Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-02-20 Regular Meeting City Council Regular Meeting City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Tuesday, February 20, 2024 at 6:00 PM Minutes ROLL CALL ATTENDANCE PRESENT Councilman Doug Taylor Councilman John Overton Councilwoman Anne Little Roberts Councilman Luke Cavener Councilwoman Liz Strader Councilman Joe Borton Mayor Robert E. Simison PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE COMMUNITY INVOCATION ADOPTION OF AGENDA Adopted PUBLIC FORUM – Future Meeting Topics ACTION ITEMS 1. Public Hearing for Pathways (H-2023-0061) by Mussell Construction, Inc., located at 965 E. Ustick Rd. Continued to March 5, 2024 A. Request: Annexation of 1.11 acres of land with an L-O zoning district. B. Request: Conditional Use Permit for an education institution that takes access from an arterial street without a safe, separate pedestrian and bikeway access between the neighborhood and the school site. Motion to continue to March 5, 2024 made by Councilman Borton, Seconded by Councilwoman Strader. Voting Yea: Councilman Taylor, Councilman Overton, Councilwoman Little Roberts, Councilman Cavener, Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Borton 2. Public Hearing continued from February13th, 2024 for Mixed Use Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment - Mixed Use (H-2023-0057) by City of Meridian, located City Wide Approved (Formal Resolution Scheduled 3/5/24) Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2023-0057 Comprehensive Plan Draft Changes: https://bit.ly/comp-plan-draft-changes A. Request: 2023 Mixed Use Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment Mixed Use to update and/or replace certain text and graphics associated with the mixed- use sections, including other minor revisions, terms and a new appendix. Motion to approve made by Councilman Overton, Seconded by Councilwoman Little Roberts. Voting Yea: Councilman Taylor, Councilman Overton, Councilwoman Little Roberts, Councilman Cavener, Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Borton 3. Public Hearing for Robertson Square Subdivision (SHP-2023-0006) by Tamee Crawford, Centurion Engineers, Inc., located at 588 W. Broadway Ave. Approved Application Materials: https://bit.ly/SHP-2023-0006 A. Request: Short Plat to subdivide the property consisting of 0.43 acres of land into two (2) building lots in the R-15 zoning district for Robertson Square Subdivision. Motion to approve made by Councilman Borton, Seconded by Councilwoman Strader. Voting Yea: Councilman Taylor, Councilman Overton, Councilwoman Little Roberts, Councilman Cavener, Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Borton 4. Public Hearing for Watts Meridian Medical Partners (H-2023-0075) by Rigby Watts & Co., located at 1256 S. Rackham Way Approved Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2023-0075 A. Request: Development Agreement Modification to modify the existing Development Agreement (H-2015-0024), Inst. # 2016-106278; H-2019-0016, Inst. #2019-028379) to remove the subject property from the agreement and include it in a new agreement with updated conceptual development plan. Motion to approve made by Councilwoman Strader, Seconded by Councilman Overton. Voting Yea: Councilman Taylor, Councilman Overton, Councilwoman Little Roberts, Councilman Cavener, Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Borton FUTURE MEETING TOPICS ADJOURNMENT 6:37 PM Meridian City Council February 20, 2024. A Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:00 p.m. Tuesday, February 20, 2024, by Mayor Robert Simison. Members Present: Robert Simison, Joe Borton, Luke Cavener, Liz Strader, John Overton, Anne Little Roberts and Doug Taylor. Others Present: Chris Johnson, Bill Nary, Sonya Allen, Linda Ritter, Brian McClure, Scott Colaianni, Joe Bongiono and Dean Willis. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE X Liz Strader X Joe Borton Anne Little Roberts _X_ John Overton _X_ Doug Taylor _X_Luke Cavener X Mayor Robert E. Simison Simison: Council, we will call the meeting to order. For the record it is February 20, 2024, at 6:00 p.m. We will begin tonight's regular City Council meeting with roll call attendance. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Simison: Next item is the Pledge of Allegiance. If you would all, please rise and join us in the pledge. (Pledge of Allegiance recited.) COMMUNITY INVOCATION Simison: It looks like we do not have our pastor here for community invocation or -- he is not a pastor, but a representative. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Simison: So, we will go ahead and move on to adoption of the agenda. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: There are no changes noted, so I will move that we adopt the agenda as published. Strader: Second. Meridian City Council Work Session February 20,2024 Page 2 of 16 Simison: Have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda as published. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the agenda is agreed to. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. PUBLIC FORUM — Future Meeting Topics Simison: Mr. Clerk, do we have anyone signed up under public forum? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we do not. ACTION ITEMS 1. Public Hearing for Pathways (H-2023-0061) by Mussell Construction, Inc., located at 965 E. Ustick Rd. A. Request: Annexation of 1.11 acres of land with an L-O zoning district. B. Request: Conditional Use Permit for an education institution that takes access from an arterial street without a safe, separate pedestrian and bikeway access between the neighborhood and the school site. Simison: Okay. So, with that we will move right into our Action Items this evening. First item up is a public hearing for Pathways, H-2023-0061. We will open this public hearing for any comments by anybody regarding the request. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: The question I had was if it's just -- there is -- one of the missing items is an ACHD report. Is one week really sufficient to get it and utilize it, even if it's a relatively straightforward application? Allen: Mr. Mayor, Council -- Council. I'm a little leery of only a week, but that's what the applicant requested and I'm not sure when we will have that ACHD report. So, if you continue it to the 27th as requested it may need to get continued again. They are -- they are in a time crunch. They are trying to get open this -- this fall and so that's -- we are trying to accommodate that and trying to expedite it as much as we can, but I'm a little concerned for the same reasons. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Meridian City Council Work Session February 20,2024 Page 3 of 16 Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: As long as you are not -- your department is not shortcut in the ability to do what you do, to receive it, review it, interpret it, provide guidance. If we have to continue it twice I would rather try and accommodate the applicant in hopes that it's quick, understanding that there might be challenges if it comes in late. Allen: I know it's under review by ACHD. Borton: Okay. Allen: I tried to get an update today and I did not -- was not able to get one, so -- Simison: And I know -- notice we -- I don't think we have anybody from the applicant present to provide any guidance or feedback. So, Council, what's your pleasure? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Question for Sonya. I can't recall -- was there anybody in attendance for this application at Planning and Zoning? Allen: Yes. Mr. Mayor, Council, yes, there was. Cavener: So, Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Maybe just a quick follow up. I was wondering the challenges -- we were trying to kind of strike being responsive to the applicant's needs. I do urge a little bit of caution. I don't -- I would not otherwise be in a position next week where we continue it again for yet another week. I don't know -- I can't see the audience, I don't know if there is people that are here to testify. I'm very sympathetic when people give up time to -- to come and be here. So, just a point that I think is worth addressing. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: Mr. Mayor, I just -- I didn't think anyone is present in the room today for this item. Is there? Okay. Okay. So, Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Meridian City Council Work Session February 20,2024 Page 4 of 16 Borton: The other side of the spectrum is if we are reluctant to take any action one way or the other on this or any item in a similar situation because we don't have some critical reports that staff utilizes to give us direction, we can -- it might be inefficient use of time and for the public's testimony, because while you may end up coming back, if we receive testimony and, then, we end up continuing it, because we want to make sure we have all the information, would you rather come back twice? That's -- that's the challenge sometimes. So, I'm -- my -- my general reaction is to not -- not take action on it. Generally to continue it in hopes that there is a one singular presentation of all the information. But if folks are here in reliance upon a scheduled hearing -- Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: And apologies if I wasn't -- seemed to kind of make comments. I wasn't suggesting necessarily that we would take testimony this evening. My reluctance is to continue it for next -- to next week without strong confidence that we will have the ACHD staff report at that point. So, to me I think two weeks is probably more what I would be recommending and give the applicant and ACHD and staff a little bit more time, rather than finding ourselves next week -- ACHD wasn't able to get the report done in time or staff hasn't had the opportunity to review it like we would like and so we are continuing it yet another week and the public have come down with the expectation of being able to testify and asking them to come back now for a third time. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: I appreciate that clarification. That would be Tuesday, March 5th. If it ensures that it might be the best opportunity for a single hearing, so the public knows they are not down here an additional time. One of the challenges, as I understand it, was some posting of the property, which is applicant led. So, I'm more inclined to continue it for two weeks to March 5th as well. Curious what the rest of Council -- any concern with that? Simison: Okay. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: With understanding we are going to do this to have one efficient hearing, so everyone can hear the same information together and make the decision in front of the public, who we appreciate coming down to be present for this. We want to get it right, not rush it, so with that I'm going to make a motion that we continue Item H-2023-0061 to Tuesday, March 5th. Meridian City Council Work Session February 20,2024 Page 5 of 16 Strader: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to continue Item 1 to Tuesday, March 5th. Is there discussion on the motion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the item is continued. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. 2. Public Hearing continued from February 13th, 2024 for Mixed Use Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment - Mixed Use (H-2023-0057) by City of Meridian, located City Wide A. Request: 2023 Mixed Use Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment Mixed Use to update and/or replace certain text and graphics associated with the mixed-use sections, including other minor revisions, terms and a new appendix. Simison: Okay. With that we will move on to the next item, which is Item 2, which is a public hearing continued from February 13th, 2023, for Mixed Use Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment, H-2023-0057. We will continue this public hearing with staff comments. McClure: Mr. Mayor and City Council, I'm here for the third time to talk to you about the mixed use changes to the Comprehensive Plan. As a recap of the last meeting, there was a -- there was a desire for Council to consider public comment. While there were some broader ideas discussed than what's covered in this application, the comments specific to mixed use generally revolved around the concerns for removing the square foot limitation in mixed use. Related, the existing and proposed text considerations for building height. The first bullet point here is staff and commission recommendation to Council to more broadly address building site context and transitions. There are several policies that support this. Staff previously considered public comment and while it's difficult to disagree with the concerns, it's our opinion that the proposed text is very appropriate for the Comprehensive Plan. That is not to imply there aren't opportunities for improvement in the process. The second bullet here is an additional guideline that may respond to some of the public comment. The text is intended to help in discussion. The public feedback was based on comments received from several Council persons and would not contradict the recommended -- recommended text above. The last bullet is just some other options. With that I will leave it to Council or I can proceed. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I would love to help provide a little bit of context. So, have followed up with Brian and the planning office a couple of times and tried to go through and be responsive to the public testimony that we have received and try to craft with Brian's Meridian City Council Work Session February 20,2024 Page 6 of 16 help this additional guideline and I think it does a great job of memorializing something that we already seem to do in practice, which is for the most part when we see single family neighborhoods directly adjacent to a different type of use or to multi-family, for example, trying to see a transition that's not a disparity of more than one story or that equivalent height and -- and I think that this kind of a guideline holistically in the Comprehensive Plan would not only be responsive to the public testimony that we have received, but I think it would help substitute for the building area guideline that we had before. It creates a bright line. We could use that I think pretty effectively and it's general guidance, so, you know, there can be exceptions. But I think that it would help address the comments that we have received, I think some of the concerns around transition I think a little bit more effectively. So, that's kind of where that -- where that recommendation is coming from in that second bullet point. So, just to summarize, I think the -- at least from where I'm coming from -- I'm curious to hear other people's thoughts, but referring back to the previous memo, you know, as opposed to going with the option three, that instead we, you know, use this recommended guideline about transition. The first bullet point. This new additional second bullet point I think also helps to kind of address this in a -- in a more meaningful way. Brian, did I miss anything? I don't want to misrepresent it, but -- McClure: No. I think that was clear. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: So, is the -- is the action to how to -- to proceed as presented by staff with the -- the single edit from the last hearing being the red inclusion of the word should? Is that accurate? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: No. So, this would include these additional guidelines. So, the first bullet point is a new section regarding transition that will be added to the Comprehensive Plan. The second bullet point is new to this discussion. So, this is a new addition. So, give you a chance to review it. But instead of what Planning had offered us before in their memo under option three, was a very specific kind of a mechanism where every floor height disparity would reflect an additional setback and I think the public didn't feel that that adequately addressed their concerns. I agree. I also think it was overly prescriptive. So, this is in lieu of that. This is a new guideline that would, essentially, limit -- I will just let you read it. I mean read it for yourself. But one of the buildings on pad sites adjacent to the existing single family neighborhoods should have no more than a one story disparity of building height or floor height equivalent and it talks about features, differences in grade and other context. I think that's important. And what you could have, just speaking broadly, if you had a large site, right, you could have single family Meridian City Council Work Session February 20,2024 Page 7 of 16 next to a two story townhome, next to a three story multi-family building and this would still allow for those different uses, but what it would do is it would create some better guard rails I think around the -- the building height directly adjacent to someone's single family home. That was the goal. I think this would address a very large amount of concerns that we have heard in the past and I also think that it's pretty consistent with how we have approached transition when it comes to land use. Simison: So, for clarity for myself or staff, is it to the meet the one house, the two house -- which house do you choose? Or is it the zone? So, residential has a 35 foot high zone with a -- you know, you can do three stories, you could have a three story, a two story, and a one story all along a commercial site. Which property do you choose or is it the zone that dictates the height element? McClure: Mr. Mayor, the -- the wording here is pad sites and the intention is to be specific to a building that's been proposed, not the entire development. Simison: Understand that. I'm trying to understand on the residential side which piece of -- which parcel are you using on the residential side to determine the commercial pad? Is -- there is two that are adjacent. Do you use the one that has the higher or using the zoning for that entire -- which, again, could be two or three stories, could have a DA mod -- or DA that wants it to one. What's your -- what standard are you applying for people? Because commercial properties are normally larger than residential. You know, especially in the back. You know, they are getting skinnier and so you may have four or five different properties that you would be selecting from. McClure: Mr. Mayor, this is the difficulty in getting overly specific and, then, defining something in the Comprehensive Plan when it's broader than 2,000 square foot elevation. I would assume here the -- the text is -- says should and, then, has some considerations for sideboards and I believe that would be up to staff and Council -- up to staff to recommend and up the Council to decide, which one of those residential buildings should apply. Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: To work right off the comments of Council Vice-President Strader, I have also had conversations with Brian and maybe to take it one step further on what she's suggesting, we have to remember that what we are looking at here is should. These are not standards. These are guidelines. And that if there is a disparity, as you have pointed out, depending on how that piece of property looks, it could come down to Council to make that decision. Ultimately that's our job. That we don't want to have these guidelines be so specific and so rigid in nature to make that call for us. I want to commend Brian and his staff for everything they have done. But also commend everyone from the public who put in all those very detailed comments. Very well thought out. One of the things I wanted to make sure that they did was that Brian read Meridian City Council Work Session February 20,2024 Page 8 of 16 them, they took them into consideration. I know there was some early concern that we weren't listening to the public's comments, but he's assured me not only he did, but there were changes that were made based on some of those public comments as this thing was put together and I think this edition will fit fine. I just think we all have to remember that it's not a standard so much as it doesn't say shall. It is a suggestion. It is a guideline with the word should, which is advisory, and that's what we are building here is something that is advisory on how these projects come together in our city and eventually it will come to us for clearance as it goes. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: That explanation makes good sense. The way we use this and described perfectly by Councilman Overton, so I think the explanation makes sense to me. I know I was absent and I caught up from the last hearing, but this -- this compromised edition does seem to capture what the public was -- had some concern with and Council Woman Strader's created a good solution that retains the flexibility and planning staff is on board. Do I need to proceed? Simison: Yeah. I don't know how often it's going to come up, but it's -- I live in a situation where I have got a three story, a one story and a two story. Those are the three houses in my block and just want to make sure that they have enough guidance to give the development community on what standard would should be applied in that situation. Yeah. That's what I saw on this. I feel like they have that from this and can apply that. I guess it will be up to each individual planner to make that determination somewhat and tell Council what is in. Further discussion? Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: Seeing as there is no more -- Simison: We haven't asked for public -- we haven't asked for public testimony yet, so will see if-- is there anybody that signed up on this item, Mr. Clerk? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, no. Simison: Is there anybody from the public that would like to provide testimony, either in person or online? We have a couple of people online. If you are online for this purpose if you can use the raise your hand feature. Seeing no one coming forward and no one raising their hand online, Councilman Overton. Overton: Mr. Mayor? Meridian City Council Work Session February 20,2024 Page 9 of 16 Simison: Councilman Overton. Borton: For our public testimony, I would move that we close the public hearing. Strader: Second. Simison: Have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the public hearing is closed. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: I move that we approve Mixed Use for Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment For Mixed Use H-2023-0057. Little Roberts: Second. Simison: Have a motion and a second. Did you just look at your screen? Do you feel like you were -- that -- Overton: Mr. Mayor, I changed my screen on me. McClure: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Mr. McClure. McClure: If I can help a little bit here. If you -- if you go with what's on here and, then, if you like the text previously or something else, also indicate that and, then, in two weeks or so we will come back with a resolution that includes everything. Simison: Okay. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Just for discussion, I think your intention, Councilman Overton, was to include the recommended holistic text changes, the new standard, and also -- I actually thought all the changes on that slide were good. I think it would make sense to include that in your motion if possible if that's your intention. Overton: Mr. Mayor? Meridian City Council Work Session February 20,2024 Page 10 of 16 Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: That is correct. So, I will redo the motion. Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve H-2023-0057 as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission amendment to the text of the Comprehensive Plan and including both the mixed use and general text modifications. Strader: Second. Little Roberts: Second. Simison: I have a motion and second. Does the second agree to the revised motion? The original second? Little Roberts: Yes. Simison: Okay. Is there -- are we good? Okay. Is there further discussion on the motion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and Item 2 is agreed to. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. Simison: So, as mentioned, Mr. McClure, you will bring -- bring stuff back in the coming weeks for final adoption moving that forward? McClure: Mr. Mayor, yes. 3. Public Hearing for Robertson Square Subdivision (SHP-2023-0006) by Tamee Crawford, Centurion Engineers, Inc., located at 588 W. Broadway Ave. A. Request: Short Plat to subdivide the property consisting of 0.43 acres of land into two (2) building lots in the R-15 zoning district for Robertson Square Subdivision. Simison: All right. With that we will move on to Item 3, which is public hearing for Roberson Square Subdivision, SHP-2023-0006. We will open this public hearing with staff comments. Linda, are you doing this one? Ritter: I am. Simison: Excellent. Ritter: Good evening, Mayor and Council. I am Linda Ritter, associate planner. Brian has this all messed up, because he's sick, so we are just trying to make sure we are staying safe over here. So, tonight I'm here to talk about a request for a proposal to Meridian City Council Work Session February 20,2024 Page 11 of 16 subdivide property consisting of 0.42 acres of land into two building lots in the R-15 zoning district, located at 558 West Broadway Avenue. The proposal density of 2.76 units per acre it's consistent with the density desired of three to eight dwelling units per acre in the medium density residential future land use map designation for the site. So, there is currently -- there is a duplex that is currently under construction on the south side of the property. The duplex complies with the setback requirements of the district and is connected to city water and sewer service. Access to this property is via Broadway Avenue and the other one is on -- access to this property is via Broadway Avenue, but this portion is via West Idaho Avenue. So, as you can see from the slides presented, the proposal meets with the existing development in the area and the staff sees no issues with the proposed project. So, at this time I will stand for any questions that you have. Simison: Thank you, Linda. Council, any questions for staff? Okay. Is the applicant with us this evening? Would the applicant have any comments that they would like to make? All right. Applicant waives any comments. Mr. Clerk, did anyone sign up on this item? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, nobody signed up. Simison: Okay. Is there anybody present in the audience or online that would like to provide testimony on this item? Seeing no one, the applicant waive closing? You are waiving comments at the closing of this public hearing? Okay. So, Council, what's your pleasure? Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: I move that we close the public hearing on SHP-2023-0006. Strader: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Is there discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the public hearing is closed. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: Very straightforward application. Appreciate the applicant's work in -- in our downtown. The staff report is crystal clear. There are no issues that need to be resolved. So, it seems to be straightforward and worthy of an approval. I will make a Meridian City Council Work Session February 20,2024 Page 12 of 16 motion that we approve the short plat request SHP-2023-0006 as presented in the staff report of February 20, 2024. Strader: Second. Simison: Have a motion and a second to approve Item 3, SHP-2023-0006. Is there any discussion? If not, Clerk will call the roll. Roll Call: Borton, yea; Cavener, yea; Strader, yea; Overton, yea; Little Roberts, yea; Taylor, yea. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the item is agreed to. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. 4. Public Hearing for Watts Meridian Medical Partners (H-2023-0075) by Rigby Watts & Co., located at 1256 S. Rackham Way A. Request: Development Agreement Modification to modify the existing Development Agreement (H-2015-0024), Inst. # 2016- 106278; H-2019-0016, Inst. #2019-028379) to remove the subject property from the agreement and include it in a new agreement with updated conceptual development plan. Simison: Next item up is Item 4, which is a public hearing for Watts Meridian Medical Partners, H-2023-0075. We will open this public hearing with staff comments. Allen: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. The next application before you is a request for a development agreement modification. This site consists of 2.53 acres of land. It's zoned C-G and it's located at 1256 South Rackham Way. This property is part of a larger 73.5 acre property that was annexed into the city back in 1995. A development agreement was required as a provision of annexation and it was recorded in 2016. It was later amended in 2019 and that was for the overall property. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is mixed use regional. The applicant is proposing to modify the existing development agreement to update the conceptual development plan for this site. Because the land governed by the development agreement has been subdivided and is now under different ownerships, the applicant is proposing a new development agreement as part of the modification that will only apply to the subject 2.53 acre property. The existing plan as shown here depicts one commercial building pad on the site. The proposed plan depicts two two story office buildings, consisting of 22,000 and 15,808 square feet and associated parking and landscaping. A perspective drawing of the structures and site was also submitted as shown. The proposed uses. Healthcare or social services or professional services are principally permitted in the C-G zoning district. A cross-access easement and maintenance agreement exists for the overall development, including this site, which allows shared use of abutting drives and details the associated maintenance Meridian City Council Work Session February 20,2024 Page 13 of 16 responsibilities. Staff has reviewed the existing DA provisions and most have either already been satisfied or not applicable to development of this site. Staff is recommending provisions for the new development agreement as shown here and included in the staff report. Staff is recommending approval. Written testimony has been received from Adam Watts, the applicant. He is in agreement with this report and he is online. Answer any questions you may have. Simison: Thank you, Sonya. Council, any questions for staff? Okay. Mr. Watts, I know you are online. Would you like to make any comments? Watts: Sorry. I'm here. I apologize. I was trying to figure out how to -- to jump online. Can you guys hear me? Simison: Yes, we can. Watts: Yeah. We -- you know, we have been -- we have been working hard on kind of all aspects of this project and, you know, we are really excited to bring it forward here and, you know, I know we are just talking about the development agreement piece, but, you know, we -- we have been working hard on all aspects of the civil engineering and things and feel like you have got a really great project here with -- with a couple of different partners and tenants and so we are hopeful that, you know, we can remove this parcel from the existing development agreement and be able to do two separate buildings here, instead of the one long -- elongated building that James Kistler kind of had envisioned back in 2019. So -- Simison: All right. Thank you very much. Council, any questions for the applicant? Okay. Mr. Clerk, do we have anybody signed up on the item? