES(ACDS) https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=332238&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianCity&cr =1 E. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https:llweblink.meridianciV.or /WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=331968&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX F. IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT(ITD) https:llweblink.meridiancily.or- /WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=332554&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX Page 12 sa X. FINDINGS A. Annexation and/or Rezone (UDC 11-5B-3E) Required Findings: 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 an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Stafffinds annexation of the subject property with an R-2 zoning district and requirement for the property to redevelop in the future consistent with the Mixed-Use Regional future land use map designation in the Comprehensive Plan is appropriate for this property(see Section Vfor more information). 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Stafffinds the proposed map amendment to the R-2 zoning district is consistent with the purpose statement for the residential districts in UDC 11-2B-1, in that it will contribute to the range of housing opportunities available in the City consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health,safety,and welfare; Stafffinds the proposed map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare as the proposed residential use should be compatible with adjacent single-family residential homes/uses in the area. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and Stafffinds that the proposed zoning amendment will not result in any adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing services to this site. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. Stafffinds the proposed annexation is in the best interest of the City. Page 13 ■ W IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Cityside Storage (H-2023-0058) by Peter Stuhlreyer, Designhaus Architecture, LLC., located at 2755 N. Eagle Rd. Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2023-0058 A. Request: Conditional Use Permit to allow for a 4-story self-storage facility and increase the building square footage from 32,500 to 135,000 on 2.08 acres of land in the C-G zoning district. B. Request: Development Agreement Modification to modify the existing Development Agreement to allow a 4-story self-storage facility and increase the building square footage from 32,500 to 135,000 on 2.08 acres of land in the C-G zoning district. 70 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : March 21v 2024 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 4 PROJECT NAME : Cityside Storage ( W2023 - 0058 ) Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify ( Please Print ) HOA ? ( mark X if yes ) If yes, please provide HOA name 1 C C6 \ acA� 4 c� ti/ 3 eA142 60 2 7 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 STAFF REPORT C�I w IDIAN -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .►A H O HEARING March 21,2024 Legend DATE: ■Project Location TO: Planning&Zoning Commission FROM: Linda Ritter,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2023-0058 Cityside Storage—MDA, CUP LOCATION: 2755 N. Eagle Road in the NE '/4 of Section 5,Township 3N.,Range 1E. T I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Modification to the existing Development Agreements (DA)(Inst. #104107406 amended as Inst. #107044347)to exclude the subject property and parcel#R0945580265,which limits the types of uses and building square footage to 32,500. The new DA would allow one of the properties to develop with a storage facility and increase the building square footage to 135,000 square feet with a building footprint of 32,500; and a Conditional Use Permit for a storage facility, self-service. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Acreage 2.08 acres Future Land Use Designation Mixed-Use Regional(MU-RG) Existing Land Use Vacant Proposed Land Use(s) Storage Facility, Self-Service Current Zoning 1111M General Retail&Service Commercial(C-G) Physical Features(waterways, NA hazards,flood plain,hillside) Neighborhood meeting date;#of 9/26/2023 via Zoom; 0 people attended attendees: History(previous approvals) AZ 05-057,RZ-05-019,PP-05-019,CUP-05-052,PS-05-002,FP-07-012, and DA Instr.#1040107406&#107044347; PBA-2022-0021 Page 1 ■ 1 1 1 Legend Legend 9 1Project Lo ation - I Project • • . . �. us• IC �.......... - • - • - L`11V11�S �����! W e UNIX � FAIRVIEW -+ �• a . - o ; FAIRVIEW ■ W �r.rrr....xxlnr rr..r.. �"- ■ F_ ■'M° LA'AA_r-'lH LA:AAJ••77�1AS 'i::.4 r+n��.�%.;��;r ;-'L J �_�l4^''� �' ..» 1 r 1 • � ' 1 1 0 . lATll ' Legend I Project Location City Limits �i H�7; larcels ' ! f USTICI�,�. IN R-8 RUT ?: - ��=�ysx. ea• - 1 ■uLLJr• ��,L� :r • .- ':."'. a a1 JI a r r er r_�'7:iiii�r•i MCI N::�_� Wes, �����■I►� Jim ATON IN Rip■■� ��� .......... �1 TI�I ��■�■ III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Peter Stuhlreyer,Designhaus Architecture,LLC—3300 Auburn Road, Suite 300,Auburn Hills, MI 48236 B. Owner: Kent Hosac— 1775 W. State Street, Suite 340,Boise,ID 83702 C. Agent/Representative: Same as Applicant IV. NOTICING Planning&Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification 3/5/2024 Radius notification mailed to properties within 300 feet 3/l/2024 Public hearing notice sign posted 3/6/2024 on site Nextdoor posting 3/4/2024 V. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN(HTTPS://WWW.MERIDIANCITY.ORGICOMPPLAN): A. Future Land Use Map Designation(https://www.meridiancity.org/compplan) This property is designated Mixed Use Regional on the Future Land Use Map(FLUM). This designation provides a mix of employment,retail,and residential dwellings and public uses near major arterial intersectionss for a full range of commercial uses to serve area residents and visitors. The intent is to integrate a variety of uses together, including residential, and to avoid predominantly single use developments such as a regional retail center with only restaurants and other commercial uses. Developments should be anchored by uses that have a regional draw with the appropriate supporting uses. Desired uses may include entertainment uses,major employment centers, clean industry,and other appropriate regional-serving most uses. Sample zoning include: R-15, R-40, TN- C, C-G and M-E. No changes to the FLUM designation or zoning is proposed with this application. B. Comprehensive Plan Policies (https://www.meridiancity.or /g compplan): 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): • "Permit new development only where it can be adequately served by critical public facilities and urban services at the time of final approval, and in accord with any adopted levels of service for public facilities and services."