Loading...
CC - Staff Report Page 1 STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: 11/15/2018 TO: City Council FROM: Josh Beach, Associate Planner 208-884-5533 BRUCE FRECKLETON, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MANAGER, 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: H-2018-0096 BUYRITE APARTMENTS PROPERTY LOCATION: The site is located on the northwest corner of W. Ustick and N. Linder Roads. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant, neUdesign Architecture, LLC, has submitted an application for the following: 1) a rezone of 5.90 acres of land from C-C (Community Commercial) zoning district to the R-40 (High-Density Residential) zoning district; 2) a conditional use permit to develop a multi-family development consisting of ninety six (96) dwelling units in four (4) structures; and 3) a development agreement modification to allow for R-40 zoning and to change certain other provisions of the existing development agreement. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission heard these items on November 15, 2018. At the public hearing, the Commission moved to recommend denial of the subject rezone, conditional use permit and development agreement modification requests. a. Summary of Commission Public Hearing: i. In favor: Jeremy Putnam (Applicant’s Representative), Steve Arnold, Richard Evans ii. In opposition: Steven Lloyd, John Walsh, Carl Wibel, Robin Brooks, Paul Gazhenko, Chris Williams, Miquelle Crosland, Dave Manning, Jack Neal, Greg Reynolds, iii. Commenting: Steven Lloyd, John Walsh, Carl Wibel, Robin Brooks, Paul Gazhenko, Chris Williams, Miquelle Crosland, Dave Manning, Jack Neal, Greg Reynolds, Steve Arnold, Richard Evans, Jeremy Putnam iv. Written testimony: Beth Lucas, Brian Noah, Carl and Carla Wibel, Carol H Davis, David and Gail Foster, Dyan and George Loya, Edward and Teresa Tucker, Geoff and Megan Latshaw, Heather Farley, Kim moss, Mark Sessions, Michelle Mattson, Mitch and Sue Davis, Robert Shepard, Steve and Benita Harper, Tami Kruger, Trish Dildine v. Staff presenting application: Josh Beach Page 2 vi. Other staff commenting on application: None b. Key issue(s) of Public Testimony: i. Does the proposal meet the requirement of the mixed use designation? ii. Location of the accesses to the subject property. iii. Volume of traffic and the increase from the proposed apartments. iv. Overcrowded schools in the area. v. The desire to have additional commercial businesses in the area. c. Key Issues of Discussion by Commission: i. Is this the best use for this parcel? ii. Does a commercial business make more sense in this location in regard to the Comprehensive Plan designation? d. Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation: i. None e. Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: i. None II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 5.90 Future Land Use Designation MU-C (Mixed Use Community) Existing Land Use Vacant Proposed Land Use(s) Multi-family dwellings Current Zoning C-C (Community Commercial) Proposed Zoning R-40 (High-Density Residential) Lots (# and type; bldg/common) 1 (existing) Phasing plan (# of phases) Single Phase Number of Residential Units (type of units) 96 multi-family units Density (gross & net) 20.1 net density Open Space (acres, total [%] / buffer / qualified) 1.75 acres/36% Amenities Tot Lot, BBQ area, dog park, and 50X100 grass area 6 Physical Features (waterways, hazards, flood plain, hillside) The Creason Lateral crosses the southwest corner of the property Neighborhood meeting date; # of attendees: July 5, 2018 with 4 people in attendance History (previous approvals) Annexed with C-C zoning into the city in 2009 as JJA Land (AZ-09-005) B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District  Staff report (yes/no) Yes 8  Requires ACHD Commission Action (yes/no) No Access (Arterial/Collectors/State Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) One access to N. Linder, one to W. Ustick, One to W. Crosswind Street and a stub street to the north. There are currently two access points to N. Linder and one to W. Ustick. One access point to N. Linder will be removed as part of this development. 7 Page 3 Description Details Page Traffic Level of Service Linder Road – F, Ustick Road – better than E Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross Access Stub street to the north and connection to an existing stub street from the west (Crosswind Street) are proposed 7 Existing Road Network NA Existing Arterial Sidewalks / Buffers Existing sidewalk along W. Ustick and a partial sidewalk along N. Linder. Proposed Road Improvements ACHD plans to widen Linder Road, between McMillan and Ustick in 2019. 8 Fire Service  Distance to Fire Station Not provided 8  Fire Response Time 5 minutes 8  Resource Reliability 80%, does not meet the target of 85% 8  Risk Identification 2, meaning current resources would be adequate to supply service. 8  Accessibility Roadway access, traffic 8  Special/resource needs An aerial device will be required and one is available within 8 minutes which meets the target of 10 minutes or less. 8  Water Supply 1500 gallons per minute 8  Other Resources Police Service  Distance to Police Station 5 miles 8  Police Response Time 4 minutes 8  Calls for Service 625 8  % of calls for service split by priority P3 1.1%; P2 62.1%; P1 34.6%; P0 2.2% 8  Accessibility Accessibility is good 8  Specialty/resource needs None 8  Crimes 93 8  Crashes 21 8  Other Reports None 8 Distance to nearest City Park (+ size) Tully Park is approximately ½ mile south of the site West Ada School District  Distance (elem, ms, hs) Hunter Elementary – 1 mile; Sawtooth Middle – ¼ mile; Rocky Mtn High – 1 and ½ miles  Capacity of Schools  # of Students Enrolled Distance to other key services Page 4 C. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Zoning Map Planned Development Map III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Pam Gaines, neUdesign Architecture B. Owner: Russ Hunemiller, Buyrite, LLC C. Representative: Richard Evans, Pride, LLC IV. NOTICING Page 5 A. Newspaper notification published on: 10/12/2018 B. Radius notice mailed to properties within 300 feet on: 10/9/2018 C. Applicant posted notice on site on: 11/2/2018 D. Nextdoor posting: 10/9/2018 V. STAFF ANALYSIS This property is designated Mixed Use Community (MU-C) on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The purpose of the MU-C designation is to allocate areas where community- serving uses and dwellings are seamlessly integrated into the urban fabric. The intent is to integrate a variety of uses, including residential, and to avoid mainly single-use and strip commercial type uses. Residential uses should comprise a minimum of 20% of the development area at densities ranging from 6 to 15 dwelling units per acre, and shall consist of at least three land use types. The applicant requests a rezone, a conditional use permit and a development agreement modification to develop the proposed multi-family lots with ninety-six (96) dwelling units. The overall gross density of the project is 20 dwelling units to the acre. Staff finds that the proposed development is not consistent with the MU-C land use designation for the following reasons: 1. The proposed density for the development is above the density range of 6-15 units/acre set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The development does not provide a mix of land use types as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. 3. On November 13, staff received a revised site plan from the applicant showing a number of changes. Neither staff nor ACHD has had the opportunity to review the revised site plan to ensure compliance with the specific policies of each agency. A. Comprehensive Plan Policies: Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this property and apply to the proposed use (Staff’s comments in italics):  “Provide for a wide diversity of housing types (single-family, modular, mobile homes and multi- family arrangements) and choices between ownership and rental dwelling units for all income groups in a variety of locations suitable for residential development.” (3.07.03B) The development of multi-family homes on this site will contribute to the variety of housing types available in this part of the City; however the density is greater than anticipated by the comprehensive plan. Page 6  “Support a variety of residential categories (low-, medium-, medium-high and high-density single-family, multi-family, townhouses, duplexes, apartments, condominiums, etc.) for the purpose of providing the City with a range of affordable housing opportunities.” (3.07.01E) Instead of the current C-C zoning on the site, Staff could envision some of this property being rezoned to residential. However, if all of the property is zoned to R-40, as proposed, the mix of uses envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan cannot be obtained.  “Restrict private curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets.” (3.06.02D) The applicant is proposing to have one access to N. Linder and one to W. Ustick.  “Review new development for appropriate opportunities to connect local roads and collectors to adjacent properties (stub streets).” (3.03.02O) The extension of W. Crosswind Street through the development to the north does not meet the requirements of ACHD and cannot be approved as proposed by the applicant.  “Permit new development only where urban services can be reasonably provided at the time of final approval and development is contiguous to the City.” (3.01.01F) Urban services can be provided to this property upon development.  “Require all new and reconstructed parking lots to provide landscaping in internal islands and along streets.” (2.01.04B) Landscaping is proposed within planter islands in the parking areas on this site as shown on the landscape plan attached in Exhibit B.  “Locate high-density development, where possible, near open space corridors, or other permanent major open space and park facilities, Old Town, and near major access thoroughfares.” (3.07.02L) The proposed multi-family development is located in close proximity to major access thoroughfares (i.e. I-84 and Ten Mile Road Road) within the City.  “Elevate quality of design for houses and apartments; evaluate the need for design review guidelines for single-family homes.” (3.07.02O) The multi-family structures within the proposed development will be subject to the design standards in UDC 11-3A-19 and the guidelines in the Architectural Standards Manual. Further refinement to the design of these structures is required in order for the project to meet the design review requirements. In pre-application meetings we had discussed screening the parking along both W. Ustick and N. Linder with garages. It appears that the garage structures have been largely omitted from the site.  “Provide housing options close to employment and shopping centers.” (3.07.02D) Because of its location in close proximity to the Ten Mile Interchange (which is rapidly developing), as well as major transportation corridors (I-84 and Ten Mile Road), this property is ideal for providing higher density housing options. B. Dimensional Standards: Development of the site should be consistent with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2B-3 for the C-C zoning district. Page 7 C. Concept Plan: A concept plan was submitted that depicts the four residential structures, leasing office and site amenities. D. Specific Use Standards: Specific Use Standards: The specific use standards for multi-family developments listed in UDC 11-4-3-27 apply to development of this site as follows: (Staff’s comments in italics)  A minimum of 80 square feet (s.f.) of private useable open space is required to be provided for each unit. The floor plans submitted with this application depict 80+ s.f. patios for each unit in compliance with this requirement.  Developments with 20 units or more shall provide a property management office, a maintenance storage area, a central mailbox location with provisions for parcel mail that provides safe pedestrian and/or vehicular access and a directory map of the development at an entrance or convenient location for those entering the development.  