Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-07-09 Regular City Council Regular Meeting City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Tuesday, July 09, 2024 at 6:00 PM Minutes VIRTUAL MEETING OPTION City Council meetings can also be attended online or by phone. https://bit.ly/meridianzoommeeting or dial 253-215-8782, webinar ID: 810 9527 6712 Meridian City Council meetings are streamed live at https://meridiancity.org/live PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE COMMUNITY INVOCATION ADOPTION OF AGENDA Adopted PUBLIC FORUM – Future Meeting Topics ACTION ITEMS 1. Public Hearing continued from April 9, 2024 for Rosalyn Subdivision (H-2023- 0056) by Givens Pursley, LLP, located at 200 E. Rosalyn Dr. Approved Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2023-0056 A. Request: Annexation of a 0.014-acre of land from RUT in Ada County to the R-8 zoning district, including the remaining portion of E. Rosalyn Street cul- de-sac right-of-way. B. Request: Combined Preliminary/Final Plat consisting of 6 residential building lots and 1 common lot on 0.733 acres in the R-8 zoning district. Motion to approve made by Councilwoman Strader, Seconded by Councilwoman Little Roberts. Voting Yea: Councilman Overton, Councilwoman Little Roberts, Councilman Whitlock, Councilman Cavener, Councilwoman Strader 2. Public Hearing for Two Mustard Seeds Women's Resale Shop (H-2024-0009) by Arlene Hardy, Expansion International, located at 817 N. Meridian Rd. Approved Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2024-0009 A. Request: Rezone of 0.63 acres of land from the R-8 zoning district to the O-T zoning district for the purpose of converting the existing home into a women's resale retail store. Motion to approve made by Councilman Overton, Seconded by Councilwoman Little Roberts. Voting Yea: Councilman Overton, Councilwoman Little Roberts, Councilman Whitlock, Councilman Cavener, Councilwoman Strader 3. Public Hearing for Vanguard Village Subdivision (H-2023-0074) by Adler Industrial, located at 1085 S. Ten Mile Rd. Approved Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2023-0072 A. Request: Modified Development Agreement to amend the existing development agreement (H-2021-0081 Inst.#2022-049799) to clarify the uses allowed in the M-E zone; update the phasing plan, include an alternative design and development guidelines for distribution & light manufacturing area (i.e. warehouse and light industry uses) with conceptual elevations and other miscellaneous changes. Motion to approve made by Councilwoman Strader, Seconded by Councilman Overton. Voting Yea: Councilman Overton, Councilwoman Little Roberts, Councilman Whitlock, Councilman Cavener, Councilwoman Strader FUTURE MEETING TOPICS ADJOURNMENT 6:55 PM Meridian City Council July 9, 2024. A Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:01 p.m., Tuesday, July 9, 2024, by Mayor Robert Simison. Members Present: Robert Simison, Luke Cavener, Liz Strader, John Overton, Anne Little Roberts and Brian Whitlock. Members Absent: Doug Taylor. Other Present: Chris Johnson, Bill Nary, Sonya Allen, Stacy Hersh, Linda Ritter, Jamie Leslie, Kris Blume and Dean Willis. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE X Liz Strader X Brian Whitlock X Anne Little Roberts _X_ John Overton Doug Taylor _X_Luke Cavener X Mayor Robert E. Simison Simison: Council, we will call this meeting to order. For the record it is June 9th, 2024, at 6:01 p.m. We will begin this regular City Council meeting with roll call attendance. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Simison: Next up is the Pledge of Allegiance. If you would all, please, rise and join us in the pledge. (Pledge of Allegiance recited.) COMMUNITY INVOCATION Simison: Mr. Clerk, we didn't have anyone signed up under our community invocation; correct? Johnson: We did not. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Simison: Okay. So, with that we will move on to adoption of the agenda. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: No changes this evening, so I move that we adopt the agenda as presented. Meridian City Council July 9,2024 Page 2 of 18 Strader: Second. Simison: Have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the agenda is adopted. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. PUBLIC FORUM — Future Meeting Topics Simison: Mr. Clerk, anyone signed up under public forum? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, no signups. ACTION ITEMS 1. Public Hearing continued from April 9, 2024 for Rosalyn Subdivision (H-2023-0056) by Givens Pursley, LLP, located at 200 E. Rosalyn Dr. A. Request: Annexation of a 0.014-acre of land from RUT in Ada County to the R-8 zoning district, including the remaining portion of E. Rosalyn Street cul-de-sac right-of-way. B. Request: Combined Preliminary/Final Plat consisting of 6 residential building lots and 1 common lot on 0.733 acres in the R-8 zoning district. Simison: Okay. Then we will move right on to our Action Items for this evening. First item up is a public hearing continued from April 9th, 2004, for Rosalyn Subdivision, H- 2023-0056. We will continue this public hearing with comments from staff. Hersh: Good evening, Mr. Mayor and Members of the Council. The applicant is here to present their project once again for annexation and a combined preliminary/final plat. So, the original plat consisted of three lots and now they are proposed -- or I mean six lots and now they are proposing three lots. This is the plan -- revised plan that they sent us all to look at this evening and written testimony since the last hearing from May 14 is from Ken Freeze and he just had concerns of -- with the house placement on the west. There is a big walnut tree on the corner and he would like to see that preserved, as well as he would recommend that the applicant build wider driveways to accommodate three vehicles. However, staff does analyze that with the building permit based on the amount of bedrooms. And one last thing. If City Council chooses to move to approve this revised plat, there is a condition in the staff report in Section IXA2 that needs to be revised to read the applicant shall submit a complete set of engineer plans with the final plat application submitted for the city engineer's signature. And that concludes staff's presentation tonight for this project and I will leave it to the applicant. Meridian City Council July 9,2024 Page 3 of 18 Simison: Council, any questions for staff? Then would the applicant like to come forward. Good evening, Elizabeth. Koeckeritz: Good evening. Thank you, Mayor and City Council. We are here again on Rosalyn. I have a very brief presentation this evening with me to -- Elizabeth Koeckeritz. 601 Bannock with Givens Pursley. Land use counsel. I'm here with Brett and Julie Bingham, the owners of the property this evening and we are back tonight with a three lot subdivision. Two of the lots are accessed off of a common drive, which means there is just fewer accesses directly onto Rosalyn. It also puts the garages further back away from the street. Generally speaking garages are the least attractive portion of any home and so it's nice to keep them away. The lots all come in at approximately 10,000 square feet, some a little more, some a little less and the lots now actually at this size do meet R-4 dimensional standards and so tonight we are just looking for approval of the annexation and the combined preliminary and final plat. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Not a question, just a comment. What a fantastic revision. It looks great. Just a general comment. I so appreciate the flexibility and how you approach this and it feels like a good amount of homes for this area. Simison: Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Clerk, anybody signed up under this item? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, Ken Freeze. Freeze: Thank you once again, Council Members. This has been a long process and I have to say while I'm relieved to see three lots there, I am also a little disappointed that apparently they will not be building on those lots. I hope that we are not back here a year from now with some new owners who are trying to do something to those lots that will not fit the neighborhood, because I think building three homes on the three lots would be very fitting for what the rest of the neighborhood has right now and as I requested in my letter that one home looked a little forward, but, then, I was informed that apparently those were just sort of place markers for what might be there, not -- nothing that would be there as a final building. Also in my letter I did request that if they were going to be built that just if nothing else wider driveways would be put there, because with the HOA that's just to the east of there, there is a problem with cars often parking in the street because there is not enough room for them to park in their driveways and as the fire department has stated before that a lot of times these common driveways become parking lots when they should be clear. Those were my only two comments. I have to also say that I know for the Binghams this has been a long, drawn out process. It hasn't been easy for anybody. I can tell you that the president of the HOA has been extremely stressed out about this to the point where she Meridian City Council July 9,2024 Page 4 of 18 has almost been ill over it and I know some other people have been very stressed out about this whole process. I hope that whatever comes of this property in the near future it still looks sort of what we see in this plat now and not something -- something grotesque that say some new owners of those lots may want to build there. I'm also happy to be able to tell the people that I have been dealing with that the City Council does listen to the citizens. Some of the naysayers who were saying that there is no point in it, I'm glad that you proved them wrong, that you do listen to the people and that it is worth stating what they feel when they feel that instead of waiting until it's all done and saying, oh, they wouldn't have listened to us anyway. So, once again, thank you to all the Council Members and Mayor. Thank you. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Ken, I had a question. Councilman Overton. Overton: Welcome back. Just a clarification. You stated that the houses are not going to be built? Freeze: That's my understanding, that these are just going to be surveyed. I mean you can -- you can ask them for clarification, but my question was initially why this was put down there was no new elevations or anything and I got the -- basically a preliminary -- sort of a preliminary answer and I was hoping I would get a better answer tonight, but that apparently they are not planning on building now, but they were just going to subdivide. Again, I would -- I would say ask them for some clarification on that. I would like to see it built. I would like to see them complete the project, but, on the other hand, I realize this has been an expensive process for them and I hate -- honestly I have hated to see them have to go back to the drawing board over and over again, because I know it always costs them money and I don't -- I don't like to see anybody waste money. Overton: We agree with that. Thank you. Simison: Mr. Clerk, do we have anybody else signed up? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, that was everyone. Simison: If there is anybody present that would like to provide testimony either online or in the room if you would like to come forward at this time. Good evening. State your name and address for the record. Larrea: Good evening. Jan Larrea. 100 East Rosalyn, Meridian. Mr. Mayor and Council. I have no objection to three houses or three lots being built in that area. It would look better than what happens to be there now. So, no objections for me. I complained before, so now I'm saying it's fine. Any questions? Meridian City Council July 9,2024 Page 5 of 18 Simison: Is there anybody else that would like to provide testimony on this item? Would the applicant like to come forward to close? Koeckeritz: Mr. Mayor, City Council, Elizabeth Koeckeritz. Givens Pursley. Just one comment in response to Council Overton's question and Mr. Freeze's comments. The Binghams intend to take this to final plat and at this point they don't know if after it is officially subdivided into the three lots if they will move forward with building on those lots or if they will be selling the lots for individuals to do their own development on it, but they do absolutely intend to take this through to final. Simison: Okay. Council, any additional questions? Okay. Thank you very much. Whitlock: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Whitlock. Whitlock: I was just appointed to the Council on May 28 and there were two hearings on this issue, one in April and one in early May, both of which I viewed and have reviewed the record as well. So, if there is no objection I feel comfortable participating in the discussion and vote tonight. Simison: You're fine. Thank you. Council, any questions or discussion on this? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: If there is no further questions or discussion, I move that we close the public hearing. Little Roberts: 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: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I would very happy to make a motion for approval. After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval of file -- I move to approve file H-2023-0056 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date today on July 9, with the modifications as suggested by Planning staff in Section 9-A-2 to require Meridian City Council July 9,2024 Page 6 of 18 a revised complete set of engineering plans with the modifications that were in this slide. Little Roberts: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second. Is there discussion on the motion? If not, Clerk will call the roll. Roll Call: Cavener, yea; Strader, yea; Overton, yea; Little Roberts, yea; Taylor, absent; Whitlock, yea. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the item is agreed to. Thank you very much and good luck. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. 2. Public Hearing for Two Mustard Seeds Women's Resale Shop (H- 2024-0009) by Arlene Hardy, Expansion International, located at 817 N. Meridian Rd. A. Request: Rezone of 0.63 acres of land from the R-8 zoning district to the O-T zoning district for the purpose of converting the existing home into a women's resale retail store. Simison: With that we will move on to Item 2, which is a public hearing for Two Mustard Seeds Woman's Resale Shop, H-2024-0009. We will open this public hearing with staff comments. Linda. Ritter: Good evening, Mayor and Council Members. So, tonight we are here -- the applicant is requesting a rezone of 0.63 acres of land from the R-8 to OT zoning district for the purpose of converting the existing home into a women's re -- a women's resale retail store. So, the proposed 2,463 square foot retail store will be located in the downtown area within the Meridian Urban Renewal District. The home was built in 1902 and is slated for further improvements to meet city code requirements and enhance the customer experience. The remodel will include handicapped bathroom access and ramps for store access, as well as new flooring, paint, landscape and other minor interior makeovers. Access will be off of Northwest 1st Street and parking with handicap stall will be at the back of the retail store. Walk-in handicap ramps will provide access to the front door. There will be five off-street parking spaces as part of this proposal. The proposed hours of operation will be from Wednesday to Saturday, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. The city may require a development agreement in conjunction with a rezone pursuant to Idaho Code Section 60-765-11-A, but due to the size of the development staff believes that a DA should not be required. There are existing sidewalks along North Meridian Road and North 1st Street and there is existing landscaping along Meridian Road and so no additional landscape will be required for buffers -- except for buffers to these adjacent residential uses if needed. So, as you can see here these are pictures of the Meridian City Council July 9,2024 Page 7 of 18 existing property. It's actually a beautiful home -- piece of property. I walked the property, walked along it and it's going to be a really nice addition to the neighborhood, this resale store. At this time I will let the applicant come up and provide any information that she would like to. Simison: Council, any questions for staff? All right. Would the applicant like to come forward? Good evening. State your name and address for the record. Hardy: My name is Arlene Hardy and my address is 2484 East Summer Dawn Street in Meridian. Thank you for having us here again this evening. On behalf of Expansion International I would like to say how excited we are and how happy we are to be part of downtown Meridian and to bring this property. It's a beautiful old house as you just saw and be able to bring this property into a store and the store will be a resale store for women. It's going to be a boutique type store. We are very excited that women in the area can come and shop there, as well as volunteers in the area will be able to come and volunteer at the store. So, our goal is to preserve the beauty of this old house, 120 year old house, which is in very good shape and our goal is to preserve that beauty and the history of the house, while still bringing a fun shopping experience into the area. We think it will bring shoppers to the downtown area and people passing through Meridian will be able to see what a great asset this is. We are looking forward to being part of Meridian downtown and working with the city and working with the people in the area and we just want to say thank you for reviewing our proposal and for having us here this evening and I'm just here to answer any questions you might have. Simison: Counsel, any questions for the applicant? All right. Thank you. Mr. Clerk, I assume we didn't have anyone sign up or did we? Johnson: We do. Simison: Oh. Johnson: It's the applicant Gene Bennett. Simison: Okay. Good evening. State your name and address for the record. Bennett: My name is Gene Bennett. 