(3.03.03F) City water and sewer service is available and can be extended by the developer of the property proposed to be annexed with development in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. • "Encourage compatible uses and site design to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land." (3.07.00) Page 3 73 Storage facilities, self-serviced is an allowed use in the C-G zoning district through an approved conditional use permit.Although the operation of a storage facility could be fairly low impact, the current development agreement does not allow the use. Stafffeels the design of the proposed development is not compatible for the following reasons: o Excessive Height: The proposed building is set to exceed the height of the tallest building in the immediate area significantly. This excessive height can lead to issues such as visual impact, overshadowing neighboring structures, or altering the character of the area. o Visual Impact: The disproportionate height of the building may disrupt the visual harmony of the surrounding area. It could potentially create an eyesore or clash with the existing aesthetic. o Overshadowing: The height of the proposed building might cast shadows over neighboring structures, impacting their natural lighting and potentially their functionality. o Character of the Area: The proposed development may alter the character of the neighborhood or area. Maintaining compatibility with existing structures is crucial for preserving the overall aesthetics and functionality of the neighborhood. • "Require all new development to create a site design compatible with surrounding uses through buffering, screening,transitional densities, and other best site design practices."(3.07.01A) With development a landscaped street buffer will be required along N. Cajun Lane. There is an existing pathyway along the south side of the property in which the applicant is proposing additional buffer for the residential properties to the south in accord with UDC standards. • "Ensure development is connected to City of Meridian water and sanitary sewer systems and the extension to and through said developments are constructed in conformance with the City of Meridian Water and Sewer System Master Plans in effect at the time of development." (3.03.03A) The proposed development will be required to connect to City water and sewer systems with development;services are required to be provided to and though this development in accord with current City plans. • "Require appropriate landscaping,buffers, and noise mitigation with new development along transportation corridors(setback,vegetation,low walls,berms, etc.)."(3.07.01 C) A 25 foot wide street buffer is required to be provided with development along N. Eagle Rd., an arterial street,per UDC Table 11-2B-3, landscaped per the standards in UDC 11-3B-7C. There is an existing landscape buffer along N. Eagle Road. The property owner is proposing an additional ten (10)feet of landscaping along N. Eagle Road which exceed the required UDC standards. • "Reduce the number of existing access points onto arterial streets by using methods such as cross- access agreements, access management, and frontage/backage roads, and promoting local and collector street connectivity."(6.01.02B) Access to the property is via N. Cajun Lane, a private road. There is no direct access to N. Eagle Road from the property. Page 4 ■ • "Require urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments, including curb and gutter, sidewalks,water and sewer utilities."(3.03.03G) Curb, gutter and sidewalk was constructed with the road widening project along N. Eagle Rd. Hook-up to City water and sewer service is required with development. • "Support beautiful and high quality development that reinforces neighborhood character and sustainability."(5.01.02) Although the design of the building may be acceptable, the proposed building is set to exceed the height of the tallest building in the immediate area significantly. This excessive height can lead to issues such as visual impact, overshadowing neighboring structures, or altering the character of the area. • "Support and protect the identity of existing residential neighborhoods."(5.01.02E) Staff feels this proposal does not protect the identity of the existing residential neighborhood as the height of the proposed storage facility exceeds the tallest building in the immediate area by a significant margin. This may lead to visual impact, overshadowing neighboring structures, or altering the character of the area.Maintaining compatibility with the existing structures can be crucial for the overall aesthetics and functionality of a neighborhood or area. VI. STAFF ANALYSIS The Applicant proposes to develop this site with a four(4) story self-service storage facility containing 777 units and 15 exterior drive up self service storage units in climate controlled structures for a total of 792 units. The proposed use is subject to the following Specific Use Standards(UDC 11-4-3-34)—Storage Facility, Self-Service: (Staff analysis in italics) A. Storage units and/or areas 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 self-service storage facility is specifically prohibited. B. On site auctions of unclaimed items by the storage facility owners shall be allowed as a temporary use in accord with Chapter 3,Article E, "temporary use requirements", of this Title. C. The distance between structures shall be a minimum of twenty-five(25) feet. D. The storage facility shall be completely fenced,walled, or enclosed and screened from public view. Where abutting a residential district or public road, chain-link shall not be allowed as fencing material. E. If abutting a residential district,the facility hours of public operation shall be limited to 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. F. A minimum twenty-five-foot wide landscape buffer shall be provided where the facility abuts a residential use,unless a greater buffer width is otherwise required by this title. Landscaping shall be provided as set forth in subsection 11-3B-9.0 of this Title. G. If the use is unattended,the standards in accord with Section 11-3A-16, "self-service uses", of this Title shall also apply. The use will be unattended. H. The facility shall have a second means of access for emergency purposes as determined by the Fire Marshal. Page 5 F75] I. All outdoor storage of material shall be maintained in an orderly manner so as not to create a public nuisance. Materials shall not be stored within the required yards. Stored items shall not block sidewalks or parking areas and may not impede vehicular or pedestrian traffic. J. The site shall not be used as a"vehicle wrecking or junk yard" as herein defined. K. For any use requiring the storage of fuel or hazardous material,the use shall be located a minimum of one thousand(1,000)feet from a hospital. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): The proposal would meet the dimensional standards for setbacks, landscape buffers,parking and height requirements. However, the existing development agreement does not allow storage facilities as a use without an amendment. Staff ,finds the proposed storage facility, self-service if approved at the requested height and square footage would not maintain compatibility with existing structures which is crucial not only for aesthetics but also for the functional integration of the new development into the community. The proposed height will not be harmonious with adjacent residential and commercial uses and will negatively impact these uses as it may lead to overshadowing of neighboring structures, and alterations to the area's character which are a concern. Therefore staff recommends the building height not exceed 35 feet in height which is consistent with the adjacent stuctures in the area. Hours of Operations(UDC 11-213-313): The UDC(11-2B-3B) limits business hours of operation in the C-G zoning district from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. when the property abuts a residential use or district; extended hours may be requested through a CUP. These restrictions apply to all business operations occurring outside an enclosed structure, including,but not limited to,customer or client visits,trash compacting, and deliveries. These restrictions do not apply to business operations occurring within an enclosed structure,including,but not limited to,cleaning,bookkeeping, and after hours work by a limited number of employees. The applicant is proposing to operate the business within the following hours:Monday through Sunday- 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. Access(UDC 11-3A-3,11-3H- Access to the site is from the existing forty foot(40)private road N. Cajun Lane via Ustick Road or E. Seville Lane from N. Eagle Road. There is no direct access to the property from N. Eagle Road. Parking(UDC 11-3C): A minimum of one(1) off-street parking space is required for every 500 square feet(sf.) of gross floor area of the office space—parking is not required for the storage structures. Based on 862 sf., a minimum of one(1)parking space is required.A total of eight(8)parking spaces are proposed, exceeding UDC the minimum standards. A minimum of one(1) bicycle parking space is required for every 25 vehicle parking spaces per UDC 11-3C-6G. Bases on eight(8) vehicle parking spaces, a minimum of one(1) bicycle parking space is required.A bicycle rack is depicted on the landscape plan. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-1 n: There is an existing detached ten (10)foot sidewalk along N. Eagle Road and an existing five (5) foot sidewalk along N. Cajun Lane. Per the Parks Department, multi-use pathways already exist in this area. No additional pathways are required with this project. Pedestrian lighting along Page 6 ■ Eagle Road shall meet the requirements of UDC 11-3H-4Cpost and luminaire. Historical type lighting per the Meridian city standard specifications, except the height shall be fourteen (14) feet. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): There is an existing twenty(20)foot landscape buffer with a ten (10)foot detached sidewalk along N. Eagle Road an arterial street. The property owner is proposing an additional ten (10) feet of landscaping along N. Eagle Road which shall be installed per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. A 25 foot wide buffer is required to the residential land use to the north as set forth in UDC Table 11-2C-3 and 11-4-3-34F, landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-9C. There is existing landscaping along the multi-use pathway along the southern property boundary which was installed with the previous development per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C. There are no existing trees on this site other than the landscaping along the pathway which will not be removed and protected during construction. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6,11-3A-7)• The site plan depicts a faux stucco wall enclosing the property. Outdoor Lighting(UDC 11-3A-111 All outdoor lighting is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-11 C. Light fixtures that have a maximum output of 1,800 lumens or more are required to have an opaque top to prevent up-lighting; the bulb shall not be visible and shall have a full cutoff shield in accord with Figure I in UDC 11-3A-11 C. Utilities (UDC 11-3A-21): Water and sewer services were installed with the construction of N. Cortona Way and stubbed to the parcel. Street lights were installed to the east across N. Cortona Way with the construction of N. Cortona Way. No additional street lights are being proposed with this development. Waterways(UDC 11-3A4mj: There are no waterways on the property. The Finch Lateral is located on the property to the south. Structure and Design Standards (UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed structure as shown in Section VIII(C). Building materials consist of metal panels and stone pattern tiles. Final design is required to comply with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual(ASM) and the recorded agreement. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT MODIFICATION(MDA) The Applicant is requesting a modification to the existing Development Agreement [Inst. #107044347 to include storage facility as an allowed use and increase the building square footage to 135,000 square feet with a maximum buiding footprint of 32,500 square feet. This requires City Council action with a recommendation from the Planning Commission on the requested height and square footage. The existing development agreement only allows uses such as retail,restaurant and office. A storage facility is not considered office nor retail as UDC 11-1A-1 defines retail as follows: Page 7 77 The use of a site that offers merchandise to the public for monetary compensation. The use includes, but is not limited to, convenience stores;food stores; apparel and accessories stores; book, computer, and music stores; electronics and appliances;florists;furniture and home furnishings;general merchandise stores; health and personal care stores; hobby, office supplies, stationery and gift stores;specialty stores;sporting goods; and used merchandise stores. Therefore, storage facility is not allowed without an amendment to the existing development agreement. The existing development agreement has a maximum square footage of one single building in the C- G portion of the project that shall not exceed 32,500 square feet. The applicant's request is almost four(4)times the square footage for the proposed storage facility than allotted to the existing commercial businesses within this subdivision. Staff recommends the applicant enter into a new development agreement(DA) as there are too many owners subject to the previous agreements.The new DA should also include parcel number R0945580265 along with a revised concept plan and commercial/office building elevations showing future development of this parcel.A provision in the new DA will limit the height of all buildings to a maximum height of thirty-five(35)feet.Fifteen(15) days prior to the City Council hearing,the applicant should provide a revised concept plan,commercial/office building elevations, and