At a minimum, 250 s.f. of common open space is required for each unit containing more than 500 s.f. and up to 1,200 s.f. of living area. All of the proposed units are between 500 and 1,200 square feet; therefore, a minimum of 24,000 square feet or 0.55 of an acre of common open space is required for this development. The applicant is proposing 28,078 square feet of qualified open space, or 0.64 of an acre.  For multi-family developments with 75 units or more, 4 site amenities are required to be provided with at least one from each category listed in UDC 11-4- 3-27D. For developments with more than 100 units, the decision making body shall require additional amenities commensurate to the size of the proposed development. The applicant proposes a 50’ x 100’ open grassy area, a dog park, a tot lot and a segment of the City’s multi-use pathway system as amenities in compliance with UDC standards. The applicant is required to provide one amenity from each of the three sections as set forth in UDC 11-4-3-27. The applicant is missing an amenity from the quality of life section as set forth in UDC 11-4-3-27. Additionally, staff has concerns about the location and accessibility of the proposed dog park in relation to the extension of W. Crosswind Street and the dwellings.  Landscaping is required to comply with UDC 11-4-3-27-E. All street facing elevations shall have landscaping along their foundation as follows: the landscaped area shall be at least 3-feet wide and have an evergreen shrub with a minimum mature height of 24 inches for every 3 linear feet of foundation. The remainder of the area shall be landscaped with ground cover plans. This requirement is not currently being met on the submitted plans.  The development is required to record legally binding documents that state the maintenance and ownership responsibilities for the management of the Page 8 development, including, but not limited to, structures, parking, common areas, and other development features. E. Access: Access to the site is proposed from W. Ustick Road, N. Linder Road and from W. Crosswind Street to the west. ACHD has limited the access to N. Linder and W. Ustick to a right-in/right-out only. Staff also has concerns that a majority of the traffic from the Windsong Subdivision will access either N. Linder Road through the site and create an unsafe condition for the residents of the proposed multi-family development. The applicant shall continue W. Crosswind Street to the east and connect to E. Linder Road as required by the existing development agreement. F. Parking: Per UDC 11-3C-6, parking for commercial, (or in this case, the leasing office) is based on gross floor area of office space. A 450 square foot office is proposed, therefore, a minimum of one (1) parking space is required. The applicant is proposing 200 parking spaces for the development with 181 spaces required. G. Landscaping A 25-foot wide street buffer is required to be constructed along both N. Linder and W. Ustick Roads, both arterial roadways, as set forth in UDC Table 11-2A-7. Landscaping is required to be provided within the buffers as set forth in UDC 11-3B-7C. The proposed landscape plan is in compliance with the aforementioned standards. H. Fencing All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-6 and 11-3A-7. I. Preliminary Plat The requirement to extend W. Crosswind Street through the site will require the applicant to subdivide the property. Additionally, the creation of a public street in this area will split off an area of land where the applicant is proposing to construct a dog park. This will require the applicant to place the dog park area in the northwest corner of the site into a common lot. J. Certificate of Zoning Compliance If approved, the applicant will be required to obtain approval of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance application for establishment of the new use and to ensure all site improvements comply with the provisions of the UDC and the conditions in this report prior to construction, in accord with UDC 11-5B-1. K. Design Review: If approved, the applicant will be required to submit an application for Design Review concurrent with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application in accord with UDC 11-5B-8. The site and building design is required to be generally consistent with the Page 9 elevations and site plan submitted with this application and the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and the City of Meridian Architectural Standards Manual. L. Utilities: Enter Utilities Analysis. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends denial of the subject MDA and consequently the RZ and CUP requests for the following reasons:  The proposed density for the development is above the density range of 6 -15 units/acre set forth in the Comprehensive Plan.  The development does not provide a mix of land use types as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan.  On November 13, staff received a revised site plan from the applicant showing a number of changes. Neither staff nor ACHD has had the opportunity to review the revised site plan to ensure compliance with the specific policies of each agency.  The requirement to extend W. Crosswind Street through the site will require the applicant to subdivide the property. Additionally, the creation of a public street in this area will split off an area of land where the applicant is proposing to construct a dog park. This will require the applicant to place the dog park area in the northwest corner of the site into a common lot.  The current development agreement for the site requires a public street to be extended from the Windsong Subdivision out to N. Linder Road. The applicant is proposing to provide a cross-access to N. Linder and staff is of the opinion that the public street is needed at this location.  