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we did not. Simison: Okay. Is there anybody that would like to provide testimony on this item? There is nobody coming forward. Mr. Watts, would you like to make any final comments? Watts: I'm sorry, say that again. Simison: Would you like to make any final comments? Watts: No. Not unless Council has any -- any questions for me. Happy -- happy to answer anything. Simison: Okay. Perfect. Thank you very much. Council, what's your direction? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Meridian City Council Work Session February 20,2024 Page 14 of 16 Strader: I move that we close the public hearing. Simison: I have a motion to close the public hearing. All -- Overton: Second. Simison: And a second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have FUTURE MEETING TOPICS it. The public hearing is closed. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Relatively straightforward DA modification. Nice to see this type of development happen in Meridian. After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File No. H-2023-0075 as presented in the staff report for today's hearing date. Overton: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to approve H-2023-075. Is there any discussion on the motion? If not, Clerk will call the roll. Roll Call: Borton, yea; Cavener, yea; Strader, yea; Overton, yea; Little Roberts, yea; Taylor, yea. Simison: All ayes. Motion carried. The item is agreed to. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. Watts: Thanks, guys. Appreciate it. FUTURE MEETING TOPICS Simison: Have a good night. Council, any future meeting topics? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm not quite sure if this is a future meeting topic or potentially maybe a memo. I will leave it to you and Council President to determine. But in a lot of the public feedback that we received in regard to the comp plan changes, there were some other recommendations and suggestions that didn't necessarily fall Meridian City Council Work Session February 20,2024 Page 15 of 16 within the context of the Comprehensive Plan, but staff had previously mentioned it may be worth exploring at a later point in time. I -- I don't know if that is a future meeting topic or an update for Council about what that timeline looks like. There is a host of items that are -- that are suggested in the correspondence that we received, everything from new staff to new approach to the work. One area that I do think is maybe worth some focus is really in that citizen to Planning Department liaison and that may be -- already be covered by our community liaison, but there have been a number of instances that I have been aware of over the past few months where there were some mistakes and missteps and errors that occurred along the way that were caught by our community and I don't want us to continue to have to rely just on our community to flag those and I think one of the things that we all heard in the correspondence that we received was how appreciative the members of our public were for our planning staff and so I believe the intentionality is there, but there seems to be some process that's missing. Again, I kind of go back to when this was first presented and Council really had to encourage some public engagement. I do think that there are some issues there that are worthy of considering. I recognize some of that is operational and doesn't actually need to fall to the Council, but it all to me kind of comes together that there is maybe an opportunity for us as a Council and as a team to address maybe that lack of citizen collaboration I think that is really really important. So, I will leave it there. I'm happy to fill in with some added details if Mayor -- or if you or Council President want that at a later point in time. Simison: Okay. Thanks. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Along the similar vein, you know, one thing I heard come out in the -- in the public feedback was that -- I think it's a challenge for members of the public to be part of a group of mainly development professionals and be the only voice on some of those committees and working groups. So, it may be worth considering, you know, a separate community feedback type of group, something for all of us to think about. I think chew on that idea. But there could be something fruitful there. Simison: All right. Anything else in the future meeting topics? Do I have a motion to adjourn? Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: Move we adjourn. Simison: Motion to adjourn. All in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it. We are adjourned. Meridian City Council Work Session February 20,2024 Page 16 of 16 MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:37 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) 3 / 5 / 2024 MAYOR ROBERT E. SIMISON DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK E IDIAN;--- /hl R AGENDA ITEM Public Forum - Future Meeting Topics The Public are invited to sign up in advance of the meeting at www.meridiancity.org/forum to address elected officials regarding topics of general interest or concern of public matters. Comments specific to an active land use/development applications are not permitted during this time. By law, no decisions can be made on topics presented at the Public Forum. However, City Council may request the topic be added to a future meeting agenda for further discussion or action. The Mayor may also direct staff to provide followup assistance regarding the matter. i i CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC FORUM SIGN-IN SHEET Date: i Please sign in below if you wish to address the Mayor and City Council and provide a brief description of your topic. Please observe the following rules of the Public Forum: • DO NOT: o Discuss active applications or proposals pending before Planning and Zoning or City Council o Complain about city staff, individuals, business or private matters • DO o When it is your turn to speak, state your name and address first o Observe a 3-minute time limit (you may be interrupted if your topic is deemed inappropriate for this forum) Name (please print) Brief Description of Discussion Topic tj Uzi 4))f� C� E IDIAN Planning and Zoning Department Presentation and Outline Changes to Agenda: th  Item #1: Pathways (H-2023-0061) – Applicant requests continuance to Feb. 27 due to the site not being posted in accord with UDC standards & because a report hasn’t yet been issued by ACHD. Item #3: Robertson Square Subdivision (SHP-2023-0006) Application(s):  Short Plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 0.42 acres of land, zoned R-15, located at 558 W. Broadway Avenue. History: H-2020-0107 (CUP) and A-2022-0061 (CZC and DES) as applicable. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: High Density Residential and Medium Density Residential SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant proposes to subdivide property consisting of 0.42 acres of land, into two (2) building lots in the R-15 zoning district located at 558 W. Broadway Avenue. The proposed density of 2.76 units per acre is consistent with the density desired of 3 to 8 dwelling units per acre in the medium density residential future land use map designation for this site. There is a duplex that is currently under construction on the south side of the property. The duplex complies with the setback requirements of the district and is connected to City water and sewer service. Access to this property is provided via W. Broadway Avenue and W. Idaho Avenue. Written Testimony: None Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number SHP-2023-0006, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 20, 2024: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number SHP-2023-0006, as presented during the hearing on February 20, 2024, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number SHP-2023-0006 to the hearing date of ____________ for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) Item #4: Watts Meridian Medical Partners (H-2023-0075) Application(s):  Development Agreement Modification Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 2.53 acres of land, zoned C-G, located at 1256 S. Rackham Way. History: This property is part of larger 73.5-acre property that was annexed into the City in 1995. A DA was required as a provision of annexation in 2016, which was later amended in 2019, for the overall property. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MU-R Summary of Request: The Applicant proposes to modify the existing DA to update the conceptual development plan for the site. Because the land governed by the DA has been subdivided and is now under different ownerships, the Applicant proposes a new DA as part of the modification that will only apply to the subject 2.53-acre property. The existing plan depicts one (1) commercial building pad on the site. The proposed plan depicts two (2) 2-story office buildings consisting of 22,000 s.f. & 15,808 s.f. and associated parking and landscaping; a perspective drawing of the structures and site was also submitted as shown. The proposed uses (i.e. healthcare or social services; or professional service) are principally permitted in the C-G zoning district. A cross-access easement and maintenance agreement exists for the overall development, including this site, which allows shared use of abutting drives and details the associated maintenance responsibilities. Staff has reviewed the existing DA provisions and most have either already been satisfied or are not applicable to development of this site; the Staff recommended provisions for the new DA are included in the staff report as shown. Staff Recommendation: Approval Written Testimony: Adam Watts, Applicant – in agreement w/staff report Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2023-0075, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 20, 2024: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2023-0075, as presented during the hearing on February 20, 2024, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2023-0075 to the hearing date of ___________ for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) h2 City Council MeetingFebruary 20, 2024 Existing Concept Plan V IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing continued from Februaryl3th, 2024 for Mixed Use Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment - Mixed Use (H-2023-0057) by City of Meridian, located City Wide Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2023-0057Comprehensive Plan Draft Changes: https:Hbit.ly/comp-plan-draft-changes A. Request: 2023 Mixed Use Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment Mixed Use to update and/or replace certain text and graphics associated with the mixed-use sections, including other minor revisions, terms and a new appendix. PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: February 20, 2024 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 2 PROJECT NAME: Mixed Use Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment - Mixed Use (H-2023-0057) 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 MEMORANDUM E COMMUNITY N -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT January 26, 2024 TO: Mayor Robert Simison and the Meridian City Council CC: Caleb Hood, Deputy Director Community Development FROM: Brian McClure, Comprehensive Associate Planner RE: Mixed Use—Ground Floor Building Restrictions At the January 9th, 2024 City Council hearing for the Comprehensive Plan text amendment (H- 2023-0057), there were several questions regarding building footprint areas, building height, and guidelines or standards as they related to single-family homes adjacent to mixed use areas. Some Councilpersons requested that Planning staff take another look at text additions to better address building height transitions (in addition to further public outreach). Context and Recap Planning staff and the Planning & Zoning Commission recommended the maximum structure footage restriction, adopted in the 2019 Comprehensive Plan, Mixed Use Neighborhood and Community future land use designations, be removed. This was after a number of comments by design and design related professionals questioned the value and suggested the requirement be removed. Because the cap is arbitrary, does not reflect for example, grocery stores trending both smaller and larger, and disallowed some other essential services desired within some mixed use areas solely due to their size, staff proposed removal in the Staff Report. Further, the restriction simply did not work as intended and was circumvented by "bonuses" allowed through the provision of additional civic spaces, or by requesting changes to the Future Land Use Map. The value has been contentious less due to the building footprint restriction, and more due to the orientation, location, height, and general operations of proposed projects. In the staff analysis of Commission Recommendations, it was noted that height would be a better transition restriction. Therefore, general language was proposed that Staff felt to be more in-line with design principles and policies at the Citywide, Comprehensive Plan level. Commission Recommendation The text in the original Staff Report and Commission Recommendation include the following addition in lieu of the building footprint restriction, Page 1 Proposed Text (Holistic Design[New section]): Non-residential buildings should transition to and compliment adjacent residential buildings in mass and form, and include safe and meaningful mitigation for operational impacts such as loading docks, storage, and outdoor equipment. Removed Text(MU—Neighborhood): dees not ate. Removed Text(MU— Community): limited to a 60,000 square feet bttildingfigetprint. For the development ef-publie Se Related Policies The following adopted and unmodified Comprehensive Plan policies support the proposed text: • 2.02.02F, Ensure that new development within existing residential neighborhoods is cohesive and complementary in design and construction. • 3.07.01A, Require all new development to create a site design compatible with surrounding uses through buffering, screening, transitional densities, and other best site design practices. • 5.01.02E, Support and protect the identity of existing residential neighborhoods. Alternatives Planning staff are hesitant to provide additional, formal recommendations on this topic with the Planning and Zoning Commission having already recommended the change to the City Council without any expressed concern. Additionally, staff have apprehension with increased specificity in the actual text of the Comprehensive Plan, and that City Code and the general design review process is silent on setbacks relative to building height(only general landscape buffers). However, the following outlined options may be helpful in discussion by the City Council in discussion of this subject. None of the outlined options following would be additional text within the Mixed Use section,but in the policy areas or Glossary of Terms. If Council wants additional Mixed Use text, that would need to be directed to staff. Option 1 Approve Comprehensive Plan text amendment as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission, and with the support of existing adopted policies. Page 2 Option 2 Consider an additional supplemental Comprehensive Plan policy more specific to the relationship of tall buildings and existing single-family neighborhoods. For example, 3.07.01 F, Within mixed use developments abutting single-family residential neighborhoods, new adjacent commercial buildings are expected provide additional building setbacks that are considerate of the disparity between residential rooflines and of taller commercial building parapets (or roof line in conditions with pitched roofs). Additional setbacks would be in addition to required landscape buffers, not include utility, delivery, or service areas, and have the goal of preserving view sheds and privacy. Note: The term"neighborhood" is used intentionally as the purpose of this language is not to protect older single-family homes in transitioning areas or where redevelopment is expected. Option 3 Create a new definition in Appendix A: Glossary of Terms, for transitions as it relates to residential and commercial buildings. Building Transitions, Commercial: The building transition metric of commercial buildings in mixed use designated areas, that abut existing single-family residential neighborhoods, should include an additional setback distance from the property line. The intent is to consider and mitigate nuisance impacts from the service side of most buildings, but also to preserve view sheds and the privacy of existing stakeholders. The setback distance generally reflects 30 feet for each floor height disparity greater than one floor (i.e. commercial buildings two or more stories taller). This additional setback distance would exclude linear areas such as drive aisles that only primarily provide utility, service, or delivery access. Note: The term"neighborhood" is used intentionally as the purpose of this language is not to protect older single-family homes in transitioning areas or where redevelopment is expected. See Attachment 1 for examples of this text. The origination and some of the specificity in this text originates from draft work on the Architectural Standards Manual in 2015 by staff and an Architectural Committee. There was some concern by City Council with unintended consequences; what was interpreted by Staff as retaining flexibility through entitlement, and additional setbacks did not make it to the final version. Option 4 Consider a combination or variation of Options 1, 2, or 3, and request staff review of Unified Development Code design standards as it relates to site design,building locations, and the relationship between single-family homes and commercial developments in or adjacent to mixed use areas. See Attachment 1 for examples. Page 3 Attachment 1 L L L :3 fu Ln L L Q J V f6 Ln y N Ln Third Floor Second Floor First Floor Note:Drive aisles that prim arily provide utility,service, or delivery access would not be allowed within the additional setback (i.e. the buildings would be further away in these instances). Page 4 L ir- L L , e U CO Q N a7 � J L N L L Ql L N V J N N V7 O M Third Floor Second Floor First Floor Note:Drive aisles that prim arily provide utility,service, or delivery access would not be allowed within the additional setback (i.e. the buildings would be further away in these instances). Page 5 C i E IDIAN.;--- Agenda Item Applicant Presentation Comprehensive Plan Brian McClure, Comprehensive Associate Plannerup to January 9 and February 13 Meetings)-(FollowFebruary 20, 2024City Council Mixed Use Text Amendment Discussion residential; they are not duplicative.The recommended text is more about general design and layout, and also applies to new –future land use designations (or those that change).The guideline may also be a new policy, 3.07.01F, within the same chapter, and apply to other –Other Thoughts & Optionsfeatures should be considered with transitions.features, differences in grade, and other context sensitive neighborhood preservation design story disparity in building height (or floor height equivalent). Natural -to no more than a 1be limited shouldfamily neighborhoods -New buildings on pad sites adjacent to existing single–(Holistic