a legal description of the property that will be subject to the new DA. A comparison table was put together showing the square footage of the existing buildings in the area. Square Footage Comparison Table Development Name Address Square Feet Cityside Storage 2775 N. Eagle Rd 126,084 Discount Tire 2821 N. Eagle Rd 6,947 Mason Retail Bldg 2847 N. Eagle Rd 5,904 Mason Creek Retail Bldg 2959 N. Eagle Rd 7,682 Duplexes Bienville Square No. 2 &3—R-15 SFRs Bienville Square subdivision-R-8 Page 8 78 f 54.5' 1 Y The comparison table showing the height of existing buildings in the area is a valuable tool for assessing the proposed development's impact on the neighborhood's visual harmony and overall character. A 64%increase in height compared to the tallest building in the immediate area is a significant difference that warrants careful consideration. Visual impact, overshadowing of neighboring structures, and alterations to the area's character are a concern.Maintaining compatibility with existing structures is crucial not only for aesthetics but also for the functional integration of the new development into the community. The proposed development should enhance rather than detract from the overall quality and character of the area. Height Comparison Table Development Name Address Height Cityside Storage 2775 N. Eagle Rd 54.5' Discount Tire 2821 N. Eagle Rd 26' Mason Retail Bldg 2847 N. Eagle Rd 30.2' Mason Creek Retail Bldg 2959 N. Eagle Rd 25.46' Duplexes Bienville Square No. 2 &3—R-15 24.6' SFRs Bienville Square subdivision-R-8 35' The applicant feels the proposed location will create a better transition with the existing residential areas by moving the mass of the building away from those residential areas and towards Eagle Road Page 9 79 to the east and the existing commercial to the north. The applicant also feels the scale of the building makes the project much more economically feasible since the high cost of the land can be spread across more units. Third,the applicant states the proposed height of 54.5 feet conforms with the existing C-G zoning allowance of 65 feet,which was a significant consideration in the developer's decision to purchase the land. Although the applicant has put forth several arguments in favor of the proposed location and building scale, emphasizing the transition with existing residential areas, economic feasibility, and adherence to zoning regulations. Staff has concerns regarding the compatibility of the proposed building with the surrounding structures. The applicant's points about transitioning the mass of the building away from residential areas, optimizing economic feasibility through scale, and conforming to the existing zoning regulations are significant factors. However, it's crucial to consider the visual and architectural harmony within the surrounding context. The images provided by the applicant and staff suggest that the proposed building may not blend well with the immediate area,particularly in comparison to the existing structures. The suggestion made during the preapplication meeting,recommending a design that aligns better with the development on the east side of Eagle Road where multi-story apartment buildings are prevalent, could be a valid consideration. Balancing economic feasibility,zoning regulations, and aesthetic integration into the existing environment is often a complex task. It may be beneficial for the applicant to explore design modifications that address the visual compatibility concerns while still meeting their economic objectives and conforming to zoning requirements. Looking West Page 10 80 rTM Ar� " 'J.'h �ti. 1 f I hCt gill .T F F ■ ■ Existing Development East of the Proposed Project(East Side of Eagle Road) IN - :9 �� ��9�'! ��.!�� _° ax� as•. as a�■ 'av �.. a �' ■ a� to Based on the information provided above, staff is not in favor of recommending approval of the Development Agreement modification to increase the square footage from 32,500 to 135,000 with a 32,500 building footprint. Staff is in favor of recommending approval of the Development Agreement modification and CUP for a storage facility with a maximum height of 35 feet and building square footage of 32,500. VII. DECISION A. Staff: Approval: Staff recommends approval of the proposed modification to the Development Agreement and Conditional Use Permit per the DA provisions and conditions in Sections IX and the Findings in Section X. Page 12 82] VIII. EXHIBITS A. Site Plan (12/06/23) fx ARE Em &I ��77] ufj` 5 N.Eagle Rd. Proposed 454eFy Cill Curi Goff St-ge Building 31,521 G5F P,,11- 126,084 GSF Total 3— —1 L 3- �S, UJI Zi B. Landscape Plan(12/06/23) --- -------------------- A== 1-17, 2755 14 Eagle Rd. all C rtriclied Sao Storage Building 31.521 G.SF Per Flo 125.084 GSFTtol WN wim Rif I bit Page 13 F 83 C. Building Elevations (12/06/23) (NOT APPROVED) o wig .................01 1771 MMr all - D � C � S UyI ® W K U kOANIPo�d'AT30Po 9�iHR _ O - m o 2 PoO�Po �w k O I � O E � A2.1 o� WIC o : � W U�GWEB'�N9Po S O �_ o a o a z F O a I;1 — W13�W az,2 Page 14 84 -1 w Q U i O 4 � a I s'a _ V @1J`.0 ao �J \J Hal l} D.Existing Development Agreement 4. USES PERMITTED BY THIS AGREEMENT: The uses allowed pursuant to this Agreement are only those uses allowed under City's Zoning Ordinance codified at Meridian Unified Development Code§ 11-2A-2 and 11-2B-2 which are herein specified as follows: Construction and development of up to 54 Single Family Residential lots,22 Multi Family Residential lots, 14 common lots and up to 7 commercial/office lots(to include up to 65,000 square feet of retail/restaurant/and office uses in the proposed C-G zone)pertinent to AZ-05-057, PP-05-059, RZ-05-019, PS-05-002 and CUP-05-052 applications. Part of the 28.48 acre site was approved for annexation with a Development Agreement in April,2004 under the name of Kissler Annexation(file no. AZ 03-018). The DA, instrument no. 104107406,requires that anyfuture use be approved either though a site specific CUP application or a Planned Development. A concept plan for the overall site was submitted with the application for informational purposes. 4.2 No change in the uses specified in this Agreement shall be allowed without modification of this Agreement. Page 15 85 5. DEVELOPMENT IN CONDITIONAL USE: Owner/Developer has submitted to City an application for conditional use permit site plan dated February 13, 2006, and shall be required to obtain the City's approval thereof, in accordan.ce to the City's Zoning and Development Ordinance criteria, therein, provided, prior to, and as a condition of, the commencement of construction of any buildings or improvements on th.e Property that require a conditional use permit. No new buildings are approved for construction under this conceptual CUP/PD application. Except for the single family Jots,all future buildings on this site shall require approval of design review at staff level prior to submittal of any Certificate of Zoning Compliance application and/or building permit. 