4210 North Rogue River Way in Meridian. As a volunteer helping them with the construction and so if you had any questions regarding the construction I would answer those if you need. Simison: Thank you. Anybody else? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, that was everyone. Simison: Is there anybody present who would did not sign up that would like to come forward and present testimony? Would the applicant like to make any final comments Meridian City Council July 9,2024 Page 8 of 18 or does the applicant waive any final comments? Applicant waives final comments. Council, your direction. Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: Seeing there is no further comments, move we close the public hearing. Little Roberts: 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 arena is closed. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: Considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval of File No. H-2024-0009. Little Roberts: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second. Do I have discussion? If not Clerk will call the roll. Roll Call: Cavener, yea; Strader, yea; Overton, yea; Little Roberts, yea; Taylor, absent; Whitlock, yea. Simison: All ayes. Motion carried and the item is agreed to. Good luck. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. 3. Public Hearing for Vanguard Village Subdivision (H-2023-0074) by Adler Industrial, located at 1085 S. Ten Mile Rd. A. Request: Modified Development Agreement to amend the existing development agreement (H-2021-0081 Inst.#2022-049799) to clarify the uses allowed in the M-E zone; update the phasing plan, include an alternative design and development guidelines for distribution & light manufacturing area (i.e. warehouse and light industry uses) with conceptual elevations and other miscellaneous changes. Meridian City Council July 9,2024 Page 9 of 18 Simison: Council, the next item up this evening is a public hearing for Vanguard Village Subdivision, H-2023-0074. We will open this public hearing was staff comments. Allen: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. The next application before you tonight is a request for a development agreement modification for Vanguard Village. This site is governed -- the overall site is governed by the existing development agreement consisting of 115.26 acres of land, zoned R-15, ME, C-C and is generally located a quarter mile south of West Franklin Road and west of South Ten Mile Road. The existing development agreement was approved in 2021 and replaced the original development agreement required with annexation of the property. The Comprehensive Future land use map designations are mixed use commercial, medium high density residential, mixed employment and high density employment. The portion of the property that is the subject of the amended DA is only that at the southwest corner of the site in the ME zoning district and that is this area right here where my pointer is. The applicant proposes the following amendments to the existing development agreement. Number 4.3 is a new provision that they are proposing -- is a restriction on the uses allowed on the eastern portion of the ME zoned area that is shown here on the map in the green. Not allow warehouse, including distribution and flex space use. The inclusion of this restriction on approximately a third of the mixed employment zoned area will ensure the property develops with a mix of employment uses as desired by the city with a limitation on flex and warehouse uses. The next one is a modification to DA provision 5.1A. It includes reference to updated phasing plan and a new phasing plan is included as an exhibit. So, this is the existing phasing plan on the left and their proposed phasing plan on the right. With the proposed phasing plan Phase A, the first phase, is at the southwest corner of the site. Directly to the east will be the second phase and the last and third phase will be the northern portion of the site. The reason for the change is the development priorities have changed, along with property ownership since the time of the initial approvals. The proposed change will allow development to proceed in an alternate order. The next change is inclusion of alternative design and development guidelines for the distribution and light manufacturing area, i.e., the warehouse, distribution and light industry and manufacturing uses on the western portion of the ME zoned area per the conceptual elevations shown and modification to the following development agreement provisions: 5.1 B currently requires compliance with the design guidelines in the Ten Mile plan and the standards in the Architectural Standards Manual as applicable. That modification allows for alternatives to the design guidelines if approved by Council tonight. Modification to No. 5.11, the proposed modification allows for exceptions to the design guidelines in the Ten Mile plan for the ME zoned area or warehouse, including distribution and light industry, including manufacturing uses are proposed on the western portion of the ME zoned area. The exceptions consist of a minimum of eight percent windows on the front edge and a single plane wall maximum distance of 150 feet without building modulation, instead of 20 percent windows and a single plane wall maximum equal to the building height without building modulation as shown on the examples submitted with this application as shown. Only the building faces shown in red on the exhibit on the left will be considered frontage. The Ten Mile plan has elevated guidelines that apply to development within the Ten Mile area. The Meridian City Council July 9,2024 Page 10 of 18 Architectural Standards Manual applies to all properties within the city with established baseline minimum standards. These are in addition to the elevated guidelines in the Ten Mile plan. The front and south side of the southernmost building will be highly visible from 1-84. The front of the other buildings will be internal to the site and not as visible. Staff is unable to support requests for deviations from the guidelines in the plan due to conflicts with the lesser architectural standards manual standards prior, apart from and prior to the design review process. Commercial Architectural Standards Manual standards apply to ME zoned areas, but the buildings are of an industrial style and may conflict with other citywide ASM standards as well. Action is needed from Council for such requests. If Council approves the proposed deviations to the design guidelines in the plan the applicant will need to include a request for a design standard exception with each commercial standard in the Architectural Standards Manual that is not met with subsequent administrative design review applications. Any such related request will likely not comply with the design standards in the ASM. The next provision proposed for modification is 5.1 L. The proposed modification allows for exceptions to the design elements in the Ten Mile Plan if approved by Council tonight. Modification to DA provision 5.1 M, the proposed modification allows the applicant to submit a certificate of zoning compliance and building permit application prior to recordation of the final plat, but requires the plat to be recorded prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy. Currently the requirement is for the plat to be recorded prior to submittal of a certificate of zoning compliance and/or building permit applications. The proposed change will allow development to commence, but will still require the plat to be recorded prior to occupancy. Staff is recommending approval of the requested modifications to the development agreement, except for the deviations from the design guidelines in the Ten Mile Plan, which are mentioned, which require Council approval. No written testimony has been submitted on this application. The applicant is here to present tonight. Thank you. Simison: Thank you, Sonya. Council, any questions for staff? Would the applicant like to come forward. Good evening. Goede: Will Goede. 8665 West Emerald Street, Boise. Thank you, Council, Mayor, Sonya. We are really excited about this project. A little background on Adler. We are the biggest industrial developer in the Treasure Valley. We pride ourselves in our communities and we own or manager about 20 -- about 20 buildings in Meridian right now. Three more under construction. We are excited about -- exciting in the industrial world -- about as exciting as it gets for me and three more in -- in design at the moment. So, love being a part of the Meridian community and thanks for letting us be a part of that. A little background on this project. So, some of you might have been part of this background, but like Sonya said, there is an existing development agreement. We purchased part of this property last year and now we are here to just make a few minor adjustments to the development agreement, so we can move forward with developing the property. As shown in this image, the 115 acres covered by this development agreement is -- is controlled by three different developers and going to be developed by three different developers. Corey Barton is going to develop the residential 40 acres on the north, BVA is going to develop the commercial, high density employment and part of Meridian City Council July 9,2024 Page 11 of 18 the mixed employment zone on the east end -- east side. And Adler is going to develop the 20 acres of mixed employment on the west side of the site. We are working very closely with BVA to ensure a smooth transition from the commercial uses over at Ten Mile and Ten Mile Crossing over to industrial uses over at Black Cat with large warehouses over there. We think that this project does a really good job of a smooth transition. So, zooming in on Adler's 20 acres that we are going to develop, you can see the original development agreement site plan and the -- our current site plan, which are nearly identical. Apologize for all the capitalization and, then, lowercase. It's driving me crazy. I hope you guys can look past it. That's not what mine looks like. So, you can see that the plans are nearly identical. We did put the slightly larger building in the middle of the site -- interior to the site, as opposed to up against the freeway, but that's really the only -- the only change there. The current site plan is designed to be highly demisable. So, you can see on the north-hand side that there is two -- two small flex buildings that can accommodate divided into four different tenant spaces and accommodate tenants as small as 3,800 square feet. The next two buildings can accommodate tenants as small as 4,700 square feet and you have the larger building, which can demise into six spaces down to 21,000 square feet and, then, finally, the building along the freeway, which can demise down into 16,000 square foot spaces. So, the goal really for this project is that you can get a small business into one of the flex buildings and they can grow as their business grows and stay within the park and move into bigger spaces. The first item getting -- that was kind of a little background. Getting into the actual DA amendment. The updated phasing plan is really having to do with the -- the different developers involved at this point, simplifying that phasing plan a little bit from where it was. We do have the industrial as part of Phase A -- first phase here. Oh. And we are already installing infrastructure for the entire project. You might have seen us working out there in conjunction with EDA installing a lot of sewer. We are hoping to have the roads paved by the end of the year. Jumping into the design guidelines that Sonya mentioned. So, while the original DA specifically lists distribution and light manufacturing as examples of intended uses for the mixed employment zone, it doesn't address the design requirements for these buildings. It does show elevations and renderings for other buildings, but not for any of the mixed employment buildings. So, first, to get you oriented on the site here, on the northern side of our 20 acres is going to be Vanguard Way, which will be a public road. On the east side of our site is Lavista, which is a private road. On the west side of this site Corey Barton actually owns another property that he has plans for an industrial development there and, then, on the south end -- south edge of the site is 1-84. So, the northern most two buildings we are not proposing any changes to design requirements. Those will be designed to -- to meet the 20 percent windows and all the requirements in the -- in the Ten Mile Plan. We -- we recognize that those buildings are facing public right of way. There -- there is residential to the north. So, we -- we want to keep those smaller buildings without any kind of design changes. The three out of the four phases that are proposed -- that we are proposing some design changes in the middle of this site are facing interior to the site and facing each other, so not highly visible outside of the actual park here and, then, the last phase that we are proposing some -- some design changes is the southern phase that faces the freeway. Zooming in on that freeway frontage there, there -- there will be a 50 foot wide landscape buffer on the west end of the site and it's Meridian City Council July 9,2024 Page 12 of 18 about a hundred feet on the east side of the site. That will be fully lined with trees on both sides of a walkway and those -- there is actually 85 trees along the south edge of the site there and the way that this site works -- so, there is -- these trees are 50 feet tall when they are mature. The building we have proposed here is going to be about 32 feet tall and the building actually sits down about 15 feet from the freeway, just because of the topography of the site. So, trying to read the visual that you have 50 foot tall trees that are starting from a higher point than a 32 foot tall building, which is down lower. So, we expect to get a really good visual screen from all these trees. In addition, these trees are 40 feet wide at maturity. They are staggered and so that all of -- as you can see in this rendering, all the canopies end up interlocking and create a full visual barrier. There is also a mix of deciduous and evergreen trees here to create a visual barrier even in the winter months. So, with that said, jumping into maybe the nitty gritty of the single plane wall, ask -- or request here. So, you can see in this design, which is the building we are currently building in Boise, the single plane max while distance is about 150 feet. This allows us to locate the architectural elements around the building entries, which is where we want the focal points to be. To me in my opinion it results in a more clean and intentional design. Here is what a design looks like when -- when -- that meets the Ten Mile specific area plan where the single plane max wall distance is equal to the building height. You end up every 30 feet having to hop a panel out and step it up a little bit, which can -- can look a little random, it can look a little tasselish I have heard it -- I have heard it called. The pop outs don't necessarily follow the architecture of the building, they are -- rather they are just to -- to check a box and to meet a requirement and they can often distract from the building entries, as opposed to enhance the building entries as a focal point. So, we -- we would request that we increase that single plane max distance to 150 feet. The windows is the other ask here for a design change on those. Those -- those four facades. So, first, the Ten Mile specific plan calls for 20 percent windows, but it doesn't clarify if those windows are calculated based on square footage or based on linear footage and this makes a very significant difference. Again, that same building that I used as an example in the last photos, this is a -- this is a calculation both ways. If you