For these reasons, Staff does not believe it’s in the best interest of the City to modify the existing development agreement to accommodate the development proposal. B. Ada County Highway District (ACHD): http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?id=157136 C. Meridian Fire Department: http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/157164/Page1.aspx D. Meridian Police Department: http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/157197/Page1.aspx E. Central District Health Department (CDHD): http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/155574/Page1.aspx F. COMPASS: http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/156118/Page1.aspx G. Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ): http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/156137/Page1.aspx Page 10 H. Idaho Transportation Department (ITD): http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/156914/Page1.aspx I. Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District (NMID): http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/156360/Page1.aspx Page 11 VII. EXHIBITS A. Site Plan/Conceptual Elevations Page 12 B. Landscape Plan Page 13 VIII. FINDINGS Rezone 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, the Council shall make the following findings: a. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; The applicant is proposing to rezone the subject property from C-C to the R-40 zoning district. This property is currently designated Mixed Use-Community on the Future Land Use Map. Commission finds the amendment is not consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan because the proposed density is above the range allowed by the comprehensive plan, and there is not a mixture of uses (see section VII above). b. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Commission finds that the proposed map amendment to the R-40 zoning district is consistent with the purpose statement for the residential districts as detailed in Section VIII above. c. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Commission finds that the proposed zoning map amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. City utilities already exist to this site. Commission recommends that the Commission and Council consider any oral or written testimony that may be provided when determining this finding. d. 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, Commission finds 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. e. The annexation is in the best of interest of the City (UDC 11-5B-3.E). This finding is not applicable as the request is for a rezone. Conditional Use Permit (UDC 11-5B-6E) The Commission and Council shall base its determination on the Conditional Use Permit request upon the following: a. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. Commission finds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and the dimensional & development regulations of the existing C-C as well as the proposed R-40 district. b. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in accord with the requirements of this Title. Commission finds that the proposed use is consistent and harmonious with the UDC, however the proposed density is above the allowed range and the lack of three distinct land Page 14 use types within the MU-C Comprehensive Plan designation are not harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designation of MU-C for this site. c. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. Commission finds that the general design, construction, operation and maintenance of multi- family could be compatible with existing residential and uses in the vicinity. However, Commission finds that the proposed project is not compatible with the existing and intended character of the area and may adversely change the character thereof. Commission recommends that the Council consider any public testimony that may be presented to determine whether or not the proposal will adversely affect other properties in the area. d. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Commission finds that the proposed development should not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. If approved, conditions of approval will be included in Exhibit B of this staff report to ensure the proposed use will not adversely affect other properties in the vicinity. e. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools, parks, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, and sewer. Commission finds that sanitary sewer, domestic water, refuse disposal, and irrigation are currently available to the subject property. Commission finds that the proposed use will be served adequately by all of the public facilities and services listed above. f. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. If approved, the applicant will be financing any improvements required for development. Commission finds there will not be excessive additional requirements at public cost and that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the community’s economic welfare. g. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. Commission finds that the proposed development should not involve activities that will create nuisances that would be detrimental to the general welfare of the surrounding area. However, the Council should rely on public testimony from adjacent neighbors to determine if the proposed lighted fields and outdoor speaker system and large volume of traffic generated by the proposed use will be detrimental to their welfare in determining this finding. h. That the proposed use will not result in the dest ruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. Commission finds that the proposed development will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural feature(s) of major importance. Commission recommends that the Council reference any public testimony that may be presented to determine whether or not the Page 15 proposed development may destroy or damage a natural or scenic feature(s) of major importance of which Commission is unaware.