6. CONDITIONS GOVERNING DEVELOPMENT OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: 6.1 Owner/Developer shall develop the Property in accordance with the following special conditions: 1. The site has an existing development agreement fustrument No. 104107406. The entire 28.48 acres shall have a new development agreement which shall incorporate the DA from the prior approval of 2003-2004 and include any further restrictions as detailed in this report. 2. That all future uses shall not involve uses,activities,processes,materials,equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic,noise, smoke, fumes,glare or odors. 3. That all future development of the subject property shall be constructed in accordance with City of Meridian ordinances in effect at the time of the development. 4. That the applicant be responsible for all costs associated with the sewer and water service extension. 5. That any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be removed from their domestic service,per City OrdinanceSection 5-7-517,when services are available from the City of Meridian. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. 6. That the maximum building footprint square footage of the C-G portion of the project shall not exceed a 20%increase or decrease of 54,000 sq. ft. for a minimum of 43,200 sq. ft. and a maximum of 65,000 sq. ft. That the maximum square footage of one single building in the C- G portion of the project shall not exceed 32,500 square feet,which is approximately%2 of the maximum allowable commercial square feet on this property. 7. That prior to issuance of any certificate of zoning compliance all landscaping shall be constructed along the southern and eastern property boundary and along Eagle Road to the point of connection with adjoining projects. The commercial/office lots should include either a permanent easement or be redesigned to include landscaping in common lots. 8. The applicant has committed a plan to provide a pathway with specific fencing along the southern and western boundaries. The fencing plan shall be constmcted as detailed at the public hearing on April 4,2006. 9. The applicant has shown several elevations for both the alley accessed residential, condominium, and detached single family residential products. The elevations shall be in Page 16 86 substantial confonnance to the elevations presented at the April 18,2006 hearing. These elevations shall have similar modulation and treatments to the elevations presented to council as determined by the Planning Director. 10. The elevations for the commercial/office buildings shall substantially comply with the elevations submitted by the applicant at the April 18, 2006 hearing. Further,the applicant shall coordinate with the developer of Sadie Creek Promenade to create a unified appearance throughout both projects. 11. The applicant shall coordinate with the Meridian Parks Department and Nampa Meridian Irrigation District to define the location of the multi use pathway,bridge maintenance, and landscaping along the Finch Lateral. E. Applicant's Proposed Modifications to the Development Agreement Lanaguage Provisions with Proposed Changes in Strike-Out/Underline Format: 4 USES PERMITTED BY THIS AGREEMENT: 4.1 Genstmetion and develepmen4 of up to 54 Single Family Residential lots, 22 Multi Family Residential lots, 14 eemmen lots a-ad W to 7 eemmer-eial/effiee lots(to ineltide up to 65,000 squar-e feet of r-etail/FesidepAial/and offiee uses in in the proposed C G zone)peftinent to AZ 4.3 The construction and development of a self-storage facility on Parcel No.R0945580275 (2755 N. Eagle Road)with combined building footprints of up to 36,000 square feet and a combined dross building area over multiple stories of up to 135,000 square feet. Change: We propose to add a new Section 4.3 that specifies the use self-storage use and adds (for our parcel) the combined building footprints (36K sq) and the combined building area (135K sj). Note: The 3Yd Addendum (518114) inadvertently deleted the commercial/office language in Section 4.1 of the 2nd Addendum (2121113), so the original commercial/off ce language technically no longer exists. 6. CONDITIONS GOVERNING DEVELOPMENT OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: 6.1.6 That the maximaim square footage of the G G pai4ian of the pr-ojeet shall fiet&Eeeed a 0 deer-ease f 54 000 sq. ft f a minimum f n 3,200 sq. ft. ra . maximtffn 0 65,000 sq. A. That the maximem square footage of one single building in the C G pet4ion o ,�of the maximu allowable, .,l s e feet`.., this p pe ft,. 6.1.6 The maximum square footage for the footprint of a single building within the C-G portion of the project shall not exceed 32,500 square feet. The maximum square footage for the combined footprints of all buildings within the C-G portion of the project shall not exceed 75,000 square feet. Change: We propose to change the restrictions to limit "building footprints"rather than "building area", with limits of 32.5K sf for a single building and 75K for the entire commercial subdivision. Note: The Pt Addendum (3129107)specifies building area limits of 32.5K sffor a single building and 65K sf for the entire commercial subdivision. The footprints of the existing buildings total 28,247 sf(according to the Ada County Parcel Viewer). Page 17 ■ 6. CONDITIONS GOVERNING DEVELOPMENT OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: 6.1.10 The elevations for the eonvnereiaPeffiee boildings shall substantially comply with th elevations submitted by the applieant at the April 18, 2006 hearing. Further-,the appliewnt shall eeor-dineAe with the de�,,eloper of Sadie Greek Promenade to erea4e a tMi 6.1.10 The elevations for the proposed buildings on Parcel No. R0945580275 (2755 N. Eagle Road) shall comply with the elevations in the CUP approved concurrently with this 5th Addendum. Elevation requirements for all other commercial/office buildings in the C-G portion of the project shall remain unchanged. Change: Comply with the new elevations contained in our CUP application rather than the elevations originally submitted on 4118106. Note: The Is`Addendum (3129107)specifies compliance with the elevations submitted by the former applicant on 4118106. IX. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS A. PLANNING DIVISION 1. Development Agreement Modification Fifteen(15)days prior to the City Council hearing,the applicant shall provide the revised concept plan that includes parcel R0945580265,commercial/office building elevations and a legal description of the property subject to the new DA. 1.1 The new DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six(6)months of the City Council approval of the Findings. The DA shall,at minimum,incorporate the following provisions: a. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the concept plan and conceptual building elevations included in Section VIII and the provisions contained herein. b. The future use of this site is limited to the self-service storage facility, office, and retail uses. All buildings shall not exceed thirty-five(35) feet in height. 