take the window square footage, which is in blue, and divide by the total building square footage for that face of the building, on this building we have a little over eight percent windows. If you do that based on linear footage, which is the green -- you know, the width of the window, which is shown in green versus the overall length of the building, 678 feet, then, that's 33.6 percent based on a linear basis. So, hugely different and that -- that's why the -- because our buildings tend to be tall, which used the different calculations. So, if the requirement is enforced based on square footage and that's what -- how we assumed it would be, I have actually had different jurisdictions interpret it both ways. But that's where we are requesting the eight percent. If it's been forced based on linear footage, then, we can make the 20 percent and there is no need for a reduction there. So, that's maybe a clarifying item. So, talking a little bit about the functionality of windows in an industrial building, so that I can articulate why having 20 percent based on square footage is problematic in this style of building. So, based on our experience, the majority of tenants want a 1,500 to 4,000 square foot office and we try to build these buildings to be as versatile as possible. The -- so, you can see in this image that what that does is across your front edge you have -- you have an office area and, then, an Meridian City Council July 9,2024 Page 13 of 18 industrial area next to it and, then, potentially you have a demising wall and you have the other tenants industrial area and office area and it switches use across the front of the building. The reason this is important is that windows are very different in the office area versus the industrial area. In the industrial areas of the buildings tenants don't -- tenants don't want low windows. The -- having low windows are seen as a -- a security risk. They don't want people to be able to see into their industrial area or easily break into that area. They are also seen as a liability. Windows are easily damaged and they break, they make a mess, and I can tell you based on -- since we -- we manage and own all of our properties, our property management team constantly gets calls about people damaging and breaking anything that is possible to damage and break in one of the spaces. We have -- in the last couple of years we have had multiple steel building columns that are ran so hard by a forklift or equipment that they are not structurally sound anymore and we have had to replace them. The demising walls between spaces are constantly hit with forklifts, so much that it even pushes the whole wall out of the way and we have had to install steel channels on both sides of these walls, so that they don't get pushed out of the way. So, having windows in the industrial area is -- is not liked by tenants because of security and damage concerns. So, having -- started having low windows. So, that's why you see just some high windows. Still natural light is important and locating the windows high up is -- is much more functional. In the office area it's totally the opposite. The -- like I said, the majority of tenants want a 1 ,500 to 4,000 square foot single story office. So, typically the ceiling on that will be ten feet high and any windows that are higher than ten feet are going into the void space above the ceiling. There is no natural light. There is no benefit. They get boarded up or filmed over and, actually, if anything, there is only a detriment, which is, you know, a less energy efficient building for no real benefit. So, I just wanted to show you a few examples to put the 20 percent in perspective to an industrial building and so, again, this is the example I have been using so far. This is eight percent windows. It's an 88,000 square foot building, which is very similar to the size of the building that's going to be along the freeway there that was approved in the DA already -- DA agreement already. If you just look at the entry feature, we do exceed the 20 percent windows at the entry feature, but, like I said, because of the adjacent industrial areas on the building as a whole it's less than that 20 percent. Here is the Tesla building that we are currently finishing on Franklin here in Meridian. It is a little bit smaller building, 41 ,000 square feet, and it's at 9.9 percent windows. It's a little bit shorter building, too. A bit smaller. Another example of a project that we finished last year in Boise, a larger building, 220,000 square feet. It has eight percent windows on the Gowen frontage and actually at the corner of this building, that glass is 19 feet tall just to get to the -- to the eight percent. I will skip that example. Nine and a half percent. So, in summary, I just want to remind you, we are not requesting any changes for the northern two buildings, three out of the four frontages we are requesting -- are facing internal to the site and the -- the southern building is going to have a significant tree barrier to shield use on the freeway. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions for the applicant? Okay. I wouldn't go far, because I don't know that there is a lot of other people here. Mr. Clerk, do we have anybody signed up on this item? Meridian City Council July 9,2024 Page 14 of 18 Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we do not. Simison: Is there anybody present that would like to provide testimony on this item? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I do have a question for staff. Sonya, hi. Could you clarify the intent of the design guidelines for the Ten Mile Specific Area Plan and whether the windows were meant to be calculated on the linear square foot basis or not? I think it would be helpful for us to all understand that. Allen: Yes. Council, I was just looking at the answer to that and I'm -- I believe it is on the linear dimension of the street level frontage is what I'm seeing so far. I will make a correction if I'm wrong, but -- I had to look that up. I don't have that, so -- Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Did you want us to circle back to it? Allen: I believe that's the answer unless I -- unless I say otherwise. I am looking just to make sure. If I see anything to the contrary I will -- Strader: Thank you. Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Sorry to beat this one to death. Would it be helpful if Council -- like if we believe that is the case, do you need Council to clarify that an exception is not needed, because it's calculated on a linear square foot basis in our final deliberations or -- Allen: I think that Council should -- if they believe that what the applicant is presenting is -- is okay and you are amenable to that, then, I think you should approve the applicant's request. Strader: Right. Allen: And if it's -- you know, otherwise, it doesn't matter anyway. Same end result. just confirmed with Brian. He's kind of our design review guru and he just -- he just confirmed that it's linier. Thank you. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Meridian City Council July 9,2024 Page 15 of 18 Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: So, I do have a question for the applicant. Apologize. I didn't catch -- is it Greg? Goede: Will. Strader: Will. Sorry about that. Allen: Mr. Mayor, if I -- if I may interrupt again. He just told me that he had it backwards. He thinks it's -- so I'm going to continue to -- I'm going to continue to research here and try to get a more -- a better answer for that. Thank you. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: So, while we are trying to -- trying to tackle that and figure that out, I guess just a question for you, just to confirm. If, in fact, we believe the Ten Mile specific guidelines are based on linear square feet, do you meet that requirement for all of the facades of your building that are -- that you were asking for an exception on? Goede: Yes. You said linear square feet. And just to clarify -- so, if it's just based on linear footage, the width of the windows, yes, we can make 20 percent on -- on all the projects. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Yeah. It sounds like based on at least the example that you gave us and you are, obviously, one of the largest, if not the largest developer of industrial here in the valley, this is typical for this property type. Goede: Yeah. Absolutely. The -- the larger a building gets the -- typically the less windows it has, so -- yeah. Strader: Thank you. Simison: I may not be the smartest person in the room, but I have to think we are here because staff informed the applicant enough times that it didn't meet the proposed viewpoint. Otherwise, I don't know why we would be asking for a modification, especially when staff said that it will support the modification based upon the guidelines, how they have interpreted it. So, I know we are still trying to get clarification from Brian, but I -- otherwise I don't know why we wouldn't be here if that -- that was being interpreted by staff and the applicant to do an opposite. Councilman Cavener. Meridian City Council July 9,2024 Page 16 of 18 Cavener: Vice-president Strader and I were having a very similar conversation, like trying to figure out what's the crux as to why this is before us and I think it's important for Council, if -- if that answer would change anybody's decision, then, I think that we owe it to have staff to play it out and -- but I'm seeing some general consensus from Council about it, maybe if that answer wouldn't actually have a bearing on the Council decision I think that we are best to just continue to move forward. Simison: Okay. Allen: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Sonya. Allen: I apologize, I didn't know this was an issue before now or I would have had this researched and had an answer for you that was a little better than it's been, but Brian explained to me that the Ten Mile plan expects multi-story and it's intended to be of interest due to each floor. So, it's -- we don't have a multi-story building here, so it's a little difficult to meet that requirement with the guidelines as is for this type of building. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I move that we close the public hearing on this item. Simison: But before we do that the applicant has the opportunity to come forward and -- Strider: I apologize. Simison: -- and provide final comments. If they would like to come forward and make those. Allen: Mr. Mayor, if I may add one more thing. If you wish tonight you could just make them subject to the standards in the Architecture Standards Manual as well. There -- there are standards there that apply regardless that I mentioned before in my presentation that would require a design standard exception if they couldn't comply with those, which is staff level and an option as well. But that is kind of an extra tier of our view as well. Thank you. Goede: Will Goede. Adler Industrial. I did just want to -- the windows is one of the requests. The wall plane is the other request. Just to make sure that wasn't forgotten and I think for the clarification, based on the -- the verbiage that I read in the Ten Mile Plan all reference linear footage, but it didn't specifically define anything, but it makes sense if it's written for a single story, which we -- sorry. It's written for a multi-story building. We are single story building that's taller than average buildings. Meridian City Council July 9,2024 Page 17 of 18 Simison: Council, any final questions for the applicant? Okay. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: With that I move that we close the public hearing on Item No. 3. Overton: 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: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Just to kick off some discussion, then, I can make a motion. I think -- I think architectural guidelines are particularly important when we have an area that's highly visible to the public. I don't feel like that is as much of an issue here and I actually want to compliment the applicant. I have rarely seen someone explain so succinctly and clearly why an exception to an architectural standard is needed. So, thank you. I appreciate that. With that, after considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File No. H-2023-0072 as presented in the staff report for today's hearing date with the following provisions: Approving the applicant's proposed amendments to the existing DA, clarifying that the City Council is granting a modification to the Ten Mile specific area plan guidelines with respect to both the windows and with respect to the -- the wall planes. Thank you. The maximum distance -- the wall planes on the facades that were specified by the applicant. Overton: Second. Strader: I think that gets us there. Simison: Motion and second. Staff, any questions on that motion? Okay. Is there a discussion from Council on the motion? Cavener: Mr. Mayor, just to -- Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Just a quick clarification and I -- I think I see where maybe a slight error occurred. This is application 74 not 72. Seven two I think is the link that was provided Meridian City Council July 9,2024 Page 18 of 18 to the applicant file. I just want to make sure that we are on the right bouncing ball with the motion. Strader: Mr. Mayor, yes, I agree. If staff is in agreement. Allen: I will just clarify for the record since there was some discussion back and forth. So, Council, the motion is for Council to approve the applicant's request for alternative design and development guidelines as shown in the exhibits submitted by the applicant included in the staff report and as shown here tonight and both of their -- no changes to their request. Thank you. Strader: Yes. Thank you. Overton: Second agrees. Simison: Second agrees what we are all understanding to be the case. Is there further discussion? If not, Clerk will call the roll. Roll Call: Cavener, yea; Strader, yea; Overton, yea; Little Roberts, yea; Taylor, absent; Whitlock, yea. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the item is agreed to. Thank you very much. Have a good evening. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. FUTURE MEETING TOPICS Simison: Council, we are at the end of our agenda. Anything under future meeting topics or a motion to adjourn? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Move to adjourn the meeting. Simison: Motion to adjourn. All in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it. We are adjourned. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:55 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) 7/23/2024 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. CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC FORUM SIGN - IN SHEET Date : July 9 , 2024 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 is for this forum ) Name ( please print ) Brief Description of Discussion Topic C� E IDIAN Planning and Zoning Department Presentation and Outline Changes to Agenda: None Item #1: Rosalyn Subdivision (H-2023-0056) Application(s):  Annexation  Combined Preliminary/Final Plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 0.733 acres of land, a small portion of ROW-zoned RUT, and the larger piece of property is zoned R-8, located at 200 E. Rosalyn Drive. History: Short Plat H-2023-0092; ROW Vacation Instrument #2023-034331 Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Low-Density Residential (LDR) This designation is intended to allow for the development of single-family homes on large and estate lots at gross densities of three dwelling units or less per acre. This property was annexed in 2005 with and R-8 zone and granted approval for a step-up in density which was allowed under the previous Comprehensive Plan. This policy was removed from the Comprehensive Plan with the 2019 update. Summary of Request: The Applicant proposes to annex 0.014 of an acre of land with an R-8 zoning district, including the remaining portion of the E. Rosalyn Street cul-de-sac right of way. A legal description and exhibit map for the annexation area is included in with the Application. This property is within the City’s Area of City Impact boundary. The Applicant proposes a 6-lot subdivision for six single-family residential detached homes. Since a majority of the property is already annexed and zoned with the R-8 district staff must analyze the project based on the merits of the governing zoning district regardless of the proposed density The proposed preliminary plat consists of 6 building lots and 1 common lot on a 0.733-acre property in the existing R-8 zoning district. Proposed lots range in size from 4,060 to 5,219 square feet (s.f.) (or 0.093 to 0.12 acres). The subdivision is proposed to develop in one phase. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: An existing home on the property is proposed to be removed from this site. Any outbuildings located on this site should be removed with development of this property. Dimensional Standards: The proposed plat and subsequent development are required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-6 for the R-8 zoning district. The proposed plat appears to comply with the dimensional standards of the district. Per UDC 11-2A-3B.3, lots taking access from a common drive do not require street frontage. Access: Access is proposed from E. Rosalyn Drive and a common driveway on Lot 6, Block 1. The interior Lots 3, 4, 5, and 7 Block 1 are proposed to take access via a common drive to E. Rosalyn Drive, meeting the street access requirements of UDC 11-3A-3A. Common Driveways: Common driveways shall serve a maximum of four (4) dwelling units. In no case shall more than three (3) dwelling units be located on one (1) side of the driveway. The Applicant is proposing six (6) dwelling units with four (4) taking access off the common driveway, three (3) dwelling units are also located on one (1) side of the driveway in accordance with the UDC requirements. Parking: Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 for single-family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. Staff will confirm compliance with these standards at the time of building permit submittal for each residence. Landscaping: There are no street buffers required along local streets per UDC Table 11-2A-6. The applicant has provided a landscape plan. Landscaping is not required per the UDC. Sidewalks: E. Rosalyn Drive is improved with an existing 5-foot wide attached concrete sidewalk abutting the site in accord with UDC standards. Fencing: All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. According to the submitted plans, the Applicant is not proposing fencing with this project. Building Elevations: Two (2) conceptual building elevations were submitted that demonstrate what future homes in this development will look like. Variations of that appear to be single-story and two-story detached homes with a two-car garage are proposed. The submitted elevations depict several different architectural and design styles with field materials of lap siding, differing color accents, roof profiles, stone and front porches. Summary of Commission Public Hearing: i. In favor: Elizabeth Koeckeritz, Givens Pursley ii. In opposition: Jan Larrea, Paul Pelletier, Ken Freeze, Nick Nauslar iii. Commenting: Elizabeth Koechkeritz, Givend Pursley iv. Written testimony: Multiple letters of written testimony were submitted and can be found in the record online. Key Issue(s): a. The Comprehensive Plan depicts this property as low-density residential on the future land use map. b. There are too many lots proposed within this development. c. Lots smaller than 5,000 square feet should not be proposed for a development this small. d. Concerns with the additional traffic and noise. Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission: i. None Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation: i. None Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: i. None Written Testimony since 5/14/2024 Council Hearing: Ken Freeze – Concerns with moving the proposed home on the west farther back to preserve the existing Walnut Tree. Recommends that the Applicant build wider driveways to accommodate three vehicles. Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval of File Number H-2023-0056, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 9, 2024, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial of File Number H-2023-0056, as presented during the hearing on July 9, 2024, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2023-0056 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #2: Two Mustard Seeds Women’s Resale Shop (H-2024-0009) Application(s):  Rezone Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 0.63 acres of land, zoned R-8, located at 817 N. Meridian Road. History: None Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Old Town (O-T) Summary of Request: Rezone 0.63 acres of land from the R-8 zoning district to the O-T zoning district for the purpose of converting the existing home into a women's resale retail store. The proposed 2,463-square-foot retail store will be located in the downtown area within the Meridian Urban Renewal District. The home was built in 1902 and is slated for further improvements to meet city code requirements and enhance the customer experience. Remodel will include handicap bathroom access and ramp for store access. As well, new flooring, paint, landscape and other minor interior makeovers. Access will be off of NW 1st Street and parking with handicap stall will be at the back of the retail store. Walk and handicap ramp will provide access to front door. Five (5) off-street parking spaces are being proposed as part of the rezone from residential to commercial. The proposed hours of operation would be from Wednesday to Saturday, 9:00 am to 5:00 pm. Development Agreement: The City may require a development agreement (DA) in conjunction with a rezone pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A. Due to the size of the development, Staff believes a DA should not be required. Parking: The existing home has unpaved parking in the rear of the property off NW 1st Street. The Applicant is required to pave both the access and the area for the five (5) proposed parking stalls with the development of the site. Wheel restraints should be added to prevent overhanging beyond the designated parking stall dimension in accordance with UDC 11-3C-5.B(3). st Sidewalks: There are existing sidewalks along N. Meridian Road and NW 1 Street. along the existing property frontage. Landscaping: There is existing landscaping along N. Meridian Road. No additional landscaping shall be required except for buffers to adjacent residential uses in accordance with UDC 11-3B. Summary of Commission Public Hearing: i. In favor: Arlene Hardy, Expansion International -Applicant ii. In opposition: None iii. Commenting: None iv. Written testimony: None Key Issue(s): a. None Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission: i. None Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation: i. None Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: i. None Written Testimony since 6/9/2024 Council Hearing: None Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval of File Number H-2024-0009, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 9, 2024, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial of File Number H-2024-0009, as presented during the hearing on July 9, 2024, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2024-0009 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #3: Vanguard Village (H-2023-0074) Application(s):  Development Agreement Modification Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This overall site governed by the existing DA consists of 115.26-acres of land, zoned R-15, M-E, C-C and H-E and is generally located ¼ mile south of W. Franklin Rd. & west of S. Ten Mile Rd. History: The existing DA was approved in 2021 & replaced the original DA required with annexation of the property. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Mixed Use – Commercial, MHDR, Mixed Employment & High Density Employment. Summary of Request: The portion of the property that is the subject of this amended DA is only that at the SWC of the site in the M-E zoning district. The Applicant proposes the following amendments to the existing DA:  #4.3 (new provision) - A restriction on the uses allowed on the eastern portion of the M-E zoned area as shown on the map to NOT allow Warehouse (including distribution) & Flex Space use. The inclusion of this restriction on approximately 1/3 of the M-E (Mixed-Employment) zoned area will ensure the property develops with a mix of employment uses as desired by the City with a limitation on flex and warehouse uses.  #5.1a (modification) – Include reference to updated phasing plan & new phasing plan as an exhibit. Development priorities have changed, along with property ownership, since the time of the initial approvals; the proposed change will allow development to proceed in an alternate order.  Inclusion of alternative design and development guidelines for the distribution and light manufacturing area (i.e. warehouse/distribution and light industry/manufacturing uses) on the western portion of the M-E zoned area per the conceptual elevations shown; and modification to the following DA provisions:  #5.1b – currently requires compliance with the design guidelines in the TMISAP and standards in the ASM, as applicable. The modification allows for alternatives to the design guidelines if approved by Council.  #5.1i – the proposed modification allows for exceptions to the design guidelines in the TMISAP for the M-E zoned area where warehouse, including distribution, and light industry, including manufacturing, uses are proposed on the western portion of the M-E zoned area. The exceptions consist of a minimum of 8% windows on the frontage and a single-plane wall maximum distance of 150’ without building modulation instead of 20% windows and a single-plane wall maximum equal to the building height without building modulation as shown on the examples submitted with this application. Only the building faces shown in red on the exhibit will be considered frontage. The TMISAP has elevated guidelines that apply to development within the TMISAP area. The Architectural Standards Manual (ASM) applies to all properties within the City, with established baseline minimum standards. These are in addition to the elevated guidelines in the Plan. The front/south side of the southernmost building will be highly visible from I-84; the front of the other buildings will be internal to the site and not as visible. Staff is unable to support requests for deviations from the guidelines in the Plan due to conflicts with the lesser ASM standards prior, apart from and prior to the design review process. Commercial ASM standards apply to M-E zoned areas, but the buildings are of an industrial style and may conflict with other citywide ASM standards as well. Action is needed from Council for such requests. If Council approves the proposed deviations to the design guidelines in the Plan, the Applicant will need to include a request for a design standard exception with each commercial standard in the ASM that is not met, with subsequent administrative Design Review applications. Any such related request will likely not comply with the design standards in the ASM.  #5.1l – The proposed modification allows for exceptions to the design elements in the TMISAP if approved by Council.  #5.1m – The proposed modification allows the Applicant to submit a CZC & building permit applications prior to recordation of the final plat but requires the plat to be recorded prior to issuance of C of O. Currently, the requirement is for the plat to be recorded prior to submittal of a CZC and/or building permit application. The proposed change will allow development to commence but will still require the plat to be recorded prior to occupancy. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested modifications to the DA, except for the deviations from the design guidelines in the TMISAP, which require Council approval. Written Testimony: None Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2023-0072, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 9, 2024: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2023-0072, as presented during the hearing on July 9, 2024, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2023-0072 to the hearing date of ___________ for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) h2 City Council MeetingJuly 9, 2024 Slide 1 h2 Agenda Item Numbers/Order: hoodc, 12/19/2006 ZoningAerialFLUM “The submitted for the City Engineer’s signature.”a complete set of engineered plans with the final plat application Applicant shall submit Associates on 2/19/2024 is approved as submittedfinal plat prepared and signed by Darin Holzhey with Mason and ZoningAerialFLUM ZoningAerialFLUM 15 zoned property on the northern portion of the site.-the R–phase rd 3on the eastern portion of the property; and 3) E zoned property -C and H-the C–phase nd E zoned property at the southwest corner of the property; 2) 2-the M–phase st The proposed plan depicts the following: 1) 1C zoned property. -E zoned property; and 5) the C-the H–phase th 15 zoned property; 4) 4-the northern portion of the R–phase rd E zoned property; 3) 3-the M–phase nd 15 zoned property; 2) 2-the southern portion of the R–phase st The existing phasing plan depicts the following: 1) 1see Section VI.A below for existing vs. proposed phasing plan.–Update the phasing plan in an alternate order.will allow development to proceed ngeDevelopment priorities have changed, along with property ownership, since the time of the initial approvals; the proposed cha”forth in full.ed herein as if set atAn updated phasing plan for the development is included in Section VI.A of the First Amendment and by this reference incorporDevelopment Agreement.in the hereincontained submitted with the applicationsexhibit, pedestrian circulation plan, preliminary plat, phasing plan, landscape plan and conceptual building elevations alified open space exhibit, site amenity quModify DA provision #5.1a, as follows: “Development of the subject property shall be generally consistent with the site plan,desired by the City with a limitation on flex and warehouse uses. s with a mix of employment uses as Employment) zoned area will ensure the property develop-E (Mixed-The inclusion of this restriction on approximately 1/3 of the M”description/exhibit map in Section VI.B of the First Amendment.and described in the associated legal E and designated “Warehouse & Flex Space Use Not Allowed” as shown on the map -permitted in that portion of the property zoned Mes shall not be us4.3: Notwithstanding anything in the UDC or this Agreement to the contrary, Warehouse, including distribution, and Flex Space“–New DA provision The proposed change will allow development to commence but will still require the plat to be recorded prior to occupancy..”the lot on which the building is locatedngs prior to the recordation of the final plat for difor the lot on which a building is located, however, the applicant will not receive the Certificate of Occupancy for any builfinal plat(s)prior to recordation of the to finalize building designapplication(s) , Certificate of Zoning Compliance, and building permitDesign Reviewa The Applicant may submit application(s). ng permit ldiThe subject property shall be subdivided prior to submittal of any Certificate of Zoning Compliance application(s) and/or bui“–Modification to DA provision #5.1.m noted exceptions if approved by City Council.-This change allows for the above.”otherwise allowed herein, except as 49 of the TMISAP-atrix on pg. 3s m#5.1l: “Design elements shall be provided within the overall development as required in the Application of the Design Element o design standards in the ASM. est will likely not comply with the equcommercial standard in the ASM that is not met, with subsequent administrative Design Review applications. Any such related ror a design standard exception with each t fIf Council approves the proposed deviations to the design guidelines in the Plan, the Applicant will need to include a requesrequests.ion is needed from Council for such E zoned areas, but the buildings are of an industrial style and may conflict with other citywide ASM standards as well. Act-to Mss. Commercial ASM standards apply ocethe guidelines in the Plan due to conflicts with the lesser ASM standards prior, apart from and prior to the design review prble to support requests for deviations from 84; the front of the other buildings will be internal to the site and not as visible. Staff is una-will be highly visible from Iouth side of the southernmost building t/sthe City, with established baseline minimum standards. These are in addition to the elevated guidelines in the Plan. The fronplies to all properties within apThe TMISAP has elevated guidelines that apply to development within the TMISAP area. The Architectural Standards Manual (ASM)exhibit will be considered frontage.”ly the building faces shown in red on the 50 in the TMISAP. On-maximum equal to the building height without building modulation shown as examples on the transect on pg. 3of 20% windows and a single plane wall eadplane wall maximum distance of 150’ without building modulation will be allowed as shown on the exhibits in Section VI.C instIn that area, a minimum of 8% windows on the frontage and a single .shown on the map and described in the associated legal description/exhibit map included in Section VI.Coposed as E zoned area where warehouse, including distribution, and light industry, including manufacturing, uses are pr-except for the MEmployment (ME) designated arease Specific Area Plan (TMISAP) for Mixed E district shall be consistent with the development guidelines contained in the Ten Mile Interchang-#5.1i: “Development in the M o requirements.”ps due to concerns pertaining to compliance with ADA toolevel; and front patios with railings that frame off the entrances that are covered by the above balconies instead of front sw larger windows with lower sills at the second lloconsisting of lower roof pitches of 2:12 for the community clubhouse amenity buildings and 3:12 for the townhome garages to a. The City Council approved alternatives to the design guidelines in the TMISAP unless otherwise modified hereinthe Architectural Standards Manual (ASM), as applicable cific Area Plan (TMISAP) and the standards in Spe#5.1b: “All future development, site design and building design shall comply with the guidelines in the Ten Mile Interchange o conceptual elevations shown in Section VI.C; and modification to the following DA provisions:tribution and light industry/manufacturing uses) with the disInclusion of alternative design and development guidelines for the distribution and light manufacturing area (i.e. warehouse/ w IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing continued from April 9, 2024 for Rosalyn Subdivision (H-2023- 0056) by Givens Pursley, LLP, located at 200 E. Rosalyn Dr. Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2023-0056 A. Request: Annexation of a 0.014-acre of land from RUT in Ada County to the R-8 zoning district, including the remaining portion of E. Rosalyn Street cul-de-sac right-of-way. B. Request: Combined Preliminary/Final Plat consisting of 6 residential building lots and 1 common lot on 0.733 acres in the R-8 zoning district. PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : July 9 , 2024 ITEM # 1 PROJECT NAME : Rosalyn Subdivision W2023 - 0056 I wish to testify Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing ( mark X ( Please Print ) HOA ? if yes ) �S 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 EXHIBIT A STAFF REPORT C� f1E IDIAN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING April 9,2 Continued to Legend DATE: May 14,2024 El Project Location � TO: Mayor&City Council D Q FROM: Stacy Hersh, Associate PlannerkA 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: Rosalyn Subdivision �EAMALIE �n H-2023-0056 z DR J' a -------- E LOCATION: 200 E. Rosalyn Drive (Parcel Ws Ei WHITESPUR R7699020020 and R2114050060) W ST a OR Y>- Ln=E EDM0 ' a 3 v� I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Annexation of 0.014 acre of land with an R-8 zoning district,including the remaining portion of the E. Rosalyn Street cul-de-sac right of way; combined Preliminary/Final Plat consisting of 6 residential building lots and one(1)common lot on 0.733 acres in the R-8 zoning district for Rosalyn Subdivision. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 0.014 Annexation including the remaining portion of the cul- de-sac right of way;0.733 acres combined PFP Future Land Use De si nation Low Density Residential(LDR) Existing Land Use Single-family residential(SFR) Proposed Land Uses) Single-family detached residential Current Zoning T R-8(Medium Density Residential) Proposed Zoning R-8(Medium Density Residential) Lots(#and type;bldg/common) 6 building lots; 1 common lot Phasing plan(#of phases) 1 Number of Residential Units(type 6 single-family detached units of units) Density(gross&net) 6.87 units/acre(gross) Open Space(acres,total [%]/ 0%,not required for developments under 5 acres buffer/qualified) Pagel Amenities None Physical Features(waterways, None hazards,flood plain,hillside) Neighborhood meeting date 12/12/2023 History(previous approvals) San Gorgonio Subdivision SHP H-2023-0092(4-Lots);ROW vacation of the E.Rosalyn Street cul-de-sac Instrument #2023-034331. B. Community Metrics Description I Details Page Ada County Highway District • Staff report Yes (yes/no) • Requires No ACHD Commission Action es/no • Existing E.Rosalyn Drive is classified as a local street already improved with curb, Conditions gutter,and sidewalk. • CIP/IFYWP Access(Arterial/Collectors/State E.Rosalyn Drive is classified as a local street. Access is existing and Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) improvements were constructed previously as required with Larkspur Subdivision No.2. Proposed Road Improvements None Fire Service No comments received Police Service No comments received. West Ada School District No comments received. Distance(elem,ins,hs) Capacity of Schools #of Students Enrolled Wastewater ' • Distance to Sewer Services Water available at the site • Sewer Shed • Estimated Project Sewer See application—Additional 900 gpd committed to model. ERU's • WRRF Declining Balance WRRF decline balance is 14.62 MGD • Project Consistent with WW Yes Master Plan/Facility Plan • Impacts/Concerns See Public Works' Site-Specific Conditions in Section B. Water • Distance to Services Water available at the site. • Pressure Zone 3 Page 2 • Estimated Project Water See application ERU's • Water Quality Concerns None • Project Consistent with Yes Water Master Plan • Impacts/Concerns See Public Works' Site-Specific Conditions in Scction B. C. Project Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Legend Legend ��s, 0 UProject LocationProject Location ? m co �o r sill Res dnential WLL (A a .�, ay Low Di Xi ,y y ��Qioy h Resider:'` I D I <v <v E AMALIE yJ , Z DR Z Q �? E Cornm.ercicll FA WHITESPUR � W ST a W ' DR .' F.A of E EDMON';P a ZE H Office m ' Ln Zoning Map Planned Development Map Legend 0 - I Legend Project Location A L�I Project Location R-4 ��. City Limits � /e R-4 //� Y Planned Parcels 0F j78 RUT 8 �h� %Q�^°j°L 1\ 11 Ohl o E C-G WHIT - UR IT Q W L-O ST a w ST a ` DR Y} DR Y} H EDMON��' Q 3 LA D 4, a s .�- CIO On N I LA Page 3 III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Brett&Julie Bingham,B-B Rosalyn LLC—P.O. Box 266, Meridian,ID 83680 B. Owner: Brett&Julie Bingham,B-B Rosalyn LLC P.O. Box 266, Meridian, ID 83680 C. Representative: Kristen McNeill,Givens Pursley LLP—601 W. Bannock Street,Boise,ID 83702 IV. NOTICING Planning& Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper notification published in newspaper 1/02/2024 3/24/2024 Radius notification mailed to property owners within 500 feet 12/29/2023 3/22/2024 Public hearing notice sign posted 1/5/2024 3/12/2024 on site Nextdoor posting 12/29/2023 3/25/2024 V. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS LAND USE: This property is designated as Low-Density Residential (LDR)on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM)contained in the Comprehensive Plan. This designation is intended to allow for the development of single-family homes on large and estate lots at gross densities of three dwelling units or less per acre. This property was annexed in 2005 with and R-8 zone and granted approval for step-up in density which was allowed under the previous Comprehensive Plan. This policy was removed from the Comprehensive Plan with the 2019 update. The Applicant proposes a 6-lot subdivision for six single-family residential detached homes at a gross density of 6.87 units per acre,which exceeds the density range intended in the LDR designation. Since a majority of the property is already annexed and zoned with the R-8 district staff must analyze the project based on the merits of the governing zoning district regardless of the proposed density. Below is staff s analysis on how the project meets other pertinent Comp Plan policies. Goals,Objectives, &Action Items: Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this application and apply to the proposed use of this property(staff analysis in italics): • "Encourage a variety of housing types that meet the needs, preferences, and financial capabilities of Meridian's present and future residents."(2.01.02D) The proposed single-family detached dwellings with a mix of lot sizes will contribute to the variety of housing options in this area and within the City as desired.All existing housing in this area are comprised of single family detached dwellings on similar sized lots. Page 4 • "Permit new development only where it can be adequately served by critical public facilities and urban services at the time of final approval, and in accord with any adopted levels of service for public facilities and services."(3.03.03F) City water and sewer service is available and can be extended by the developer with development in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. • "Avoid the concentration of any one housing type or lot size in any geographical area; provide for diverse housing types throughout the City."(2.01.01G) This area consists primarily of single family detached dwellings surrounding the subject property, six single-family detached dwellings are proposed within this development. The proposed development offers lot sizes ranging from 4,060 to 5,219 square feet(sf.) consistent with lot sizes in the area. • "Require all new development to create a site design compatible with surrounding uses through buffering, screening,transitional densities, and other best site design practices."(3.07.01A) The single-family detached dwellings contribute to the variety of residential categories within the surrounding area as desired. • "Encourage compatible uses and site design to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land." (3.07.00) The proposed site design provides maximum use of the land with the proposed residential dwelling types. Staff considers the proposed development to be compatible with the existing developments on adjacent properties. The additional lots proposed for this site integrate well with the existing/surrounding residential dwellings. The proposed common drive exhibit appears to comply with the common drive standards outlined in UDC 11-6C-3D in Section VIII.E. • "Support infill development that does not negatively impact the abutting, existing development. Infill projects in downtown should develop at higher densities,irrespective of existing development." (2.02.02C) The proposed development would not likely have a detrimental impact on the existing abutting developments to the east, west, and south. • "Ensure development is connected to City of Meridian water and sanitary sewer systems and the extension to and through said developments are constructed in conformance with the City of Meridian Water and Sewer System Master Plans in effect at the time of development."(3.03.03A) The proposed development will connect to City water and sewer systems with development of the subdivision;services are required to be provided to and through this development in accord with current City plans. • "Require pedestrian access in all new development to link subdivisions together and promote neighborhood connectivity."(2.02.01D) A 5-foot-wide existing pedestrian sidewalk connection is located along E. Rosalyn Drive. The existing sidewalk provides a link between all subdivisions east of this site. • "Require urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments, including curb and gutter, sidewalks,water and sewer utilities."(3.03.03G) Urban sewer and water infrastructure and curb, gutter, and sidewalks are already provided with the proposed development of the subdivision. Page 5 • "Maximize public services by prioritizing infill development of vacant and underdeveloped parcels within the City over parcels on the fringe."(2.02.02) Development of the subject infill parcel will maximize public services. Based on the analysis above, staff finds the proposed development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. VI. STAFF ANALYSIS A. ANNEXATION(AZ) The Applicant proposes to annex 0.014 of an acre of land with an R-8 zoning district,including the remaining portion of the E. Rosalyn Street cul-de-sac right of way. A legal description and exhibit map for the annexation area is included in Section VIII.A. This property is within the City's Area of City Impact boundary. A preliminary plat and conceptual building elevations were submitted showing how the property is proposed to be developed with six(6)single-family detached dwelling units and 1 common lot. The proposed use of the development is consistent with the MDR zoning designation. Single-family detached dwellings are listed as a principal permitted use in the R-8 zoning district per UDC Table 11-2A-2. Future development is subject to the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-6 for the R-8 zoning district. There is an existing home on this site directly adjacent to E. Rosalyn Drive. The property owner intends to remove the existing home upon development commencing on the site. The City may require a development agreement(DA) in conjunction with an annexation pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A. Since the AZ request only includes remnant and existing right-of way,staff is not recommending a DA. B. PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAT(PFP): The proposed preliminary plat consists of 6 building lots and 1 common lot on a 0.733-acre property in the existing R-8 zoning district. Proposed lots range in size from 4,060 to 5,219 square feet(s.£) (or 0.093 to 0.12 acres). The subdivision is proposed to develop in one phase as shown in Section VIII.C. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: An existing home on the property is proposed to be removed from this site. Any outbuildings located on this site should be removed with development of this property. Prior to the City Engineer's signature on the final plat,all existing structures that do not conform to the setbacks of the district are required to be removed. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2): The proposed plat and subsequent development are required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table I1-2A-6 for the R-8 zoning district. The proposed plat appears to comply with the dimensional standards of the district. Per UDC 11-2A- 3B.3, lots taking access from a common drive do not require street frontage. Access: Access is proposed from E. Rosalyn Drive and a common driveway on Lot 6,Block 1. The interior Lots 3,4, 5,and 7 Block 1 are proposed to take access via a common drive to E. Rosalyn Drive, meeting the street access requirements of UDC 11-3A-3A. Common Driveways (UDC 11-6C-3D): Common driveways shall serve a maximum of four(4) dwelling units. In no case shall more than three (3) dwelling units be located on one (1) side of the driveway. The Applicant is proposing six(6) dwelling units with four(4)taking access off the common driveway,three(3)dwelling units are also located on one(1)side of the driveway in accordance with the UDC requirements. Page 6 Parking(UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 for single-family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. Staff will confirm compliance with these standards at the time of building permit submittal for each residence. Staff has concerns with overflow parking due to the number of units proposed within this subdivision. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): There are no street buffers required along local streets per UDC Table 11- 2A-6. The applicant has provided a landscape plan in Section VIII.D. Landscaping is not required per the UDC. Sidewalks(11-3A-17): E. Rosalyn Drive is improved with an existing 5-foot wide attached concrete sidewalk abutting the site in accord with UDC standards. Utilities(UDC 11-3A-21): Connection to City water and sewer services is required in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. Street lighting is required to be installed in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances,if required Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, I1-3A-7): All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. According to the submitted plans,the Applicant is not proposing fencing with this project. Pressurized Irrigation System (UDC 11-3A-15): Underground pressurized irrigation water is required to be provided to each lot within the subdivision as set forth in UDC 11-3A-15. Storm Drainage(UDC 11-3A-18):An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances.Design and construction shall follow best management practice as adopted by the City as set forth in UDC I I-3A-18. Building Elevations: Two(2) conceptual building elevations were submitted that demonstrate what future homes in this development will look like(see Section VIII.F). Variations of that appear to be single-story and two-story detached homes with a two-car garage are proposed. The submitted elevations depict several different architectural and design styles with field materials of lap siding, differing color accents,roof profiles,stone and front porches. VII. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed annexation, and combined preliminary plat/final plat per the provisions in Section IX in accord with the Findings in Section X. B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard these items on March 7,2024.At the public hearing,the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject Annexation and Combined Preliminary/Final Plat requests. 1. Summary of Commission public hearing_ a. In favor: Elizabeth Koeckeritz, Givens Pursley b. In opposition: Jan Larrea,Paul Pelletier,Ken Freeze,Nick Nauslar, c. Commenting: Elizabeth Koeckeritz, Givens Pursley d. Written testimony: Multiple letters of written testimonoy were submitted and can be found in the record online. e. Staff presenting application: Stacy Hersh,Associate Planner f. Other Staff commenting on application: Bill Parsons,Planning Supervisor 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony Page 7 a. The Comprehensive Plan depicts this property as low density residential on the future land use map. b. There are too many lots proposed within this development. C. Lots smaller than 5,000 square feet should not be proposed for a development this small. d. Concerns with the additional traffic and noise. 