Design \[New section\])AdditionPublic Comment Responsive, Guideline loading docks, storage, and outdoor equipment.mass and form, and include safe and meaningful mitigation for operational impacts such as residential buildings should transition to and compliment adjacent residential buildings in -Non–Recommended Text, Guideline (Holistic Design \[New section\]): Recommendation Council resolution. Prepare formatted document including appendix for –Next Stepsboth the mixed use and general text modifications.the text of the Comprehensive Plan, and including Planning and Zoning Commission, an amendment to 0057, as recommended by the -2023-Approve H–Request Overview and Follow context, and options.Staff Memo with additional background, •In Response–Building footprint and height standardscitizen meetingsSeveral individual and small group •Newsletters (7,500 opens/views)-20k E•time)accounts (for the third NextDoor53k •In Response–Level of public involvementCouncil Concerns up- Mixed Use Building Footprint and Height designpolicies already support context sensitive In addition to mixed use text, additional Design is complicatedsizes/transitions in mixed use areasadopted text and policy for building Council may (and has) approved waivers of building restrictions in mixed use areasCouncil may (and has) imposed additional Context and History Mixed Use Building Footprint and Height of existing residential neighborhoods.5.01.02E, Support and protect the identity best site design practices.screening, transitional densities, and other surrounding uses through buffering, create a site design compatible with 3.07.01A, Require all new development to and construction.cohesive and complementary in design within existing residential neighborhoods is 2.02.02F, Ensure that new development Existing Policies Additional Comments Received be helpful for Councilpersons to be aware of. They are saved in the public record.Several comments provided also included other public process concerns that may –restrictions was a disservice to something the community has valued.use guidelines specific to building area restrictions. Generally, that removing area mixed adopted Several emails were provided to the Clerk’s indicating support for the –One form survey, with positive response–Summary Mixed Use Building Footprint and Height adopted policies. in recognizing the support of existing Planning and Zoning Commission, and amendment as recommended by the Approve Comprehensive Plan text Option 1 Mixed Use Building Footprint and Height expectedfamily homes in transitioning areas or where redevelopment is -to protect older singleNote: The term “neighborhood” is used intentionally as the purpose of this language is not view sheds and privacy.buffers, not include utility, delivery, or service areas, and have the goal of preserving pitched roofs). Additional setbacks would be in addition to required landscape rooflines and of taller commercial building parapets (or roof line in conditions with additional building setbacks that are considerate of the disparity between residential provide toneighborhoods, new adjacent commercial buildings are expected family residential -3.07.01F, Within mixed use developments abutting single–example,family neighborhoods. For -to the relationship of tall buildings and existing singleConsider an additional supplemental Comprehensive Plan policy more specific Option 2 Mixed Use Building Footprint and Height expectedfamily homes in transitioning areas or where redevelopment is -to protect older singleNote: The term “neighborhood” is used intentionally as the purpose of this language is not .only primarily provide utility, service, or delivery accessThis additional setback distance would exclude linear areas such as drive aisles that disparity greater than one floor (i.e. commercial buildings two or more stories taller). feet for each floor height -stakeholders. The setback distance generally reflects 30most buildings, but also to preserve view sheds and the privacy of existing line. The intent is to consider and mitigate nuisance impacts from the service side of neighborhoods, should include an additional setback distance from the property family residential -buildings in mixed use designated areas, that abut existing singleBuilding Transitions, Commercial: The building transition metric of commercial –relates to residential and commercial buildings.Create a new definition in Appendix A: Glossary of Terms, for transitions as it Option 3 Mixed Use Building Footprint and Height Example setbacks: drive aisledrive aislesnoExample setbacks: Adopted Policies public school sites, the maximum building size does not apply.foot building footprint. For the development of -should be limited to a 60,000 squarefoot building footprint. For community grocery stores, the maximum building size -commercial land uses, maximum building size should be limited to a 30,000 squareUnless a structure contains a mix of both residential and office, or residential and –Community):–Removed Text (MU building size does not apply.foot building footprint. For the development of public school sites, the maximum -commercial land uses, maximum building size should be limited to a 20,000 squareUnless a structure contains a mix of both residential and office, or residential and –Neighborhood):–Removed Text (MU operational impacts such as loading docks, storage, and outdoor equipment.buildings in mass and form, and include safe and meaningful mitigation for residential buildings should transition to and compliment adjacent residential -Non–Proposed Text (Holistic Design \[New section\]): Overview RecommendationOther ChangesOverviewWhat’s Been Done ProcessPurpose & NeedBackground Background originally approved plan.policies and references, to the No text amendments, outside of –priorities.2023, August. Amendment to policy –Conditions Report 2022, by reference.2022, October. Adopted Existing –reference.adopt Fields Subarea Plan by 2021, December. Amendment to –priorities to policies.2020, September. Amendment to add –December 17, 2019Comprehensive Plan Adopted  Background partner agency planningplanning, and other City and Basis for water and sewer master •Market saturation of UsesEconomic: General Services and •Transportation•Technical Analysis–Expectation that we adhere to it•involvementCommunity and Stakeholder –Act requiresState Code: Local Land Use Planning –for growth and developmentguide THEThe Comprehensive Plan is  Purpose & Need designations.Commercial Office or Very limited elements that Staff look for.process. Common policy related Improve consistency In the review –Provide more transparency Process becomes drawn out–Reduce risk through entitlementbeen understood with intended usersUnorganized list of needs that have –Clarify Expectationscritical servicesMissing and losing opportunities for –of land usesEnsure/preserve for a healthy balance  Process shared on social mediaShared with development partners and policy and best practicesAdhered to adopted vision using existing –comments and feedback.Significant changes based on –and agency partnersReview by experienced professionals policy and best practicesAdhered to adopted vision using existing –text/vision and policiesupon, considering current -Built–range staff developed concepts-Long What’s Been Done Provided more consistent metrics–Mixed Use Project•Mixed Use Area•Terminology–principlesTMISAP must also adhered to proposed design •Consistency with Ten Mile Plan (TMISAP)–Reduced duplication of principles (text guidelines)–structureGraphic illustrating process, that aligns with –Provided more context for need–in-Lead–Intro–Restructure Mixed Use Section What’s Been Done (cont.)Other Examples–Public Spaces, Node, and Link Examples–Mixed Use Project Examples–AnnotationMixed Use Concepts with Additional –Appendix F: Mixed Use Examples Overview (Structure)New Section & Flow Chart Reference–(next slide)Flow Chart Reference –New Sections–Key:TMISAPI, -NR, MU-R, MU-C, MU-N, MU-MU•categories-Mixed Use Sub–Holistic Design•Integration of Uses•Functional Integration–Generalize Land Use Types•Location•The Value of Mixed Use•General Overview–Mixed Use Land Uses Note: Graphic reflects naming revisions proposed in the Staff Report.Overview Original (part of existing text)Supplemental Graphic Additional Graphic Examples Other Changes boundaries. Other verifiable data may be used in substitute for developing areas.employers. Employment area boundaries align with COMPASS traffic analysis area (TAZ) provide 1,000 jobs with at least 70% that are neither retail or service, and include a minimum of 10 wage jobs. The minimum size of an employment area is 25 acres, it must -families with familyintegrated environment with efficient transportation, and include a focus on supporting Meridian generate agglomeration of ideas and innovation, are dense enough to promote a cohesive and An employment area provides a job and employer base large enough to –Employment Area Glossary of TermsAppendix A.H.-L and I-Sample zoning includes: Iwarehouses, storage units, and industrial support activities.In some cases uses may include processing, manufacturing, retail and offices support uses. uses may include processing, warehouses, storage units, light manufacturing, flex, and incidental This designation allows a range of uses that support industrial and commercial activities. Industrial 13-Page 3.a third party and is available via the City’s websiteSterling Codifiers updates to most effectively implement this Plan. Meridian’s online City Code is maintained by Comprehensive Plan. These tools are already approved through City ordinance, but may require The following table lists existing tools which will be utilized to implement the City of Meridian Page C.Change(Adopted PDF pages)Location Commission Recommendations (incorporated into Commission Recs) Other Changes** Part of Planning and Zoning Commissions recommendation, but omitted inadvertently in the recs.throughout development.Environment is safe and aesthetically pleasing, with open space interspersed.-without crossing arterialwithin ¼ of a mile from dwellings varied and plentiful destinations for walking and cycling; destinations tend to be. Development tends to be compact, and diverse, providingpathwaysmultiusetrailsDevelopment that contains a comprehensive network of sidewalks and-Walkable Glossary of TermsAppendix A.demand services.