2. Conditonal Use Permit 2.1 The Applicant shall comply with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-34—Self- Service Storage Facility. 2.2 Outdoor lighting shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-11. Lighting details shall be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application that demonstrate compliance with these standards. 2.3 Add decorative pedestrian lighting along Eagle Road that meet the requirements of UDC 11- 3H-4C post and luminaire. 2.4 Protect the existing landscaping on the site during construction,per UDC 11-3B-10. 2.5 The facility hours of public operation shall be limited to 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. because the property abuts a residential zoning district per UDC 11-4-3-34E. 2.6 A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application is required to be submitted to the Planning Division and approved prior to submittal of a building permit application. Page 18 ■ 2.7 The conditional use permit is valid for a maximum period of two (2)years unless otherwise approved by the City. During this time,the Applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval,and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6.A time extension may be requested as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6F. B. PUBLIC WORKS https:llweblink.meridiancity.orylWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=331424&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty C. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https:llweblink.meridiancity.orzlWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=331434&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC D. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https:llweblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=331434&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC hty E. IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT(ITD) https:llweblink.meridiancity.orgJ ebLink1DocView.aspx?id=331434&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC X. FINDINGS Conditional Use(UDC 11-5B-6) Findings: The commission shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request upon the following: 1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. Staff finds the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use (i.e. storage facility, self- service)and can meets all of the dimensional and development regulations of the C-G zoning district. 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan and in accord with the requirements of this title. Stafffinds the proposed storage facility, self-service if approved at the requested height and square footage would not maintain compatibility with existing structures which is crucial not only for aesthetics but also for the functional integration of the new development into the community. The proposed height will not be harmonious with adjacent residential and commercial uses and will negatively impact these uses as it may lead to overshadowing of neighboring structures, and alterations to the area's character which are a concern. 3. That the design,construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. Stafffinds the proposed height exceeds the tallest building in the immediate area by a significant margin, and may lead to overshadowing of neighboring structures, and alterations to the area's Page 19 ■ character which are a concern. Maintaining compatibility with the existing structures is crucial for the overall aesthetics and functionality of a neighborhood or area. 4. 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 the proposed storage facility, self-service if approved at the requested height and square footage would not maintain compatibility with existing structures which is crucial not only for aesthetics but also for the functional integration of the new development into the community. The proposed height will not be harmonious with adjacent residential and commercial uses and will negatively impact these uses as it may lead to overshadowing of neighboring structures, and alterations to the area's character which are a concern. 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools,parks,police and fire protection, drainage structures,refuse disposal, water, and sewer. Staff ,finds the proposed use can be served by essential public facilities and services as required; the proposed use (i.e. storage facility, self-service) will not have an impact to the provision of services. 6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Stafffinds the proposed use (i.e. storage facility, self-service) will not create additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes,materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic,noise, smoke, fumes,glare or odors. Staff ,finds the proposed use (i.e. storage facility, self-service), will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke,fumes, glare or odors. Stafffinds the proposed storage facility, self-service if approved at the requested height and square footage would not maintain compatibility with existing structures which is crucial not only for aesthetics but also for the functional integration of the new development into the community. The proposed height will not be harmonious with adjacent residential and commercial uses and will negatively impact these uses as it may lead to overshadowing of neighboring structures, and alterations to the area's character which are a concern. 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction,loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) Stafffinds the proposed use (i.e. storage facility, self-service) will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any such features. 9. Additional findings for the alteration or extension of a nonconforming use: a. That the proposed nonconforming use does not encourage or set a precedent for additional nonconforming uses within the area; and, This finding is not applicable. Page 20 90 b. That the proposed nonconforming use is developed to a similar or greater level of conformity with the development standards as set forth in this title as compared to the level of development of the surrounding properties. This finding is not applicable. Page 21 F-91 E IDIAN;--- Applicant Presentation CitySide Storage 0058-2023-HMarch 21, 2024 at 2755 N Eagle RoadStorage Facility -proposed SelfMeridian P&Z Hearing Team Introduction CitySide Storage–0058 -2023-H–March 21, 2024 –Meridian P&Z Hearing Ben Semple, PrincipalRodney Evans, PrincipalRodney Evans + Partners (RE+P)Land Use Consultants Peter Stuhlreyer, Chief ArchitectDesignhaus Architecture LLC Architect Ken Hosac, ManagerHosac Frank Ventures LLC Developer 2 Ken Hosac, Manager55 LLC-HV Owner Location CitySide Storage–0058 -2023-H–March 21, 2024 –Meridian P&Z Hearing Eagle RdUstick SiteSite 3 2755 N Eagle Road, Meridian, ID Parcels North CitySide Storage–0058 -2023-H–March 21, 2024 –Meridian P&Z Hearing N Eagle Road2755 ER LLC-Owner: HV0.861 acresParcel D (Lot 26, Block 1) 37,514 sf, Parcel #: R094558026555 LLC-Owner: HV90,674 sf, 2.082 acresParcel E (Lots 26 & 27, Block 1)Parcel #: R0945580275 N Eagle Road2803 4 2755 and 2803 N Eagle Road Site Challenges North CitySide Storage–0058 -2023-H–March 21, 2024 –Meridian P&Z Hearing Site 5 Difficult Access, Traffic Flows, Parking Conflicts, Transition to Residential The Ideal Solution North CitySide Storage–0058 -2023-H–March 21, 2024 –Meridian P&Z Hearing Existing Deceleration Lane Site 6 Out across the street; Extend existing deceleration lane-In Right-Mirror Right Staff Report CitySide Storage–0058 -2023-H–March 21, 2024 –Meridian P&Z Hearing However, the proposed condition for max height doesn’t work.We’re happy that Staff recommends approval of the Project!!7 Relieved that we are not asking for access from Eagle Roadoutdoor lighting, utilities, dimensional standards, etcAgrees with proposed access, parking, sidewalks, landscaping, fencing, storage as “retail”, even though we in the industry do.