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission: a. None^ 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. None 5. Outstandin issue(s)ssue(s) for City Council: a. None Page 8 VIII. EXHIBITS A. Annexation Legal Description and Exhibit Map Professional Engineers,Land SuNsyars and Pfanners lam'Maon W4 3itl St.So.Nampa, ID 83651 of f fSc. Ph (208)454�0256 �.rn d i t:411DJ 2h ey�rn smo o an d e nao c ie 6es us FOR, B-3 ROSALYN LLC JOB NO..JY0323 FATE: December 6,2023 EXHIBT"A" ANNEXATION OF E.ROSALYN DR.CUL-DE-SAC A parcel of land in the N W U4 SW 1?4 of Section 19.Towrtimhi p 3 Nortl4 Range I East,Boise Merid ian, Add County Idaho.mDre particularly descrihed as follows- Commencing at the northwest comer of the N W 1/4,said corner lying IC 00'37' 11"E.,2649.85 feet from the southwest gamer of the NW114, Thence S.0(r 37' 11"W.,2296.92 Fact along the west boundary of Ike Nw114; Thrncc N. 89D 44'39"E.,620-87 feet to the northwest corner of Larkspur Subdivision No.2 in Book 97 of flats,Page 12314-12317,recorded in the Ada County Recorder's Offico; Thence 5.00' l 7'40"E.,387.96 feet to southwest corner off got 1 Block I of San Gorgonio Subdivision and the POINT OF BEGINNIN , Thence a distance of 194.29 feet along the curve right,having a radius of45.00 feel,a central angle of 247'23' 42",the long chord of which bears S 33"23'00"W..a distance of 74,V feet, Thence a distance of 23.52 feet along the curve left,having a radius of 20,00 feet,a antral angle of 67° 22'30",the long chord Df which bears N 56'36'25"W.,a distance A22.19 feet; There N 00' 17'40"W.,50.00 feet; Thence 890 42'2Q"F_,59.98 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. �6 UL Masort , !a{/6 � asocia �s fn� Df tP PrDtesslonal Enpineers,Land Surveyors and Planners Fl01�� Page 1 or] Page 9 N.�war A PART OF THE NW i f4 SW 1/4, SE'CrrON a 9. T. 3 A, R. I E„ B.14. MEl4ZM, AQA ODMTY, OAHO PLS 77.24 !# r# 2tl23 GP#WST. M0, 20r9—oTsvp 21 f9 6�0 S7` O x w aLa39W fpAF WST. NO. 20 -T07$46 59.98` r. a a 2 Carve Table ct +a # Length RedNa !247tr2342' O1u0 UHnGtb-m Chof4i Length C2 1-K29 4500 M3S' MOVE 74.87 C3 23_52 20.00M5d'39'2�-4Y 22.19 ANNEXAMN CW E.ROSALYN DR. CUL-OE SAC B-B f�S�+�L1R'Pti!tl.0 ,ue wa .rtaeaa ++o err Mason , "&ftkti.+W arxr rw.rS. .n,. -soda tes "I'lom as , " ON fNdi+�S Page 10 B. Preliminary Plat Legal Description and Exhibit Map Professional Engineers, y and Planners ma I Land Surveors 924 V St.So,Nampa,ID 83651 nc. Ph(2C8)454-0256 �.mnil dhol���dmasomnnd��nc�ertzus FOR: B-B ROSALYN LLC JOB NO.:JY0323 DATE: October 10.2021 SUBDIVISION BOUNDARY A parcel of land being all of Lot 1 Block I of San Gorgonio Subdivision, in Book 119 of Plats,Page 18079-18081,recorded in the Arta County Recorder's Office and a portion of vacated right of way,in the N W 1 14 S W 1 A of section 19,Township 3 North,Range l Cast,Boise Meridian,Ada County ldaho, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the northwest eomcr of the N W114,said corner lying N.001 37' 1 t"E.,2649.95 feet from the southwest corner of the N W I A; Thence S.001 37' 11"W.,2296,92 feet along the west boundary oflheNW114; Thence N.89144'39"F.,1520-H7 feet to the northwest corner of Larkspur Subdivision No.2 in Book 97 of Plats,Page 12314.12117,recorded in the Ada County Recorder's Office; Thence S.00'17'40"E.,243.00 feet to northwest corner cif I AA 1 111ock I of San Gorgnuio Subdivision and the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence N.99'44'39"E., 17().66 feet along the northerly boundary of Lol 1 to the northeast corner of Lot 1; Thence along the easterly boundary of Lot 1 Block I of San Gorgonio Subdivision the following courses and distances; Thence S.06'2V 41"W.,60,40 feel; Thence S.08'33'3 5"E.,60.64 feet; asc3 3 ASSclGfB fcs f Professlonal Engineers,land Surveyors and Planners Page 11 Thence 5- 130 13' W'E.,64-29 Feet to the southeast corner of Lot 1; Thence along the souilierly boundary of Lot 1 and the vacated right of imy thr following courxs and dismnoes; Thence N.W 53' 28" W-, 121.88 feet ro the beg!iining of a curve right; Tkncc at Jislante c,f 30.84 l`ret eking the euTvc rgghl,having ti radius of 43.00 feet,a central angle of 19"00'03",the long Chord of whi0 bears N 790 23' 28"W.,a di slarrce of 30.70 feet; ThtnuC A!-701 32' ST'W.,46.54 leer, Then=N.00' 17' 40"W-, 15.3 0 Feel to llie%okith weld eotner of Lot I; Thcnuc N.00' 17' 40"W., 142.96 feel a3o>ig the westerly boundary of Lot l is the L'U I NT 0 F' BEGINNING. This p&rocl conlains 0,733 aeret murc or lest, SUBJECT TO;All cxisfiug riglus of way and casrnxnts of rccurd or implied eLppeming[m the above- described parcel of land, �L.A 9366 4f1 Mason , , .55ocr'atr~s 1� Proiessiuml Erkginea►!�,L O A Surveyors 8W Planners ragx3 wra Page 12 C. Preliminary Plat/Final Plat(dated: 2/19/2024&2/19/2024) _.-,.. woaaim acaarslwoiwxl �ih'; ',^�•,�;, zz PRtIlMlHJ<wY vLIIT r�-�++�+ '� LL NiG Rl1E�irlxvi>V s�C]IM IR rya�x 14�. w.w.w.,.,x.r...-rr..• a-.�i.m Olr a*auaow��NYWn.FMu �l f .. IRS---= � •�,' Nd ' - ----- COME 3MM3 w'" iaai�a •ALr ""';e:,.. al sf� N. -e.ut agg a r FTOSALYN SUBOMsrON ►WILAr Or Inr 1 N-=I x SAN ON40W ...... Or: A PMWN OF MAIM RIW1 OF oy a v�r P�nE 9•I14 HW r!+AhVA pA,OF W nR m r!4 9M Ife LtlLNN IC VMN _____________- r_..-.---...--� LR � � i I i I W • �.vnwr M�I . I I 1 1 � • gry..Y ew.uef.. I I i � I ---� iIVPV.1 MKVM'4IF li x91�1!Wt fat YY IY�htlwaw s ~ rw p i � '� I �• nw�A,xwuf�x.f tlYYWVA] i ---------- L I I 1Mwdii.�tr�ww II i I I • [ I . ...-�.aet....ca•.nm�[w.�rrt 1 LwL� !wa,a ur. Kwauwtt - - .. orLa-- ".or - -- ySs4 S.SfJLl.3fC�ry�- es .,(•al ala1H BK.�PGA Page 13 D. Landscape Plan(dated: 2/21/2024) i 3 Page 14 E. Common Driveway Exhibit(dated: 2/19/2024) ---_ IT ROSALYN 3L1 Bi]IYI910N ✓ti�w~"'�� � 1 _-_� GOMMOIY DRIVE E]CFIiBIT �i�r�IMW r.wLYx.rw��l�atO r` for 1 aax r a=sw a„+oax+smxvar�owr ar nr sw 11 a pAM OF aC$1 MAAumM w.s1 Bn Lv a]rt cRa`R a 1 r-xr BM.. tlh 4�IEFf]AK�L'VMTi:Dir10 1 �_ map. I.OiO L j ` 1� C� M770 MW M'1`8,S M:M- 6LT8.: Muir All ',s;rvav Page 15 a� dyes:: Bin ham Hou5ing Development . C IX. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION 1. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the preliminary plat, landscape plan,and conceptual building elevations included in Section VIII and the provisions contained herein. 2. The final plat prepared and signed by Darin Holzhey with Mason and Associates on 2/19/2024 is approved as submitted. 3. The landscape plan prepared by Joshua R. Rennaker with Rodney Evans+Partners on 2/22/2024 is approved as submitted. 4. The proposed plat and subsequent development are required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-6 for the R-8 zoning district. 5. Prior to the City Engineer's signature on the final plat,all existing structures that do not conform to the setbacks of the R-8 zoning district shall be removed. 6. Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 1 I- 3C-6 for single-family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. 8. All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. If fencing is proposed for the development,the applicant should include it on the site plan submitted with the building permit. Additionally, solid fencing adjacent to common driveways shall be prohibited,unless separated by a minimum five(5)foot wide landscaped buffer planted with shrubs,lawn or other vegetative groundcover in accordance with UDC 11-6C-3D.5. 9. The Applicant shall comply with all ACHD conditions of approval. 10. The applicant and/or assigns shall have the continuing obligation to provide irrigation that meets the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3B-6 and to install and maintain all landscaping as set forth in UDC 11-3B-5,UDC 11-3B-13 and UDC 11-3B-14. 12. The preliminary/final plat approval shall become null and void if the applicant fails to either: 1) obtain the City Engineer's signature on a final plat within two years of the date of the approved findings; or 20 obtain approval of a time extension as set forth in UDC 11-6B-7. B. PUBLIC WORKS https:llweblink.meridianciU.oL-glWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=312023&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX C. FIRE DEPARTMENT No comments at this time. D. POLICE DEPARTMENT No comments at this time. E. PARK'S DEPARTMENT No comments at this time. F. NAMPA&MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID) https:llweblink.meridiancily.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=315578&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX Page 17 G. ADA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES(ACDS) https://weblink.meridiancily.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=315717&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity H. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT(WASD) No comments were received from WASD. I. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https://weblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=313137&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity J. IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT(ITD) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocVie w.aspx?id=315718&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity K. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https:Ilweblink.meridianciV.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=314790&dbid=0&repo=Meridian City X. FINDINGS A. Annexation and/or Rezone(UDC 11-5B-3E) Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall,at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Staff finds the Applicant's request to annex 0.14 of an acre, including the remaining portion of the E. Rosalyn Street cul-de-sac right-of-way with R-8 zoning and develop single-family detached dwellings on the site are consistent with the R-8 zone and policies in the Plan in Section V.above, if all conditions of approval are met. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Staff finds the proposed map amendment to R-8 and development generally complies with the purpose statement of the residential districts in that it will contribute to the range of housing opportunities available in the City consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health,safety, and welfare; Staff finds the proposed map amendment for the R-8 zoning for the 0.14 of an acre that encompasses the remaining portion of the E. Rosalyn Street cul-de-sac right-of-way, should not be detrimental to public health, safety and welfare. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and Staff finds City services are available to be provided to this development. Comments were not received from WASD on this application so Staff is unable to determine impacts to the school district. Page 18 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. Staff finds the proposed annexation is in the best interest of the city if all conditions of approval are met. B. Combined Preliminary Plat/Final Plat(UDC 11-6B-4) In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat,the decision- making body shall make the following findings: (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) 1. The plat is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and is consistent with this unified development code; (Ord. 08-1372, 7-8-2008, eff. 7-8-2008) Staff finds the proposed plat is generally in conformance with the UDC and the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Public services are available or can be made available ad are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Staff finds public services can be made available to the subject property and will be adequate to accommodate the proposed development. 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the city's capital improvement program; Staff finds the proposed plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's capital improvement program. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Staff finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development. 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and Staff finds the proposed development should not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) Staff is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that need to be preserved with this development. Page 19 V IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Two Mustard Seeds Women's Resale Shop (H-2024-0009) by Arlene Hardy, Expansion International, located at 817 N. Meridian Rd. Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2024-0009 A. Request: Rezone of 0.63 acres of land from the R-8 zoning district to the 0-T zoning district for the purpose of converting the existing home into a women's resale retail store. PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : July 9, 2024 ITEM # 2 PROJECT NAME : Two Mustard Seeds Women ' s Resale Shop I wish to testify Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing ( f yes ) ( Please Print ) HOA ? 2 ��r icQ la ►� ftVirmC, V (� q z q � u irntm� ,ra V) v� Y (� 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 STAFF REPORT C� E IDIAN -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 1 D A H 0 HEARING July 9,2024 Legend DATE: Project Location ` TO: Mayor&City Council FROM: Linda Ritter,Associate PlannerRZ 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2024-0009 r.. r ���; Two Mustard Seeds Women's Resale rr . Shop—Rezone LOCATION: 817 N. Meridian Road(Parcel# R9323750041) {' _ I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Request to rezone 0.63 acres of land from the R-8 zoning district to the O-T zoning district for the purpose of converting the existing home into a women's resale retail store. A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage Rezone-0.63 of an acre Future Land Use Designation Old Town Existing Land Use(s) Single-family residential Proposed Land Use(s) Retail Store Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 1 lot Phasing Plan(#of phases) NA Physical Features(waterways, No unique physical features hazards,flood plain,hillside) Neighborhood meeting date;#of 3/24/2024 attendees: History(previous approvals) None Pagel B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) Yes • Requires ACHD Commission No Action(yes/no) Access(Arterial/Collectors/State Access occurs from NW I"Street,a local street via W. Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) Idaho Avenue or W.Pine Avenue. Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross N/A Access Existing Road Network Meridian Road is improved with 5-travel lanes,vertical curb,gutter,and 7-foot wide sidewalk abutting the site. There are 5-foot wide sidewalks along NW 1"Street. Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ There is an existing 7-foot wide sidewalk along Meridian Buffers Road and existing landscape buffer to remain.No landscape Additional landscape along the street frontage is required. Proposed Road Improvements No road improvements are required. Fire Service No comments Police Service No comments Wastewater • Comments • No changes to public sewer infrastructure shown in records.Any changes need to be approved by public works. Water Distance to Water Services • No changes to public water infrastructure shown in records.Any changes need to be approved by public works. • Distance to Service—Water available at site • Pressure Zone—2 • Estimated ERU—See Application • Water Quality Concerns—None • Project Consistent with Master Plan—Yes Page 2 Project Location Project Location Legend Legend C: 1111� ■ � �-�■■■ ■ i IIIIIII 111■ 111_ 11 1 ■ r_■■■■■■■■■r 1�_- ;IIIIIII 11111 ■111 II - 11�Jm. :_■1■■■■■11� ■11■■�1--•�� IIIIIII 11hi 111111 1 ■111■■r!■ 1■■ ■■IIIIII 1111 ■■-PINE,-1� 1111 ■■ :I -- P .N u�ali � ° 11: ==:uu '2=_fir. !■I: d ,Aria • - . - . 1 :L.:C u11 Ile �� alru ■ ,NI �� 1_II��1111.�11■ III■ :r1111•.•a ■IlLllllllrl �:::, :i ■ ,■, ■ 7 �� �c■� Mill■■i ■q m■ ■■1■II 41,.1 �■ :IIR p .. LLJJ■■Ir�11 0 ■ ■I■. nr::111 ...,eEn ■�T■11 L■!!—IL��■ell" : -'1r ^���T P���= FRA NKLIN - *.I-, -_ Y FRAN IV Legend Legend ■ �� 1 ■ �: 1111 ■• • - • • • :■ _© I • - • • • : � (IIIIIII 111■ II '■i�lw■_- :IIIIIII 1111! ■! ■ F __■■ 111111 ■Iln 111111 ■�-^_ . 1 —PIN - r • . -. •. - 1 PLLN=�.�-- 1� 11111 ■■ : n �'�� n'�I�r111I11�■111111 1_■■•!n��■ �r e■1: 1u 11 11 1• 11++ ■1■111111 ■:■■111:1..■■1111 111 � elrlll �� II ,I ■IILii►C -'C 0 :' . 1 :rui�� ■111�11111111��� III■ C ��7� �i1■■ ■ �'� '� �W III■ 111:1■1■ e ��1�■ :Illr:.lf�! i ��_ w ��_ � ■1111���■:1111�' � � ■ ■II`~gin::■: ■ � ' � ■■ �fa111:■111: = ■— ,,,� �� �FRANKLI '� o �,� q�/��' FRAN � �1■ �` -.a.•.'e ■r MM i � III. NOTICING Planning&Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification 5/21/2024 6/18/2024 Radius notification mailed to properties within 500 feet 5/17/2024 6/17/2024 Sign Posting 5/23/2024/ 6/11/2024 5/28/2024 Nextdoor posting 5/20/2024 6/7/2024 IV. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN(HTTPS://WWW.MERIDIANCITY.ORG/COMPPLAN): Land Use: This property is designated Old Town(O-T) on the Future Land Use Map(FLUM). This designation includes the historic downtown and the true community center. The boundary of the Old Town district predominantly follows Meridian's historic plat boundaries. In several areas, both sides of a street were incorporated into the boundary to encourage similar uses and complimentary design of the facing houses and buildings. Sample uses include offices,retail and lodging,theatres,restaurants, and service retail for surrounding residents and visitors.A variety of residential uses are also envisioned and could include reuse of existing buildings,new construction of multi-family residential over ground floor retail or office uses. Proposed Use: The Applicant proposes to develop the site with a retail store,which will resale upscale women's clothing, accessory and home d6cor items. These items will be donated by local area residents in Boise,Meridian and Nampa. The store will be open 3-4 days per week and will have volunteers to manage the sorting,pricing and stocking of items. The proceeds from the store will provide matching scholarships for students in Kenya, Africa to attend high school. Remodel will include handicap bathroom access and ramp for store access.As well,new flooring, paint,landscape and other minor interior makeovers. Access will be off of NW Pt Street and parking with a handicap stall will be at the back of the retail store. A five(5) foot walkway and handicap ramp will provide access to front door from the rear of the property. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES(https://www.meridiancity.or /g compplan): Goals,Objectives,&Action Items: Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this application and apply to the proposed use of this property(staff analysis in italics): • "Support a compatible mix of land uses Downtown that activate the area during day and night." (2.09.02G). Introducing a retail store into the Downtown area presents an opportunity for increased foot traffic and commerce to occur within a desired location during the day and early evening. This addition contributes to the overall appeal and character of Downtown Meridian. The proposed operational hours are from Wednesday to Saturday, 9:00 am to 5:00 pm. This new commercial use should be a welcome addition to the other uses in the surrounding area. • "Support owners of historic buildings in their efforts to restore and/or preserve their properties. (5.02.01B). Permitting the establishment of retail store in a historical downtown home has the potential to share knowledge and history regarding both Meridian and the specific house. This, in turn, is likely to boost the economic impact of more foot traffic, leading to the growth of other historical sites in the downtown area. Page 4 V. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE(UDC1 The proposed use, retail store (used merchandise) is listed as a principally permitted use in the O-T (Old Town)zoning district per UDC Table 11-2C-2.Compliance with the standards listed in UDC I I- 2D-3 and 11-2D-4 is required. VI. STAFF ANALYSIS A. Rezone(RZ): The Applicant is requesting to rezone 0.63 acres of land from R-8 to O-T to operate a retail store on the subject property. A legal description and exhibit map for the rezone area is included in Section VIII.A. This property is within the City's Area of City Impact boundary. Personal services -The use of a site that offers merchandise to the public for monetary compensation. The use includes,but is not limited to,convenience stores; food stores; apparel and accessories stores;book,computer,and music stores; electronics and appliances; florists; furniture and home furnishings; general merchandise stores;health and personal care stores; hobby, office supplies, stationery and gift stores; specialty stores; sporting goods; and used merchandise stores is listed as a principal permitted use in the O-T(Old Town)zoning district per UDC Table 11-2C-2. The proposed 2,463-square-foot retail store will be located in the downtown area within the Meridian Urban Renewal District. The home was built in 1902 and is slated for further improvements to meet city code requirements and enhance the customer experience. Remodel will include handicap bathroom access and ramp for store access. As well,new flooring,paint, landscape and other minor interior makeovers. Access will be off of NW 1 st Street and parking with handicap stall will be at the back of the retail store.Walk and handicap ramp will provide access to front door. Five(5) off-street parking spaces are being proposed as part of the rezone from residential to commercial. The proposed hours of operation would be from Wednesday to Saturday, 9:00 am to 5:00 pm. The City may require a development agreement(DA)in conjunction with a rezone pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A. Due to the size of the development,Staff believes a DA should not be required. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2): The existing home meets all dimensional standards. Access(UDC 11-3A-3): Access is provided off NW V Street a local road via W.Pine Avenue a residential arterial or W. Idaho Avenue a local street. Parking(UDC 11-3C): The existing home has unpaved parking in the rear of the property off NW Pt Street. The Applicant is required to pave both the access and the five(5)proposed parking stalls with the development of the site upon submittal of a future Certificate of Zoning Compliance Application. Wheel restraints should be added to prevent overhanging beyond the designated parking stall dimension in accordance with UDC 11-3C-5.B(3). Old-Town is classified as a Traditional Neighborhood zoning district and no off-street parking is required for a lawfully existing structure unless an addition occurs (UDC 11-3C-6B). No additions are proposed with this project except for expanding the rear entry area. The Applicant is providing 5 parking stalls at the rear of the existing building which meets the required number of off-street parking spaces (2 spaces required)per UDC 11-3C-6B.3 for the Traditional Neighborhood district. A minimum of one (1)bicycle parking space is required to be provided based on one (1) space for every 25 vehicle spaces or portion thereof per UDC 11-3C-6G;bicycle parking facilities are required to comply with the location and design standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. The site plan does not Page 5 include bicycle racks. The Applicant should revise the plans and include one(1) bicycle rack and submit a detail of the bicycle rack with the CZC submittal. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-1 : There is an existing 7-foot wide attached sidewalk on N. Meridian Road along the existing property frontage. Staff does not recommend any additional changes to the frontage improvements. There are also existing five(5) foot wide sidewalks along NW 1st Street. All sidewalks around buildings and serving public street shall be a minimum of five (5)feet in width in accordance with UDC 11- 3A-17. A continuous internal pedestrian walkway that is a minimum of five(5) feet in width shall be provided from the perimeter sidewalk to the main building entrance(s) for nonresidential uses. The walkway width shall be maintained clear of any obstructions, such as vehicles, outdoor sale displays, vending machines, or temporary structures. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): The Applicant is not proposing any additional landscaping to be added to the site with this project. For additions less than twenty-five (25)percent of the existing structure or developed area,no additional landscaping shall be required except for buffers to adjacent residential uses in accordance with UDC 11-3B-2D(1). Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6,ll-3A- • Fences shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7.No additional fencing is being proposed. Outdoor Lighting(UDC 11-3A-11): All outdoor lighting is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-11C. Building Elevations: Conceptual building elevations and perspectives were submitted for the existing structure as shown in Section IX.D. The building consists of existing siding, facia trim, asphalt roof shingles and new ADA ramp. The only addition to the existing building is the new ADA ramp. This addition will not require design review. Certificate of Zoning Compliance(UDC 11-5B-1 A Certificate of Zoning Compliance(CZC)is required to be submitted for the proposed use and site changes prior to submittal of a building permit application to ensure compliance with UDC standards and staff comments listed in Section IX. Page 6 VII. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed rezone from R-8 to O-T per the comments in Section IX and the Findings in Section X of this report. B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard this item on June 6, 2024. At the public hearing,the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject Rezone request. 1. Summary of Commission public hearing_ a. In favor: Arlene Hardy, Expansion International-Applicant b. In opposition: None C. Commenting.None d. Written testimony:None e. Staff presenting application: Linda Ritter,Associate Planner f. Other Staff commenting on application: None 2. Key issue(s) testimon. a. None. 3. Ke, ids)of discussion by Commission: a. None. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. None. 5. Outstanding issue(s) for City Council: a. None Page 7 VIII. EXHIBITS A. Rezoning Legal Description and Exhibit Map IDAHO W Emerald St SURVEY In 837a4 GROUP (21M)846-857O 15G (208)OU-5399 Rezone Qescaptlon for Expansion International Inc., The following Describes a Parcel of Land being a portion of Lot 2,Block 1 of West View Addition to Meridian Subdivision as filed in Book 2 of Plats at Page fib,Records of Ada County, Idaho Lying in a Portion of the Southeast 114 of Section 12, Township 3 North,Range 1 East,Boise Meridian,City of Meridian,Ada County, Idaho,more Particularly Described as follows: COMMENCING at the Northeast Comer of the Southeast 1A(East 114 Corner)of said Section 12; From which,the Southeast Corner of said Section 12 bears, South 00'43'W'West, 2662.62 feet;Thence along the Easterly Boundary Line of the Southeast 14 of said Section 12. South 00'4335"West, 114.88 feet to a paint being on the Prolongation of the Northerly Boundary Line of Lot 2,Block I of said West View Addition to Meridian Subdivision,the POINT OF BEGINNING: Thence continuing along said Easterly Boundary Line,South 00'43'35"Walt,a4.75 feet to a point being on the Prolongation of the Soulherly Boundary Line of Lot 2,Block 1 of said West View Addition to Meridian Subdivision, Thence leaving said Easterly Boundary Line, and along the So&wrty Boundary Line of said Lot 2,and its Prolongation,North 89'26'02"West,325.04 feet to the Centerline of Northwest i"Street; Thence ieaving said Souti-rarly Boundary Line,and its Prolongation, and along the Centerline of Northwest 1 u Street. Norio 00'2a'ov East,64.62 feet to a point being on the Prolorrgah n of the Northerly Boundary Line of said Lot 2; Thence leaving s*6 Centerline,and along the Northerly Boundary Line of said Lot 2,and its Prolongation.South 89'27'25"East,325.42 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING: The above Described Parcel of Land contains 0.63 acres(27,5d2 Sq-ft.)more or loss. emPage 1 of f Page 8 S99`29'3i"E 3a .4a' 4/a E- PINE AVE- lFd47 r � a# w� Id T C 2 z - Y Paint of "9'27R25NE 325,42` Beginning 3U,00 i 249-60' « _gg IaJI +//" SIN Y;n 00 ED ^f N ¢ 0i 00Is Y •30.i7(Y =— ——_ 246,19' 48.85' N99«26'02NW 325.44' w m cr * I i q, WSQl icm � i m a � i W. IDAHO ALE N89-3'i1"W 324.47' 1C 60 MCI I 120 dr 'Scale. 1" = 60' �L LA Legend Nap. a�1171 PCB �� Found Alurninum Cop Monument � �G I 'd � G � Calculated Point. NothingFound or Sit � � Property Boun dory/Rezone Line of Right-W-Way Line H Lot/Parcel Lln a of Record ---- Section Line W. Franklin 1 fl 7 - - Centeriinir --- 13 18 IDAHO Rezone Exhibit growing for SURVEY 7@MMELEMLOS Expansion International Inc.. Sheet rqo eiaf.�o+xoea w 1 �wye`o-duo A Pardon an Lot 2 Block 1 of West VhY ndditron to Wmidim GROUP, LLO Located it inn SE 1 f4 of SectYon 1Z ❑at• T.dN-, RAL,e.M., Cily M Meridien, Ada County,Idaho. 1f3f20 24 Page ee9'z7'�5� t 325AA n 6261 ip Expansion International Inc., Rezone Description 4117/2024 Scale: 1 inch=43 feet File: Trao 1:0.8323 Acmr i27M2 Sq.Fadl1,Closure:rM.OG00e 0.00 R.(1r21 B994F,Per mw----820 @ 41 s00.4336w 84.75 62 n89 2002w 325.94 03 n04.2801-0 84.82 04&U.2725e 325.42 Page 10 B. Existing and Proposed Site Plan(1/17/2024) Site Mnp for 1x Expansion tnfernatronal Inc S A Pntw of Lot 2,Block 1 of West Yew Addit—to Meridian, Sile Olhi I�thD$OD 1h Dpgt pDo.t. 6$D M-i 12, x Township 3 f♦orth,l— 1 Weat,9aise Meridian, ----- scax��— City Dl Merltllon,Ado County,Itloho. 2024 zx Y s � ' _ 9 `r —Q N d T �p Q n IOAHO w�uu,n sl Exlsnnn �a.....,..m ,,... SURVEY sec i��um. m ,.....,...,.e,w TIC C wmr.iaarceuirohvcy A-050 fl F� •e..on.o.w.e.ww `��_ �x 7y a�Zp� w �Zwz �i in d i d --i--------- -------- -- --- --�'--------------------- - -1-- f� PRUPOSE� SITE PGN A-075 Page 11 C. Existing and Proposed Floor Plans (1/17/2024) 0 z Qo`N" FIMTFL OR � a A-100 �r I o � zoo a z^ w0 gam¢ wZ 7i�77 XTM -�--- A-300 Page 12 Z< Z 2 d ---------- Wl 77 �R N -D A-200 F3 ccEi w R", Fr IC w L I S-D F-D A-400 Page 13 D. Existing and Proposed Ekevodioxm (l/17/2024) ---------------- ----------------- ---------------- L9 -------—-—- ------------Is" z - F3 Cl> Fr 5 w I 9.� Fr CC LU ------- ------- .,& ---------- ----------- ------ ----------- --------- ---------- -------- 'R-D IA-7001 11 A&I------------ ----------------- Le ------------ v,_,,-e`l ci zoo o<Cl) w FC LU2� FE ------------ ------- ­EVATUN V-S --D A-800, Pagel5 ,k .. r rlimam �� y _ _ 73 P annetl C'-- — rca Arlene y�y `e ` ,9. _ ..�� tires � -w+,t�. �` ' �, � Y,�✓g-.� ,r rwc �� � .' IF it, ell at j ot 4 ' - ,r;'.'�� j.•Y' ��Y';�;�` ?' -' � _ ter-� � - / :.. - ........... ...... ...... .... .. IL G LI S p. IX. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS A. PLANNING Staff Comments: 1. The maximum number of allowable customers at the facility at one time at any given time must not exceed the maximum occupant load specified in the Fire Code. 2. Prior to building permit submittal,the Applicant shall obtain Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) approval to establish the use and approval for the exterior modifications to the property. 3. The site and landscape plans submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application shall depict the following: a. Pave the entire driveway and parking area.Any unpaved areas need to be landscaped to prevent vehicles from expanding the approved parking area. b. The drive aisle onto the property shall be a minimum of twenty-six(26) feet in width. c. All internal pedestrian circulation shall be a minimum of five(5)feet in width. d. Install wheel restraints in front of the 5 parking stalls in accordance with UDC 11-3C-5.B(3). e. Include a bicycle rack and a detail of the bicycle rack with the CZC submittal. f. Coordinate with and provide documentation of approval from Republic Services on the size and location of your trash enclosure with the CZC submittal. 4. Direct lot access from N. Meridian Road is prohibited. B. IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT(ITD) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=330209&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianCiV C. IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF ENVRONTMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https://weblink.meridiancioy.oLglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=345724&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity D. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=33168 7&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianCity X. FINDINGS A. Annexation and/or Rezone(UDC 11-5B-3E) Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall,at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment to rezone the property from the R-8 zoning district to the O-T zoning district is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed districts, specifically the purpose statement; Page 19 Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment complies with the regulations outlined in the requested Old Town designation. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety,and welfare; Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment will not result in an adverse impact on the delivery ofservices by any political subdivision providing public services within the City. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. Subject site is already annexed so staff finds this finding not applicable. Page 20 W IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Vanguard Village Subdivision (H-2023-0074) by Adler Industrial, located at 1085 S. Ten Mile Rd. Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2023-0072 A. Request: Modified Development Agreement to amend the existing development agreement (H-2021-0081 Inst.