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.