-Doesn’t see self(residential or commercial).Agrees that there are no neighbor objections to datesignificantly reduced from other uses.storage are -Agrees that the traffic, parking conflicts, and noise for selfresidential.-to-Recognizes the sensitivity transitioning from commercialLots of Common Ground-- Key Discussion Items CitySide Storage–0058 -2023-H–March 21, 2024 –Meridian P&Z Hearing 8 Square FootageHeightUse Key Discussion Item:CitySide Storage–0058 -2023-H–March 21, 2024 –Meridian P&Z Hearing to explore.The Architects OfficeHired 9 OfficeRestaurantRetailApproved Uses in the Current DA Use Commercial North CitySide Storage–0058 -2023-H–March 21, 2024 –10); Access to Eagle RoadbldgsOffice, Retail & Restaurants (19,800 sf across 3 Commercial North CitySide Storage–0058 -2023-H–March 21, 2024 –11 lots); Access to Eagle Road-Office, Retail & Restaurant (7 Office Concept (back parcel)North CitySide Storage–0058 -2023-H–March 21, 2024 –Meridian P&Z Hearing 12 story building with 7,000 sf -Single Vertically North CitySide Storage–0058 -2023-H–March 21, 2024 –13 Residential (36 units) + Commercial (8,000 sf)Integrated Residential (VIR)- Vertically North CitySide Storage–0058 -2023-H–March 21, 2024 –14 story Podium with 56 Residential Units and 4,300 sf of Commercial space and 92 Parking Spaces-4 Integrated Residential (VIR)- Apartments North CitySide Storage–0058 -2023-H–March 21, 2024 –15 24 units in 7 buildings; Access to Eagle Road Apartments North CitySide Storage–0058 -2023-H–March 21, 2024 –16 24 units in 7 buildings; No access to Eagle Road Self Storage North CitySide Storage–0058 -2023-H–March 21, 2024 –Meridian P&Z Hearing 17 28,000 sf in 9 buildings Single Story– Self North CitySide Storage–0058 -2023-H––Meridian P&Z Hearing 18 up (3,926 sf footprint)-story drive-story building (31,522 sf footprint) + 1 single-4 Storage, Multi Story- Concept Exploration CitySide Storage–0058 -2023-H–March 21, 2024 –Meridian P&Z Hearing 19 Storage -Integrated Residential, Self-Retail, Restaurant, Office, Apartments, Vertically Key Discussion Item:CitySide Storage–0058 -2023-H–March 21, 2024 –Meridian P&Z Hearing storage-Bottom Line: The clear choice for me is self 20 Very high with SS.“Neighborhood Happiness Factor”100% support from commercial. Unanimously approved CC&R modificationLess traffic, less parking conflicts, less noise, less incompatibilityStorage rather than any of the other uses-Happy and relieved to see SelfFeedback Reviewed Site Plans, Elevations and RenderingsCommercial subdivision OABoth residential subdivision HOAs (BS#3, Jackson Square)Discussions Storage Use-Neighborhood Feedback about Self Key Discussion Item:understanding this, not the UDCestate brokers are experts at-Commercial real CitySide Storage–0058 -2023-H–March 21, 2024 –Meridian P&Z Hearing 21 visibility locations to attract customers-Emphasize highfacing staff-Customeroriented storefronts-Require physical retailOperational similarities with retailoriented business model-CustomerSimilarities of Retail and Self Storage Retail”-Storage is “Quasi-Self Key Discussion Item:CitySide Storage–0058 -2023-H–March 21, 2024 –Meridian P&Z Hearing 22 existence with neighbors-Peaceful counits & loading docks are interior; not open after 11pm–Reduce noise SS customers don’t park in neighbor’s spots–Reduced parking conflicts 20/day vs 1,000s/day–Much lower traffic counts Benefits of SS as Transition from Commercial to Residential Storage is an Attractive Transitional Use-Self Conclusions Regarding the CitySide Storage–0058 -2023-H–March 21, 2024 –Meridian P&Z Hearing StaffMeridianNeighborsCommercial Feedback on Proposed Use NeighborsResidential Use 23 commercial to residential.Appropriate for transition from CUP and MDA.storage requires a -The use for selfmore favorably than other uses.storage is viewed by neighbors -SelfOffice, Retail or Restaurant does not Retail, or Restaurant.The current DA requires Office, Storage-Propose Use of Self Key Discussion Item:CitySide Storage–0058 -2023-H–March 21, 2024 –Meridian P&Z Hearing 24 rear to minimize visual impactVertical articulation of the parapet on Eagle Road (requires extra height), but not Discount Tire’s signage and windowsSet the building additional 10’ back from Eagle so as not to block the view of Use the courtyard as buffer to the south and west residentialMass the building to the Northeast (commercial, Eagle Rd) away from residentialObjectives Storage-NHF Design Objectives for Self Key Discussion Item:CitySide Storage–0058 -2023-H–March 21, 2024 –Meridian P&Z Hearing This is a significant difference 25 35’Staff wants max height of Staff Feedback 55’Proposing height of Application for CUP & MDA 65’Allows a max height of G Zoning and CC&Rs-C Height Key Discussion Item:54%85%CitySide Storage–0058 -2023-H–March 21, 2024 –Meridian P&Z Hearing Building Height(2-story?)RecommendationStaff Report(Proposed)ApplicationCitySide Storage(Allowed)C-G Zoning 70'60'50'40'30'20'10'0'35'55’65'26 Height Analysis Key Discussion Item:CitySide Storage–0058 -2023-H–March 21, 2024 –Meridian P&Z Hearing There’s an opportunity here to find common ground!27 Our desire to design to existing zoning regulationsOur need to optimize economic feasibility through scaleRecognized our efforts to mass the building away from residential areasStaff Acknowledgments OvershadowingMaintaining character of the areaVisual impactCompatibility with existing structuresStaff Concerns Height Key Discussion Item:CitySide Storage–0058 -2023-H–March 21, 2024 –Meridian P&Z Hearing 28 storage facility across Eagle Road to the SE (approved but not built)-SelfApartments across Eagle Road to the East and SoutheastCommercial to the NorthResidential to the SouthResidential to the WestLet’s take a walk through the neighborhood.Height Demographics & Retail Synergy CitySide Storage–0058 -2023-H–March 21, 2024 –Meridian P&Z Hearing Retail”-to be “Quasistorage is considered -Self 29 Key Discussion Item:CitySide Storage–0058 -2023-H–March 21, 2024 –Meridian P&Z Hearing 30’to the WestResidential 30 Surrounding Neighborhood Key Discussion Item:CitySide Storage–0058 -2023-H–March 21, 