#2022-049799) to clarify the uses allowed in the M-E zone; update the phasing plan, include an alternative design and development guidelines for distribution & light manufacturing area (i.e. warehouse and light industry uses) with conceptual elevations and other miscellaneous changes. PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : July 9, 2024 ITEM # 3 PROJECT NAME : Vanguard Village Subdivision W2023 - 0074 I wish to testify Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing ( mark marls ) ( Please Print ) HOA ? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 STAFF REPORT E COMMUNITY N -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .►A H O HEARING July 9,2024 �� DATE: Project Lorca tior. TO: Mayor&City Council lei FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2023-0072 Vanguard Village—MDA LOCATION: Generally located 1/4 mile south of W. Franklin Rd. and west of S. Ten Mile Rd.,in the center of Section 15,T.3N. R.1 W. a I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Applicant has submitted an application for a modification to the existing Development Agreement associated with H-2021-0081,recorded as Inst. #2022-049799.See Section V below for more information. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 115.26 acres overall Existing Zoning R-15,M-E,C-C and H-E Future Land Use Designation Mixed Use—Commercial(MU-COM);Medium High- Density Residential(MHDR);Mixed Employment(ME); High Density Employment(HDE) Existing Land Use(s) Vacant/agricultural land Proposed Land Use(s) Multi-family residential,vertically integrated residential, light industry/warehouse,commercial/retail,research and development and other uses(overall). Physical Features(waterways, The Williams gas pipeline bisects this site hazards,flood plain,hillside) Neighborhood meeting date;#of P /23 attendees: History(previous approvals) AZ-09-008 Meridian Crossing(Ord.#10-1467;DA Inst. #110115738);ROS#7623 (Inst.#106170019 2006);H- 2021-0081 [MDA,RZ,PP,CUP—DA Inst.#2022-049799 (replaced previous DA)] Page 1 B. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map ffeegend hAeaRt igh - ffL��egend IPrnje t Laca-5on a n ` J`Prnject Laeafiar a.i...... Side 1 t y Hig - esidenfi I -Res `�..'q w C,.�nsi idrl<ntial $ _Ni # , . Medium ens,tyr %esidenf& Zoning Map Planned Development Map Legend _g T Legend 1 - fProje-! Umc nor f PrnjL--t Luc o'or I I C R:15 C-N +_ fi R-1 R- 5 — Pk3nned Pflroe', lM1 M1 R. - RUT ` V-C C-C RR it - - it Note: The boundary of the site shown on the above maps is the entire property subject to the DA; the portion of the property that is the subject of this amended DA is only that at the southwest corner of the site in the M-E zoning district. A. Applicant: Will Goede,Adler Industrial 8665 W. Emerald St., Se. 200,Boise, ID 83704 B. Owners: Ten Mile West Commercial,LLC— 1144 S. Silverstone Way, Ste. 500,Meridian,ID 83642 Page 2 Endurance Holdings,LLC— 1977 E. Overland Rd.,Meridian,ID 83642 C. Representative: Same as Applicant III. NOTICING City Council Posting Date Notification published in newspaper 6/23/2024 Notification mailed to property owners within 300 feet 6/21/2024 Applicant posted public hearing notice on site 6/24/2024 Nextdoor posting 6/17/2024 IV.UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ANALYSIS UD A. Development Agreement Modification(MDA): The Applicant proposes an amendment to the existing Development Agreement(DA) associated with H-2021-0081,recorded as Inst. #2022-049799, as follows: (Staffs comments in italics) • New DA provision—"4.3:Notwithstanding_an hing in the UDC or this Agreement to the contrar,Warehouse, including distribution, and Flex Space uses shall not be permitted in that portion of the property zoned M-E and designated"Warehouse&Flex Space Use Not Allowed"as shown on the map and described in the associated legal description/exhibit map in Section VI.B of the First Amendment." The inclusion of this restriction on approximately 113 of the M-E(Mixed-Employment) zoned area will ensure the property develops with a mix of employment uses as desired by the City with a limitation on flex and warehouse uses. • Modify DA provision#5.1a, as follows: "Development of the subject property shall be generally consistent with the site plan,qualified open space exhibit, site amenity exhibit, pedestrian circulation plan,preliminary plat,phasing plan, landscape plan and conceptual building elevations submitted with the appheations contained herein in the Development Agreement. An updated phasing plan for the development is included in Section VI.A of the First Amendment and by this reference incorporated herein as if set forth in full." Development priorities have changed, along with property ownership, since the time of the initial approvals; the proposed change will allow development to proceed in an alternate order. • Update the phasing plan—see Section VI.A below for existing vs.proposed phasing plan. The existing phasing plan depicts the following: 1) I'phase—the southern portion of the R-15 zoned property; 2) 2nd phase—the M-E zoned property; 3) 3.d phase—the northern portion of the R-15 zoned property; 4) 4rh phase—the H-E zoned property; and 5) the C- C zoned property. The proposed plan depicts the following: 1) 1"phase—the M-E zoned property at the southwest corner of the property; 2)2nd phase—the C-C and H-E zoned property on the Page 3 eastern portion of the property; and 3) 3.d phase—the R-I S zoned property on the northern portion of the site. • Inclusion of alternative design and development guidelines for the distribution and light manufacturing area(i.e.warehouse/distribution and light industry/manufacturing uses) with the conceptual elevations shown in Section VI.C; and modification to the following DA provisions: o #5.1b: "All future development, site design and building design shall comply with the guidelines in the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan(TMISAP) and the standards in the Architectural Standards Manual(ASM),as applicable unless otherwise modified herein. The City Council approved alternatives to the design guidelines in the TMISAP consisting of lower roof pitches of 2:12 for the community clubhouse amenity buildings and 3:12 for the townhome garages to allow larger windows with lower sills at the second level; and front patios with railings that frame off the entrances that are covered by the above balconies instead of front stoops due to concerns pertaining to compliance with ADA requirements." o #5.1i: "Development in the M-E district shall be consistent with the development guidelines contained in the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan(TMISAP) for Mixed Employment(ME)designated areas except for the M-E zoned area where warehouse,including distribution, and light industry, including manufacturing,uses are proposed as shown on the map and described in the associated legal description/exhibit map included in Section VI.C. In that area, a minimum of 8%windows on the frontage and a single plane wall maximum distance of 150' without building modulation will be allowed as shown on the exhibits in Section VI.0 instead of 20%windows and a single plane wall maximum equal to the building height without building modulation shown as examples on the transect on pg. 3-50 in the TMISAP. Only the buildingfaces aces shown in red on the exhibit will be considered frontage_" The TMISAP has elevated guidelines that apply to development within the TMISAP area. The Architectural Standards Manual(ASH) applies to all properties within the City, with established baseline minimum standards. These are in addition to the elevated guidelines in the Plan. The front/south side of the southernmost building will be highly visible from I-84;the front of the other buildings will be internal to the site and not as visible. Staff is unable to support requests for deviations from the guidelines in the Plan due to conflicts with the lesser ASH standards prior, apart from and prior to the design review process. Commercial ASM standards apply to M-E zoned areas, but the buildings are of an industrial style and may conflict with other citywide ASM standards as well.Action is needed from Council for such requests. If Council approves the proposed deviations to the design guidelines in the Plan, the Applicant will need to include a request for a design standard exception with each commercial standard in the ASM that is not met, with subsequent administrative Design Review applications.Any such related request will likely not comply with the design standards in the ASM. o #5.11: "Design elements shall be provided within the overall development as required in the Application of the Design Elements matrix on pg. 3-49 of the TMISAP, except as otherwise allowed herein." Page 4 This change allows for the above-noted exceptions if approved by City Council. • Modification to DA provision#5.l.m—"The subjeet pr-eper-ty shall be s„l.,aiyide,7 prior-to application(s'. The Applicant may submit a-Design Review, Certificate of Zoning Compliance,and building permit application(s)to finalize building desigH prior to recordation of the final plat(s) for the lot on which a building is located,however,the applicant will not receive the Certificate of Occupancy for any buildings prior to the recordation of the final plat for the lot on which the building is located." The proposed change will allow development to commence but will still require the plat to be recorded prior to occupancy. V. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the requested modifications to the DA, except for the deviations from the design guidelines in the TMISAP,which require Council approval. Page 5 VI. EXHIBITS A. Existing&Proposed Phasing Plan R-15 4 \ .� PROSE IiI � P1-4h8E 3 - vu�Cwu wnv —— i i M-E Page 6 air ��.•- R+L�FIa•6H.1.1 Y I.iliifFH MHaaa+i-R�4NH IMiLNM N HH{#1 M MRi4R�-F+HRii+ii.� SI s ..16. 71 r L01 CSAENS+ONS; SHEET C1 2R— ;�# • SITEPLAN: SHEETCzk �'*• I _� _ E]GISTINCa Ct7No.. &nFE T C3A a�, r \ + _ 1 l _ — L L a i �i � i L L 11 �I'f!lily-FNlftiplNlMyiHlfta 1YRH 1 iH Lil►►111 iR R�f.l.i 1 N•i N 111 Ull �44A:.wkG,M1l1'.'^':E 1 �__�_ _ _ _ Y�•�y->r+y�}71,s> VA•A•W1Av Ni/i1f Hilµl K+ llH it+iflfl Nf NyN It l 111 f Nf Aid"I Nil HH} } iiifRH Rf11 HI f PHASE R £t --�- - LOT DIYENMNS: SHEE T Ci1 �`}� L LOT DIMENSIONS- SHEEI CIA Sr1EPLAN. SMEETC2,4 L SITFaWI. SHEETC?7 SHEET E][ISTING CCN@: C].1 - - — ��- } Ir]hST1NGCONP.: SHEETC3,2 I tF PHASE B r r � wrin+ +rC+ip 2 I \ �C. �..., f, L L ..�..�Merc• +q5-rrw�.:o�r �+!✓!ii}�M � T -- -. _ I L t TFri7F ai .cteYa•2,xM1-:yr lyy R�-lyyy,r►tH \ \ Page 7 B. Exhibit Depicting Warehouse&Flex Space Use Not Allowed Area and Legal Description/Exhibit Map of that Area Depiction of Warehouse&Flex Space Use Nol Allowed Area I� R'SS MEDIUM HIGH CENS17W F SMSNT,AL I f � I � � :� � -`I'U::..,..11-F.'I it k � ; �' I•�� i '717 tL ARK + Il COMM�N5T.%rTSINE9c WAREHOUSE &FLEX SPACE USE NOT -f1 l [7 0.I.,, u—t-io ALLOWED i _ �i..;uiQe is m T. y ;It Ii0 EM L&EH L� 11�� SnY EN 6Y i .--, 55 nn mm 0:1_ fir._...:. , _....... J �1� t789C RC 9I _ 1 Page 8 ARDURRA ExIIIBTP"Cn Project No:240076 TO FIRST AMENDMENT Date:May 21,2024 Page 1of1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF WAREHOUSE & FLEX SPACE USE NOT ALLOWED AREA A parcel of land located in the NE1/4 of the 5W1/4 and the NW114 of the SE1}4 of Section 15, Township 3 North,Range 1 West, Boise Meridian,City of Meridian,Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: COMMENCING at the center one-quarter corner of Section 15;thence,along the north boundary of said NE1/4 of the SW1f4, A. 5.89014'48"17,,291.84 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, thence leaving said north boundary, 1. 5,39'31'08"E.,748.08 feet to the beginning of a non-tangent curve;thence, 2. Southwesterly along said curve to the left having a radius of 1000.00 feet,an arc length of 185.66 feet,through a central angle of 10'38'16",of which the long chord hears 5.71'25'13" ., 185.40 feet;thence,tangent frorn said curve, 3. 5.66Q06'05"W..231.67 feet tc the beginning of a tangent curve:thence, 4. Southwesterly along said curve to the right having a radius of 750.00 feet,an arc length of 70.03 feet,through a central angle of 5'21'01",of which the long chord bears S_68'46'35" .,70.01 Feet;thence,non-tangent from said curve, 5. N.89017'19"W.,299.81 feet;thence, 6. N.W`45'12"E.,755.20 feet;thence, T 5.89'14'48"E.,266.65 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING: 8.83 Ac. L LANo E o� q� 13765 "Ile or xl� 0.10 �- 332 N_Broodmore Woy I nnmpo, D8$ 687 I 208.d42.6300 www.ordurro.com Page 9 EXHIBIT SKETCH - WAREHOUSE AND FLEX SPACE w m LOCATED IN THE NE114 OF THE SVV14 AND THE NW114 OF THE SE114 OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST,BOISE MERIDIAN, CITY OF MERIDIAN,ADA COUNTY, IDAHO � 9 11 10 2624 16 10 FRANKLIN ROAD NOO*42'57'E 1328.65' N1116 0 o NOO'43`11`E 1328.61' POINT OF FE 16 15 C1N1l16 BEGINNING SB9'14'48'E 291.84' _Cl E1l16 SW14,36"E S8914'48'E Fi 1322.75' 764.29' N89'14'39"Yf 1321.43' ca S G 0 d, &83 AC T O co C4 _ W M] W F rN � O W rn a r7 2 Z 0] N � � Z I I re)LA CI E z a 13755 uj �N89'14!03"W"1324.16' BASIS OF BEARINGS CS1116 SE1f16 N89'14'03`W 1323.80'willb N89'13'31"w 1323.13' S1116 �} 2100PdVa4YM1f0UJSE FLEX.dnp oc / RDURR1 0' 1w 200 400' 332 N.BROADMORE WAY rti NAMPA,IDAHO 83687 �J 268-442-SMO 1 WWWARDURRA_COM Page 10 C. Distribution&Light Manufacturing Area Design Guidelines &Legal Description/Exhibit Map of that Area EXHIBIT E - DISTRIBUTION & LIGHT MANUFACTURING AREA DESIGN GUIDELINES DISTRIBUTION&LIGNT MANUFACTURING AREA In the Distritlution&Light Manufacturing Area,only the building faces shown in red will be considered frontage. These frontages will meet the majority of the TMISAP frontage requirements, however a variance is requested for the following two requirements(ref TMISAP page 3-50): TMISAP REQUIREMENT PROPOSED Were—concept renderings) -20%windows -8%w0dows -Single plane wall max distance=building height -Single plane wall max distance 150' = I — Page 11 EXHIBIT E - DISTRIBUTION & LIGHT MANUFACTURING AREA DESIGN GUIDELINES ._ .r 8%Windows on Frontage Single plane max wall distance=150' i EXHIBIT E - DISTRIBUTION & LIGHT MANUFACTURING AREA DESIGN GUIDELINES `y 4. SIPNAGE WIN �d ■ ■■ i �! �.■ ■ if. Page 12 EXHIBIT DISTRIBUTION ■ ■ • • LIGHT MANUFACTURING 1 AREA DESIGN GUIDELINES 1 - r, Page 13 //�/ ARDURRA Project No:240076 EXIIIBIT"F" Date:May 21,2024 TO FIRST AMENDMENT Page 1 of 1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF DISTRIBUTION AND LAND MANUFACTURING AREA A parcel of land located in the NE1/4 of the SW114 of Section 15,Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian,City of Meridian,Ada County,Idaho,more particularly described as follows: COMMENCING at the center west one-sixteenth corner of Section 15; thence,along the west boundary of said NE114of the SW1{4, A. 5,00440'02"K.231A5 feet to the POINTOF BEGINNING,thence leaving said boundary, 1. 5.89014'48"E.,763.91 feet,thence, 2. 5.40°45'12"K,959.44 feet;thence, 3. N.81°25'39"W.,352.27 feet;thence, 4. N.85"10'48"W., 150.33 feet;thence, 5. NA1°21'31'W,266L5 feet to the west boundary of said NElf4 of the SWI/4;thence,along said boundary, 6. N.00°39'32"E.,864.35 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING: 15.97 Ac. pl LA 4 0=Mp1 - 332 N.Broodmore Way I Nompor la 83687 I 208.d42.6300 I WWW.ordurro.com Page 14 EXHIBIT SKETCH - DISTRIBUTION & LIGHT MANUFACTURING U5 LOCATED IN THE NE114 OF THE SW14 OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST,BOISE MERIDIAN, CITY OF MERIDIAN,ADA COUNTY, IDA[10 2024 $ 10 16 1� FRANKLi1,F ROAD EN80'42'57"E 1328.65` o ❑ 104' 200' 4007 0 N00'43'11'E 1328.61' BASIS OF BEARINGS a 16 15 CW1}� 589'14'48-E 1322.78' C11 a 589'14'36"E 1322-75'FE — — 5 o o c+ ui POINT OF BEGINNING N 4 ti O �I _41 SfJ I LL Cl co � c 7 15_B7 AC t' a Cl La d '50 0;Y! //yyo-`iFAkYY'4 N raur nn r 2 � S1116 t SW 111 fi r,�ao�rwa��ue.� imrts .a: :> — N89'1 d'fl3"w 1324.1b' ARDURRA a 332 N.BROADMORE WAY - NAMPA.IDAHO 83687 208-412-6300 I WNWARDURRA_COM Page 15 C i E IDIAN.;--- Agenda Item Applicant Presentation TEN MILE WEST July 9, 2024 amendmentda – LEGEND backgroundadler 160 acres 1,100 acresUNDEVELOPED)Bldgs380,000 sf (6 1,000,000 sf UNDERWAY)Bldgs1,200,000 sf (20 3,800,000 sf OWNED OR MANAGEDMERIDIANTREASURE VALLEY Project background 20 acres–Adler -55 acres–BVA -40 acres–Corey Barton -developed by 3 Developers115 acres that will now be The Meridian 118 DA covers ORIGINAL DA site Current site planplan Current site plan 16,000 SF + 698,000 SF21,500 SF +6129,000 SF9,500 SF–4,750 4(2) x 28,500 SF7,600 SF–3,800 4(2) x 22,800 SF TENANT SIZETENANTS# OF BUILDING SIZE ORIGINAL DA planCurrent phasing phasing plan Industrial design guidelines I84 landscape buffer- Single plane wall proposed- Single plane wall tmisap- Windows ?lfORsf – windows office vs industrial areas– Windows 8.1% Windows per SF–88,140 sf –2674 S Fry St Boise examples- 2554 W Franklin Rd, Meridian examples-Windows 9.9% Windows per SF–41,169 sf – 535 E Gowen Rd, Boise examples-Windows 8% Windows per SF–220,160 sf – 2711 S Fry St, Boise examples-Windows 9.5% Windows per SF–84,000 sf – Industrial design guidelines I84 landscape buffer- Questions? Use clarification