-include various ride sharing systems such as car, bicycle, or scooters, and onstop, to final destinations likes places of employment or residence. Solutions vary, but examples the last leg of a transportation movement from a transportation hub, such as a bus –Last Mile Glossary of Terms **Appendix A.connectivity such as pathways.includes tree canopy and other active or passive natural features offset from multiuser oriented points of interest, and -generally found along canals, creeks, or linking pedestrianThis type of open space is longer than wide, typically publicly accessible, –Linear Open Space Glossary of TermsAppendix A.Change(Adopted PDF pages)Location Continued from previous... Other Changes).but not to use shall (which is difficult to enforce outside of codeCommission recommendations were generally to use stronger language than should, –22 paragraphs / bullets modified–Changes to Mixed Use section of Comprehensive Plan W IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Robertson Square Subdivision (SHP-2023-0006) by Tamee Crawford, Centurion Engineers, Inc., located at 588 W. Broadway Ave. Application Materials: https://bit.ly/SHP-2023-0006 A. Request: Short Plat to subdivide the property consisting of 0.43 acres of land into two (2) building lots in the R-15 zoning district for Robertson Square Subdivision. PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: February 20, 2024 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 3 t PROJECT NAME: Robertson Square Subdivision (SHP-2023-0006) 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 3390 �3 Se-ta--Vi v- 2 hey ► 2����-t-� -n - 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 2/20/2024 Legend DATE: 0 Project Location � TO: Mayor&City Council W P NE E FROM: Linda Ritter,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: SHP-2023-0006 K W IDAHO -15 3 3 z Robertson Square Subdivision LOCATION: 558 W. Broadway Avenue,in the SEC W B DWAY AVE of Section 12,T.3N.,R.1 W. R-8 , 14 T Ninemile creek Rutledge lateral I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Short plat to subdivide the property consisting of 0.42 acres of land, into two(2)building lots in the R-15 zoning district. II. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Tamee Crawford, Centurion Engineers,Inc. —2323 S.Vista Avenue,Boise, ID 83075 B. Owner: Shellie Robertson—AKR Enterprise,LLC, 3350 S. Selatir Pl,Meridian, ID 83642 C. Representative: Same as Applicant III. NOTICING City Council Posting Date Legal notice published in newspaper 2/04/2024 Radius notice mailed to property owners within 500 feet 2/02/2024 Posted to Next Door 2/05/2024 Page 1 IV. STAFF ANALYSIS The short plat proposes to subdivide property consisting of 0.42 acres of land,into two (2)building lots in the R-15 zoning district. The proposed density of 2.76 units per acre is consistent with the density desired of 3 to 8 dwelling units per acre in the Medium Density Residential Future Land Use Map designation for this site. There is a duplex that is currently under construction on the south side of the property. The duplex complies with the setback requirements of the district and is connected to City water and sewer service. Staff has reviewed the proposed short plat for compliance with the criteria set forth in UDC 11-6B-5 and deems the short plat in compliance with said requirements. Access to this property is provided via W. Idaho Avenue and W. Broadway Avenue, existing local streets. Because the site is below 5 acres in size,the standards for common open space and site amenities do not apply per UDC 11-3G-2. There are no existing trees on this site,therefore mitigation is not required. Future development of the proposed lots should comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-7 for the R-15 zoning district and the common driveway exhibit in Section VI.D. V. DECISION Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed short plat with the conditions noted in Section VII of this report and in accord with the findings in Section VIII. Page 2 VI. EXHIBITS A. Short Plat(date: 2/15/23) Robertson Square Subdivisionly Kwathsc � u.«.,k...�.. � �L� � i Sicvrr Narretls�e ti mi Q OnRLto 0 R �atneeas�tr�. 11Y�S Yuahe.Le.Y!4! wGavuf av y.x,x� �'YGIH4LT5 w -- Page 3 Robertson Square Subdivision Notes, Certificate of Dwners �� a a.-r a•-+--y...w.._.. See Shed 3 for Certificate of Owners Signature 4llfi at[iq�oy CENTURION ENGINEERS.INC. cap:rlYngFnGnms,r:.a s�arv,c ns.r.R zz2s s.rsre n...n..zas,eam,m esres me sass3s,I+++RMrnerro.n e~arwfc+F" vmam,s4°,.s,mn.s,� Robertson Square Subdivision Certificate of Owners Signature Certificate of Surveyor Ceni�ca�ofn�Connl�+Srmey�o�u+A m�g'a µ�✓a Acknowledgrxem Ap royal of Ada CoHihwa aDistrict Certificate afCounry Tressueer .iw r mw] N w a.iry ir..e.,A+�anb nd«a ma m,ix. —nw m e0.,»+0.a•dm r.bk'.°d b.na s,m m n w�nM IaGI e+n mb m�p�M ggnre x.-9:b:Itin xa. w I�vim.IMI �M r�rM WAr w.wn oM mlmwayu fo�rc w�rvs m.u,e h�nvp�h.auw ew umi�i �n rnxn.rnmi.:rcr. mr °w xv:.ax ow W,'a nn wmun nw ewr.rmn, p.�w Ki`A Prk N�1_y wN Approval of City Engineer Certificate of Cormty Rc—l- a, re�,u W�- pnba M.1 p oval of central Oisuict I-ImitL n«o- Approval of City C—jl awn mw uxa°rnve. "a wow rm `fpru ArOry. sa.ae. m ..ON ENGINCeR5.INC. 2939 S-viyp{.c,5q,m6 eoiw.la8"s]es 2oe.3.5.3pI I�vn..sMnpawn PhemfeFe ..�ra��sm.u� Page 4 B. Site Plan(dated: 11/17/23) w.r� .. '11 Fine Ave. ,..•.•. ^•-- - _ 4 � �� �� .�� �.�.—————.—.—_—_—_—+_—. .eeryand 1. +k• VII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS&CONDITIONS A. Planning Division Site Specific Conditions: I. The Applicant shall comply with all previous conditions of approval associated with this development: H-2020-0107 (CUP) and A-2022-0061, as applicable. 2. If the City Engineer's signature has not been obtained within two(2)years of the City Council's approval of the short plat,the short plat shall become null and void unless a time extension is obtained,per UDC 11-6B-7. 3. The short plat prepared by Joseph D. Canning, Centurion Engineering on 01/11/2024, included in Section VI.A, shall be revised as follows: a. Note#6: Revise the note to state"5-feet wide interior lot lines"instead of"I 0-feet. 4. Future development shall comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table I1- 2A-7 for the R-15 zoning district and the common driveway exhibit in Section VI.D. 5. Staff's failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or conditions from the previous approvals noted above does not relieve the Applicant of responsibility for compliance. Page 5 B. PUBLIC WORKS https://weblink.meridiancity.ory/WebLink/Doc View.asp x?id=330352&dbid=0&reTo=Meridi anCi C. MERIDIAN FIRE DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridianciU.oLglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=330357&dbid=0&repo=Meridi anCi D. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (DEQ) https://weblink.meridianciU.oLvlWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=330352&dbid=0&repo=Meridi anCi E. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT https://weblink.meridianciN.oLy WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=331447&dbid=0&repo=Meridi anCi F. IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridianciN.oLy WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=330352&dbid=0&repo=Meridi anCi VIII. REQUIRED FINDINGS FROM THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE In consideration of a short plat,the decision-making body shall make the following findings: A. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with the Unified Development Code; The Comprehensive Plan designates the future land use of this property as Medium Density Residential and High Density Residential, the current zoning district of the site is R-15. Staff finds the proposed short plat complies with the short plat standards listed in UDC 11-6B-5. Future development should comply with the dimensional standards for the R-15 zoning district listed in UDC Table 11-2A-7. B. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Staff finds that public services will be provided and are adequate to serve the proposed lots. C. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's capital improvements program; Staff finds all required utilities will be provided with lot development at the developer's expense. D. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Staff finds that the development will not require major expenditures for providing supporting services as services are already being provided in this area. E. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and Staff finds the proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare. Page 6 F. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. Staff is not aware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features associated with short platting the structure on this site. Page 7 V IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Watts Meridian Medical Partners (H-2023-0075) by Rigby Watts & Co., located at 1256 S. Rackham Way Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2023-0075 A. Request: Development Agreement Modification to modify the existing Development Agreement (H-2015-0024), Inst. # 2016-106278; H-2019-0016, Inst. #2019-028379) to remove the subject property from the agreement and include it in a new agreement with updated conceptual development plan. PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: February 20, 2024 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 4 PROJECT NAME: Watts Meridian Medical Partners (H-2023-0075) 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 C�I w IDIAN -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .►A H O HEARING February 20,2023 Legend DATE: 0 PFoje�t Loco for L-O 1 TO: Mayor&City Council FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner RUT 208-884-5533 R ' F SUBJECT: H-2023-0075 Watts Meridian Medical Partners— MDA R1 LOCATION: 1256 S. Rackham Way, in the SW 1/4 of Section 16,T.3N.,R.IE. (Parcel #R6819240215) R; I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Modification to the existing Development Agreement(H-2015-0024,Inst. #2016406278; H-2019-0016, Inst. #2019-028379)to remove the subject property from the agreement and include it in a new agreement with an updated conceptual development plan. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Acreage 2.53-acres Future Land Use Designation Mixed Use—Regional(MU-R) Existing Land Use Vacant/undeveloped Proposed Land Use(s) Healthcare or social service(i.e.medical offices)and/or professional service Current Zoning C-G(General Retail&Service Commercial) Proposed Zoning NA Physical Features(waterways, None hazards,flood plain,hillside) I Neighborhood meeting date 12/11/23 History(previous approvals) Annexation Ordinance#719;H-2015-0024(Eagle Commons at Overland— DA Inst.#2016-106278);H-2017-0061 (Oxygen Sub.#1 SHP);H-2017-0062 (Oxygen Sub.#2 SHP);H-2017-0063 (Oxygen Sub.#3 SHP);H-2019-0016 (Amended DA Inst.#2019-028379);PBA-2021-0008(ROS#13005) Page 1 III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Adam Watts,Rigby Watts&Co. —2221 South 2000 East, Salt Lake City,UT 84106 B. Owner: Reves,LLC—909 S.Allante Pl.,Boise,ID 83709 C. Representative: Same as Applicant IV. NOTICING City Council Posting Date Newspaper notification published in newspaper 2/4/2024 Radius notification mailed to property owners within 300 feet 2/20/2024 Public hearing notice sign posted 1/13/2024 on site Nextdoor posting 2/5/2024 V. STAFF ANALYSIS The Applicant proposes to modify the existing Development Agreement(DA) (H-2015-0024 Eagle Commons at Overland—DA Inst. #2016-106278)required with annexation of the property in 1995 (Ordinance#719),which was later amended in 2019 (H-2019-0016—Inst. #2019-028379),to update the conceptual development plan for the site. The existing DA covers a larger 73.5+/-acre area which is now under several different ownerships. For this reason, a new DA is proposed as part of the modification that will only apply to the subject 2.53-acre property. The existing DA provisions and conceptual development plan is included in Sections VII.A and B below, respectively. The existing plan depicts one(1)commercial building pad on the site. The proposed plan depicts two(2)2-story office buildings consisting of 22,000 square feet(s.f.)and 15,808 s.f. and associated parking and landscaping; a perspective drawing of the structures and site was also submitted as shown in Section VII.0 below. The Applicant has also submitted a short plat application to subdivide the parcel into two (2)lots,one for each building, and associated parking,which is currently in process. The proposed uses(i.e. healthcare or social services; or professional service) are listed as principal permitted uses in the C-G zoning district per UDC Table 11-2B-2. Future development is subject to the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2B-3. A cross-access easement and maintenance agreement exists for the overall development, including this site, which allows shared use of abutting drives and details the maintenance responsibilities associated with those drives(Inst. #2020-003133). With the previous plats for Oxygen Subdivision, additional right-of-way(ROW)was dedicated for the expansion of S. Rackham Way to local street standards. Staff has reviewed the existing DA provisions and most have either already been satisfied or are not Page 2 applicable to development of this site. Staff has included those that are still applicable with some modifications as applicable to this site in Section VII.D below for inclusion in the new DA. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed Development Agreement modification as requested by the Applicant. VII. EXHIBITS A. Existing Development Agreement Provisions 4. USES PERMITTED BY THIS AGREEMENT: This Agreement shall vest the right to develop the Property in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. 4.1 The uses allowed pursuant to this Agreement are only those uses allowed under the UDC. 4.2 No change in the uses specified in this Agreement shall be allowed without modification of this Agreement. 5, CONDITIONS GOVERNING DEVELOPMENT OFSUBJECT PROPERTY.' 5.1. Owner/Developer shall develop the Property in accordance with the following special conditions: a. The subject property shall develop in substantial compliance with the conceptual development plan included in Exhibit"A'. b. A 10-foot wide multi-use pathway shall be constructed along the north side of the Five Mile Creek from the west to the east boundary of the site as set forth in the Pathways Master Plan.Landscaping is required to be installed on each side of the pathway along the creek in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C.A public pedestrian easement is required to be submitted to the City, approved by City Council and recorded for the multi-use pathway along the creek with the first phase of development. c. Minimum five-foot wide pedestrian walkways shall be provided internally within the site from the multi-use pathway connecting to the sidewalk along E. Overland Road and S. Rackham Way to the main building entrances with each phase of development;and for drive aisle lengths greater than 150 parking spaces or 200'away from the primary building entrances — internal pedestrian walkways should be distinguished from the vehicular driving surfaces through the use of pavers,colored or scored concrete,or bricks as set forth in UDC 11-3A-1913.4. d. The Five Mile Creek shall remain open as a natural amenity and shall not be piped or otherwise covered and shall be protected during construction.Fencing along the waterway shall not prevent access to the waterway,unless Council deems fencing should be required in the interest of public safety in accord with UDC 11-3A-6B. c. All future strictures on the site and the layout of the site shall comply with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and the guidelines listed in the Meridian Design Manual (or any updated versions thereof). Page 3 f.. Prior to any development occurring in the Overlay District,a floodplain permit application, including hydraulic and hydrologic analysis is required to be completed and submitted to the city and approved by the Floodplain Administrator,per MCC 10-6. g. All lighting proposed on the site shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A- 11C. Light fixtures that have a maximum outptrt of 1,800 lumens or more shall have an opaque top to prevent uplighting;the bulb shall not be visible and shall have a NJ cutoff shield; and shall be placed such that the effective zone of light (as documented by the photometric test report)shall not trespass on abutting residential properties. h. The developer shall dedicate additional right-of-way along the west property boundary to widen S. Rackham. Way to local street standards with curb, gutter and sidewalk with subdivision of the property,unless S.Rackham Way is vacated. i. A street light plan will need to be included as part of the development plan submittal. Street light plan requirements are Iisted in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. A copy of the standards can be found at bU,//www.meridiancity.org/i)ublic works.aspx?id=272 j. Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department,and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. k. Per Meridian City Code (MCC),the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. The applicant may be eligible for reimbursement of costs associated with upsizing the sewer and water trains per MCC 8-6-5. 1. Water modeling will be required prior to development plan submittal to determine the timing of completing the water main loop through the property from the existing 10-inch main stub at E. Overland Road and S. Silverstone Way to the existing 16-inch main adjacent to S.Rackham Way. m. The applicant shall provide easement(s)for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way(include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20- feet wide for a single utility,or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat, but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian's standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes.Submit an executed easement(on the form available from Public Works),a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor,which must include the area of the easement(marked EXHIBIT A)and an 81/2"x 11"map with bearings and distances(marked EXHIBIT B)for review.Both exhibits must be sealed,signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor.DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted, reviewed, and approved prior to development plan approval. n. The developer shall enter into a cross-access easement and maintenance agreement with the abutting property owner to the north for the east/west shared driveway adjacent the northern boundary of the site. A recorded copy of the easement agreement shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for the development. Page 4 B. Existing Conceptual Development Plan _ - - — Z31- - - - - -- $ �E MA qw��i-Ci Ce�dM-iA y MUM ruff7m Q Q y C +fir d --- Norco v r I'd I�Ir L a I two 00 ca Cann"-a I � � Page 5 C. Proposed Conceptual Development Plan&Perspective Drawing Z.'-.— _ � __-_ _ --- �'2__. - CONCEPT TABULATIONS mrA�xxTACE :zsx AxFw Dm uiFo-ro mr :owa 9 t r a ri R o rr l_nr ��RRFM�aF F� aw] AP i r vRwioFO PwRRE PAanx� ass sruivl�svnusrwaui 17.0 R � 1 I ,!�I III LJ .��.-'• 25.0' - .-.-.wr eleF vnaprvF 35vAcs 21 h (11.EE0 SORPEE R(wAl ' — TOTAl OH 5f1E PARgNG 1�5 �spFi lax siwl�sl F PO LI R 6 _II - II PROYIwF➢PPRgNG Lt 'Y �I 1I0' 'i' STAuslt000 sOTT — , T �i Pnw.1 �n,.m 250 .A Ilk 6x] 9 I' 0 eAon 6S.3Y L' _ -- s�.D PHASE 1 �zs.vine.am�A.. im _ E aa,w,R� aas� si e:a an } PHAS 2 f U d.0' 10 19G' �3 lT DIiG' . 1011 90 aP. IT,1d15gn PFR P1000.) - \ 'R 0 = 31 5 315 - i �a WATTS MERIDIAN MEDICAL PARTNERS SUBDIVISION concept plan i MERIDIAN CITY.ADA COUNTY g 1=12I)23 i I Page 6 D. Staff Recommended Development Agreement Provisions 1. Future development of the subject property shall substantial comply with the conceptual development plan and perspective drawing included in Section VII.0 and the provisions contained herein. 2. All future structures on the site and the layout of the site shall comply with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and in the Architectural Standards Manual. Page 7