2024 –Meridian P&Z Hearing streetside of the on the west the homes East from View to the 31 Surrounding Neighborhood Key Discussion Item:CitySide Storage–0058 -2023-H–March 21, 2024 –Meridian P&Z Hearing to the SouthResidential 32 Surrounding Neighborhood Key Discussion Item:CitySide Storage–0058 -2023-H–March 21, 2024 –Meridian P&Z Hearing to the SouthResidential 33 Surrounding Neighborhood Key Discussion Item:CitySide Storage–0058 -2023-H–March 21, 2024 –Meridian P&Z Hearing Southdirectly the backyard North from View to the 34 Surrounding Neighborhood Key Discussion Item:CitySide Storage–0058 -2023-H–March 21, 2024 –Meridian P&Z Hearing to the Northdirect neighbor Discount Tire 35 Surrounding Neighborhood Key Discussion Item:CitySide Storage–0058 -2023-H–March 21, 2024 –Meridian P&Z Hearing SoutheastView to the 36 Surrounding Neighborhood Key Discussion Item:CitySide Storage–0058 -2023-H–March 21, 2024 –Meridian P&Z Hearing directly across Eagle RdStory Apartments -4 37 Surrounding Neighborhood Key Discussion Item:CitySide Storage–0058 -2023-H–March 21, 2024 –Meridian P&Z Hearing to the Eastacross the street Apartments 38 Surrounding Neighborhood Key Discussion Item:CitySide Storage–0058 -2023-H–March 21, 2024 –Meridian P&Z Hearing across the streetapproved for 50’ Bach Storage 39 Surrounding Neighborhood Key Discussion Item:CitySide Storage–0058 -2023-H–March 21, 2024 –Meridian P&Z Hearing to the Southeastacross the street op Market -The Co 40 Surrounding Neighborhood Key Discussion Item:CitySide Storage–0058 -2023-H–March 21, 2024 –Meridian P&Z Hearing 41 Perspectives from the residential homes to the west Let’s take a look at the Renderings Surrounding Neighborhood Key Discussion Item:CitySide Storage–0058 -2023-H–March 21, 2024 –Meridian P&Z Hearing SoutheastView to the 42 Surrounding Neighborhood Key Discussion Item:CitySide Storage–0058 -2023-H–March 21, 2024 –Meridian P&Z Hearing streetside of the on the west the homes East from View to the 43 Surrounding Neighborhood Key Discussion Item:CitySide Storage–0058 -2023-H–March 21, 2024 –Meridian P&Z Hearing sidewalkresidential SW from the View to the 44 Surrounding Neighborhood Key Discussion Item:CitySide Storage–0058 -2023-H–March 21, 2024 –Meridian P&Z Hearing Southdirectly the backyard North from View to the 45 Surrounding Neighborhood Key Discussion Item:CitySide Storage–0058 -2023-H–March 21, 2024 –Meridian P&Z Hearing Eagle Rd–Bach Storage Haul Overland-UHaul Franklin-U 46(per the application)42’ to 50’story) = -Bach Storage on Eagle (339’story) = -Haul Overland (3-U50’story) = -Haul Franklin (4-Ustorage-Let’s better understand typical heights for self Height Key Discussion Item:CitySide Storage–0058 -2023-H–March 21, 2024 –Meridian P&Z Hearing ~ 50’47 story)-Haul Overland (4-U–Height Precedent Key Discussion Item:CitySide Storage–0058 -2023-H–March 21, 2024 –Meridian P&Z Hearing ~ 39’48 story)-Haul Franklin (3-U–Height Precedent Key Discussion Item:CitySide Storage–0058 -2023-H–March 21, 2024 –Meridian P&Z Hearing 49 Bach Storage–Height Precedent Key Discussion Item:CitySide Storage–0058 -2023-H–March 21, 2024 –Meridian P&Z Hearing In Cap Rate)-Cost, or Going-on-(aka, Yield Development Cost as a % of Net IncomeEconomic Feasibility is based on 50(land, sitework, utilities, landscaping, foundation, etc).independent of building height –Fixed component (material, labor, etc).proportional to height –Variable component Construction Cost se-Revenue is directly proportional to the # of floors, not height perRevenue Economic Feasibility Feasibility Analysis CitySide Storage–0058 -2023-H–March 21, 2024 –Meridian P&Z Hearing In Cap Rate”-“GoingCost” or-on-“Yield Net Incomeas a % ofDevelopment Costis based onEconomic Feasibility Definitely Not Feasible Story-2 Not Feasible Story-3 Barely Feasible Story-4(Conceptual)Revenue & Cost Analysis 2-StoryCost2-StoryRevenue3-StoryCost3-StoryRevenue4-StoryCost4-StoryRevenue 120%100%80%60%40%20%0%67%50%83%75%100%100%51 Key Discussion Item:CitySide Storage–0058 -2023-H–March 21, 2024 –Meridian P&Z Hearing 52 operationalReduces cost (less material)constructionReduces which brings down the overall height of the buildingStrong incentives for developer to minimize height per floor, Economic Feasibility Key Discussion Item:74%85%54%CitySide Storage–0058 -2023-H–March 21, 2024 –Meridian P&Z Hearing Proposed Compromise(2-story?)RecommendationStaff ReportCompromiseProposed(Proposed)ApplicationCitySide Storage(Allowed)C-G Zoning 70'60'50'40'30'20'10'0'35'48'55’65'Recognize zoning rights.neighbor objections to date.Recognize that there has been no like to reduce height.Recognize that the City would stories.-feasible without 4Recognize that the project is not of determining neighborhood fit.Recognize the subjective nature Path to Compromise 53 Height Key Discussion Item:CitySide Storage–0058 -2023-H–March 21, 2024 –Meridian P&Z Hearing SoutheastView to the 54 Surrounding Neighborhood Key Discussion Item:CitySide Storage–0058 -2023-H–March 21, 2024 –Meridian P&Z Hearing 55 Same as for heightStaff Concerns Square Footage Key Discussion Item:CitySide Storage–0058 -2023-H–March 21, 2024 –Meridian P&Z Hearing approved height.we can add max GSF based on the max GSF rather than building footprint If Staff can prove that the DA refers to maximum allowed height of 65’.G use (such as VIR) to the -conforming CDeveloper reserves the right to build a Storage.-Selffor onlyReduce max height to 48’ Keep max building footprint at 32,500 SF.Proposed DA research this.I’ve only had 3 business days to and he believes this to be correct.previous developer, Cory Swain, I exchanged emails with the version of the CC&Rs.This was referenced in an early the Building rather than Gross SF.We believe this is the Footprint of Max building SF of 32,500.Current DA 56 Square Footage Recap of Staff Report CitySide Storage–0058 -2023-H–March 21, 2024 –Meridian P&Z Hearing Let’s find common ground with a height of 48’ and move forward!!!57 Relieved that we are not asking for access from Eagle Roadoutdoor lighting, utilities, dimensional standards, etcAgrees with proposed access, parking, sidewalks, landscaping, fencing, storage as “retail”, even though we in the industry do.-Doesn’t see self(residential or commercial).Agrees that there are no neighbor objections to datesignificantly reduced from other uses.storage are -Agrees that the traffic, parking conflicts, and noise for selfresidential.-to-Recognizes the sensitivity transitioning from commercial In Closing CitySide Storage–0058 -2023-H–March 21, 2024 –58 Modify language to support P&Z Commission decision on height.FindingsNo changes.CUPAdd VIR to the new list of allowed uses.clarify language.Max building footprint remains the same but add “footprint” to the DA to storage is 48’ (or 50’ or 55’). All other uses unchanged.-MDAApprove the Staff Report recommendation with the following changes:Seeking P&Z Commission Approval 59CitySide Storage–0058 --H–March 21, 2024 –Meridian P&Z Hearing 208.440.9717ken@hosac.netCEO & Founder, Hosac VenturesKen Hosac Questions?