Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-09-05 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Thursday, September 05, 2024 at 6:00 PM MINUTES ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE PRESENT Commissioner Patrick Grace Commissioner Matthew Sandoval Commissioner Jared Smith Chairperson Maria Lorcher ABSENT Commissioner Brian Garrett Commissioner Andrew Seal ADOPTION OF AGENDA Adopted CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\] Approved Motion to approve made by Commissioner Grace, Seconded by Commissioner Smith. Voting Yea: Commissioner Grace, Commissioner Sandoval, Commissioner Smith, Chairperson Lorcher 1. Approve Minutes of August 15, 2024, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 2. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for The Angels Home Childcare (H-2024- 0017) by Desange Muhawenimana, located at 167 W. Indian Rocks St. ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\] ACTION ITEMS 3. Public Hearing for Calvary Chapel (H-2024-0020) by Calvary Chapel Meridian, th located at 2600 W. Nelis Dr. Continued to September 19, 2024 Application Requires Continuance A. Request: Rezone of 8.41 acres of land from the I-L to the C-C zoning district. Motion to continue to September 19th, 2024 made by Commissioner Smith, Seconded by Commissioner Grace. Voting Yea: Commissioner Grace, Commissioner Sandoval, Commissioner Smith, Chairperson Lorcher 4. Public Hearing for Life Church (H-2024-0024) by Ella Passey, Land Group, located th at 3323 E. Commercial Court Continued to September 19, 2024 Applicant Requests Continuance A. Request: CPAM to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map (CPAM) to change the future land use designation on 6.72 acres of land from Industrial to Commercial. B. Request: Rezone of 6.72 acres of land from Light Industrial (I-L) to General Retail and Service Commercial District (C-G) zoning district for the expansion of Life Church and the operation of Life Bible College. Motion to continue to September 19, 2024 made by Commissioner Grace, Seconded by Commissioner Smith. Voting Yea: Commissioner Grace, Commissioner Sandoval, Commissioner Smith, Chairperson Lorcher 5. Public Hearing for Treasure Valley Law Enforcement Childcare Center (H-2024- 0030) by Ball Ventures Ahlquist, located at 1085 Ten Mile Rd. Approved Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2024-0030 A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a daycare center providing care for up to 75 children in the M-E zoning district. Motion to approve made by Commissioner Smith, Seconded by Commissioner Grace. Voting Yea: Commissioner Grace, Commissioner Sandoval, Commissioner Smith, Chairperson Lorcher 6. Public Hearing for Apex Farr Subdivision (H-2024-0014) by Brighton Corporation, located at west side of S. Locust Grove Rd., north of E. Lake Hazel Rd. and east of S. Meridian Rd. Recommend Approval to City Council Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2024-0014 A. Request: Modified Development Agreement to remove the property annexed with South Meridian Arbor Ridge (H-2015-0019), Inst.#2016-007071 and portions of the property annexed with Shafer View Terrace (H-2020- 0117), Inst.#2021-102396 and Apex (H-2020-0066), Inst.#2020-178120 from the existing development agreements to include in a new agreement and update the overall conceptual development plan for the site and other provisions as applicable. B. Request: Rezone of 38.69 acres of land from the R-2 to the R-8 (0.76 acre), R-15 to C-C (6.66 acres), and R-4 to R-8 (31.27 acres) zoning districts. C. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 381 single family residential building lots, 6 commercial building lots and 60 common lots on 131.89 acres of land in the R-8, R-15 and C-C zoning districts. Motion to recommend approval to City Council made by Commissioner Grace, Seconded by Commissioner Sandoval. Voting Yea: Commissioner Grace, Commissioner Sandoval, Commissioner Smith, Chairperson Lorcher 7. Public Hearing for Raising Cane's (H-2024-0006) by Michael O'Reilly, Kimley Horn, located at 2700 N. Eagle Rd. Approved Application Materials: https://bit.ly/CUPH-2024-0006 A. Request: Conditional Use Permit to construct a drive-through restaurant with food and drink services including an indoor/outdoor seating area. The drive- through restaurant will be approximately 2,862 gross square feet overall and is one-story in height with landscaping along two perimeter property lines. Motion to approve made by Chairperson Lorcher, Seconded by Commissioner Grace. Voting Yea: Commissioner Grace, Commissioner Sandoval, Commissioner Smith, Chairperson Lorcher 8. Public Hearing for Centrepoint Apartments (H-2024-0019) by Nicolette Womack, Kimley-Horn, located at 3030 N. Cajun Lane and 3100 N. Centrepoint Way, near the southwest corner of N. Eagle Rd. and E. Ustick Rd. Recommend Denial to City Council Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2024-0019 A. Request Modified Development Agreement to amend the existing Development Agreement (DA) (Inst. # 2022-079000) for the purpose of updating the concept plan, building elevations and certain DA provisions to increase the number of dwelling units from 215 to 295. B. Request: Conditional Use to construct a 295-unit multi-family affordable apartment project consisting of five (5) four-story structures. C. Request: Alternative Compliance(s) to deviate for the parking lot landscaping and multi-family common open space design standards set forth in UDC 11-3B-8C and 11-4-3-27C. Motion to recommend denial to City Council made by Commissioner Grace, Seconded by Commissioner Smith. Voting Yea: Commissioner Grace, Commissioner Sandoval, Commissioner Smith, Chairperson Lorcher FUTURE MEETING TOPICS / DISCUSSION ADJOURNMENT 10:37 P.M. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To view upcoming Public Hearing Notices, visit https://apps.meridiancity.org/phnotices --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting September 5, 2024. Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of September 5, 2024, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Andrew Seal. Members Present: Commissioner Maria Lorcher, Commissioner Jared Smith, Commissioner Patrick Grace and Commissioner Matthew Sandoval. Members Absent: Commissioner Andrew Seal, Commissioner Enrique Rivera. And Commissioner Brian Garrett. Others Present: Tina Lomeli, Kurt Starman, Bill Parsons, Sonya Allen, Nick Napoli, Linda Ritter and Dean Willis. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE Brian Garrett X Andrew Sealer _X Matthew Sandoval X Patrick Grace Enrique Rivera X Jared Smith X Maria Lorcher - Chairman Lorcher: All right. Good evening. Welcome to Planning and Zoning meeting for September 5th, 2024. At this time I would like to call the meeting to order. The Commissioners who are present for this evening's meeting are at City Hall and on Zoom. We also have staff from the city attorney's and the City Clerk's Office, as well as the City Planning Department. If you are joining us on Zoom this evening we can see that you are here. You may observe the meeting. However, your ability to be seen on screen and talk will be muted. During the public testimony portion of the meeting you will be unmuted and, then, be able to comment. Please note that we cannot take questions until the public testimony portion. If you have a process question during the meeting, please, e-mail cityclerk@meridiancity.org and they will reply as quickly as possible. If you simply want to watch the meeting we encourage you to watch the streaming on our city's YouTube channel. You can access it at meridiancity.org/live. With that -- with that let us begin with roll call. Madam Clerk. Lorcher: Commissioner Sandoval and Commissioner Smith, we could barely hear you. Sandoval: Is that better if I lean a little bit closer? Smith: I can hear you just fine, so I think it might be on -- Lorcher: So, Jared, you sound good. Matthew -- Smith: I sound good? Lorcher: Yes. F Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 5,2024 Page 2 of 76 Smith: Okay. Lorcher: Matthew, try again. Sandoval: Can you hear me now? Lorcher: All right. Sandoval: Okay. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Lorcher: Oh, technical difficulties. Okay. The first thing to do is the adoption of the agenda. Please note that Item 3, Calvary Chapel, for Item No. H-2024-0020 and Item No. 4, Life Church, Item No. H-2024-0024 will be open for the sole purpose of continuance. So, if there is anybody here tonight to testify on these applications we will not be taking public testimony this evening. Could I get a motion to adopt tonight's agenda? Grace: So moved. Smith: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] 1. Approve Minutes of August 15, 2024, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 2. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for The Angels Home Childcare (H-2024-0017) by Desange Muhawenimana, located at 167 W. Indian Rocks St. Lorcher: Next on the item -- on the agenda is the Consent Agenda. We have two items on the Consent Agenda, to approve the meeting minutes of August 15th Planning and Zoning meeting and the Facts, Findings and Conclusions of Law for the Angels Home Childcare. Can I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda as presented? Sandoval: Motion to accept. Smith: Second. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 5,2024 Page 3 of 76 Lorcher: It has been moved and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] Lorcher: At this time I would briefly like to explain the public hearing process. We will open each item individually and begin with the staff report. Staff will report their findings on how the item adheres to our Comprehensive Plan and our Unified Development Code. After staff has made their presentation the applicant will come forward to present their case and respond to staff comments. They will have 15 minutes to do so. After the applicant is finished we will open the floor to public testimony. Each person will be called only once during the public testimony. The clerk will call the names individually of those who signed up on our website in advance to testify. You may come to the microphones in Chambers or you will be unmuted in Zoom. Please state your name and address for the record. You will have three minutes to address the Commission. If you have previously sent pictures or a presentation for the meeting it will be displayed on screen and our clerk will help run the presentation. If you have established that you are speaking on behalf of a larger group, like an HOA, where others from your group will allow you to speak on their behalf, you will have up to ten minutes. After all of those who have signed up in advance have spoken we will invite others who wish -- may wish to testify in Chambers or on Zoom. If you wish to speak on a topic you may come forward in Chambers or if on Zoom you can press the raise hand button or if you are listening on a phone please press star nine and wait for your name to be called. If you are listening on multiple devices, such as a computer and a phone, please be sure to mute those extra devices, so we don't experience feedback and we can hear you clearly. When you are finished if the Commission doesn't have any questions for you you will return to your seat in Chambers or you will be muted on Zoom and you will no longer have the ability to speak and please remember we will not call on you a second time. After all testimony has been heard, the applicant will be given another ten minutes to come back and respond to public testimony. When the applicant has finished responding to questions and concerns we will close the public hearing and Commissioners will have the opportunity to discuss and hopefully be able to make final decisions or recommendations to City Council as needed. ACTION ITEMS 3. Public Hearing for Calvary Chapel (H-2024-0020) by Calvary Chapel Meridian, located at 2600 W. Nelis Dr. A. Request: Rezone of 8.41 acres of land from the I-L to the C-C zoning district. F Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 5,2024 Page 4 of 76 Lorcher: So, with that I would like to open the public hearing for Item No. H-2024-0020, Calvary Chapel, for a rezone and they have asked for a continuance. Madam Clerk, do we have a date suggested for this application? Lomeli: Madam Chair, September 19th. Lorcher: May I get a motion to continue the application for Cavalry Chapel for September 19th? Smith: So moved. Grace: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to continue Item No. H-2024-0020 for Calvary Chapel for September 19th. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. 4. Public Hearing for Life Church (H-2024-0024) by Ella Passey, Land Group, located at 3323 E. Commercial Court A. Request: CPAM to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map (CPAM) to change the future land use designation on 6.72 acres of land from Industrial to Commercial. B. Request: Rezone of 6.72 acres of land from Light Industrial (I-L) to General Retail and Service Commercial District (C-G) zoning district for the expansion of Life Church and the operation of Life Bible College. Lorcher: Item No. H-2024-0024, Life Church, has filed for an amendment on the future land use map, a rezone, and also has asked for a continuance. Madam Clerk, is September 19th the day that they prefer as well? Lomeli: Madam Chair, yes. Lorcher: May I get a motion to continue the application for Life Church for September 19th? Grace: So moved. Smith: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to move Life Church to September 19th. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 5,2024 Page 5 of 76 MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. 5. Public Hearing for Treasure Valley Law Enforcement Childcare Center (H-2024-0030) by Ball Ventures Ahlquist, located at 1085 Ten Mile Rd. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a daycare center providing care for up to 75 children in the M-E zoning district. Lorcher: Okay. The next item on the agenda is File No. H-2024-0030 for a conditional use permit on request for the Treasure Valley Law Enforcement Childcare Center for 75 children in an ME zoning district. We will begin with the staff report. Napoli: Good evening, Madam Chair and Commission. Item No. 5 on the agenda is the conditional use permit for the Treasure Valley Law Enforcement Childcare Center. Thanks, Sonya. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to construct and operate a 7,504 square foot daycare facility. The site consists of 1.12 acres of land, zoned mixed employment, located north of 1-84 between South Black Cat Road and South Ten Mile Road. The current zoning is mixed employment. The future land use is high density employment and in both the mixed employment zoning and the high density employment FLUM designation in the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan childcare is considered a complementary use, intended to serve area employees. Staff finds this proposed use is consistent with this. In 2020 and 2021 a rezone, conditional use permit, development agreement modification and preliminary plat were approved. The DA approved of this application currently governs the site. However, a development agreement modification was approved by City Council in 2023, but has yet to be recorded. A final plat and private street applications are currently being processed with the city. Additionally, this project falls into the District at Ten Mile application that is currently awaiting Council review. So, shown on the screen -- on the left is a concept plan for the District at Ten Mile. The red arrow is indicating where the daycare is proposed to be within the development. So, access is proposed via La Vista Lane, a private street -- a private street along the west boundary. The future extension -- from the future extension of West Grand Mogul Way, a collector street, along the north boundary of the site. These roadway and infrastructure improvements are anticipated to be installed with the final plat. However, if they are not they will need to be completed with this application. Street landscape buffers along 1-84, West Grand Mogul Way and La Vista Lane are also anticipated to be installed with the final plat for Vanguard Village. However, if they are not complete the developer will be responsible for those improvements with this application. The building elevations are required to meet the Architectural Standards Manual, Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan. However, the District at Ten Mile is proposing its own guidelines and if approved these guidelines would govern the site. Staff is recommending approval with conditions. However, the applicant has submitted written testimony with -- proposing alternative language to the following condition. I will stand for questions. Lorcher: Would the applicant like to come forward? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 5,2024 Page 6 of 76 Allen: Elizabeth Allen. 1144 South Silverstone Way, Meridian, Idaho. 83642. And the -- the presentation is showing; correct? Okay. So, this evening we are requesting an approval of a conditional use permit for a daycare facility in an MU zone and the facility will be a private facility to serve law enforcement families. Thank you. So, the site is located on the west side of the district at Ten Mile site. Access and utilities to the site are currently under construction with an anticipated completion of December 1st, with temporary access provided to the -- to the site for construction. So, first, I would like to talk about the issues that law enforcement agencies are facing in the Treasure Valley and the nation. So, the facility we are proposing is a crucial service that currently does not exist in the valley, so law enforcements in the Treasure Valley and nation are struggling with staffing issues. Studies found that a 70 percent decrease in applications, in addition to a 45 percent retirement rate and, then, an 18 percent increase in resignations at law enforcement agencies and another issue that they are facing is a gap in staffing of women and studies found that there is less than 12 percent of women in full time within law enforcement and with only three percent in top command and, then, a nine -- nine percent of mothers in law enforcement currently have children under the age of six and so there is a big need to provide facilities for law enforcement families. Next slide. So, the solution that has been identified to help with some of these issues with staff recruitment, as well as retention, is customized childcare for law enforcement that will provide affordable childcare at half the rate -- market rate tuition and, then, the facility will also have expanded operating hours seven days a week to accommodate work schedules that is not offered by other daycare facilities and so talking about the project details, so that -- the building square footage is 7,504 square feet and, then, the playground square footage is 6,544 square feet and we are proposing 84 children with addition of staff, which would bring a total building capacity of 102. Next slide. So, this is an image of the landscape plan that I wanted to show, which shows those three different playground areas with landscaping around that area that provides not only shade for the playground, but also a buffer from future uses, as well as security to kind of block -- to screen the playground area -- area. So, this is an image of the elevations that were provided. That top is the front facade showing the main entry featuring a large -- large glazing area with white metal canopies, cultured stone pillars and gray cement panels with a sand -- sandstone wash. The cement panel finish is wrapped around the corner of the building and the remainder of the building has a red face brick to the top of the windows and, then, above that is a tan EFIS up to the parapet. So, to elaborate on that condition that staff mentioned, they recommended adding park -- additional parking west of the site that is outside of the building lot. That area is slated for a future development. So, between those drive aisles we are proposing this condition, parking, driving and similar activities will be prevented on the unimproved property between the drive aisles to the site through the use of curbing, barricades or similar method until such time that the area develops for a future user. So, that would be around that -- that brown -- that brown area and the image on the right is a barrier that we put up at the Eagle View Landing site to prevent people from driving onto that lot until it develops. Let's see. And as far as the parking goes -- so, we are proposing 40 parking stalls. The requirement is 15. So, we are already over- providing parking, so we don't want to add additional parking when it's not needed and we would have to tear it up in the future to accommodate the user that will be going into Flo Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 5,2024 Page 7 of 76 the west. Next slide. So, in attendance with me I believe virtually is the architect who could answer any questions about the building and, then, I also have the civil engineer for the project, who can also answer questions and, then, in the application documents we provided a finance analysis to help with the decision making and I will stand for questions. Thank you. Lorcher: Commissioners, do we have any questions for the applicant at this time? Sandoval: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Sandoval. Sandoval: Yeah. Just a quick question. What agencies are you going to serve? ISP? Sheriff? Local? Mix? Allen: So, there is -- there is nine agencies that they will be serving in the valley. So, ISP and, then, the other jurisdictions within the Treasure Valley. Sandoval: Thank you. Grace: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Grace. Grace: Can you -- Elizabeth, can you just explain -- so, you want some alternate -- alternative language to the condition related to parking on the west that the -- that the city is recommending be completed now and you are looking for some alternative language that says until that's developed we would like to leave it alone and, then, barricade it so people can't use it? Allen: Yeah. Madam Chair, Commissioner, I will let staff elaborate on this, but that area between the drive aisles will be developed at some point where there is an office user or different user. So, if you put the parking in -- like additional parking that we wouldn't even need for the use, we would have to rip all of that up and so the reason for the barricade is sometimes on these sites you have lots where the public will just drive onto the site, they will park there or they will just goof around on some of these empty lots. So, the barricade is to prevent people from driving onto that -- to that site. Grace: Yeah. Madam Chair -- and thank you, I think you answered exactly what I was getting at, which is if you develop it and you don't -- and, then, someone -- with a parking lot and, then, someone later comes in, what -- who is responsibility is and -- it's -- it's yours. Allen: Uh-huh. F-11 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 5,2024 Page 8 of 76 Grace: Okay. Follow up. Given the numbers that you -- the statistics and numbers you provided about law enforcement, is it -- is it safe to assume that you will have a continuing need this far into the future or is there any danger someday it ceases to be a childcare center? Allen: Madam Chair, Commissioner, that's a really great question. So, the -- the group that's working on this daycare facility, it's the National Law Enforcement Foundation. I may have got the acronym wrong. They have received state funding to -- to fund the -- the law enforcement facility -- daycare facility, so they have a lot of funding to support this new use and in the future as it -- it grows there is the expectation that there could be a potentially second facility in the future. But there is a lot of funding to support to the facility. Grace: Okay. Thank you. Lorcher: In regard to the barricade, are you proposing like green stakes and some plastic chains to -- is that the method that you were thinking of using to create a barrier? Allen: Madam Chair, Commissioner, so we -- we are leaving it open. I showed the example of -- an option that we have at one of our other sites that has worked really well, but we wanted to provide flexibility that the Commission was comfortable with, whether that was curbing, that fencing or some kind of barricades that we could put up. That also wouldn't be visibly unappealing. Lorcher: And the reason I ask is if you go by the Idaho Central Credit Union at Cherry and Ten Mile there is an open parcel next to it and they have used a similar method where they have green stakes and sometimes it's a string, sometimes it's a plastic and I would say at least twice a year people just bust through it and decide to do whatever they want anyway and the concern is -- is that there is children here and so you don't want that to happen at that point in time, even though it is law enforcement, I would just encourage the developer to have something a little bit more secure, because people do goofy things at inappropriate times and those flimsy barricades can easily come down, which end up costing the developer money, because you are going to have to keep replacing it. So, that's all my comment. Okay. Thank you very much. Allen: Thank you. Madam Clerk, do we have anybody for public testimony? Lomeli: Thank you, Madam Chair. I have Jeff Howard online. Lorcher: Okay. Mr. Howard, please, state your name and address for the record. Lomeli: Mr. Howard, can you hear us? Lorcher: I see that he is there. Mr. Howard, can you raise your hand on Zoom to see if you still want to testify? Madam Clerk, is there anybody else? Maybe we can come back to Mr. Howard. 12 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 5,2024 Page 9 of 76 Lomeli: Yes, Madam Chair. I have Colin Ronhaar here in Chambers. Lorcher: Hi. If you can state your name and address for the record, please. Ronhaar: Good evening. Colin Ronhaar. 332 North Broadmore Way, Nampa. I'm the civil engineer on this project and so I just wanted to clarify once again on that -- on that empty lot. It's -- it looks weird on -- on a site plan, but if you drive around it's pretty common. I was looking at -- just recently that -- at even The Village of Meridian against Longwing Lane there, there is some empty lots adjacent to parking lots that have been open and dirt for a while. I think it's -- the developer is totally open to restricting that from parking, whether it be barricades, whether it be -- just an extruded curb of some sort. But it's pretty -- it's -- it's common in -- in these commercial developments that are being piecemeal developed throughout that. That's all I had. Thank you. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you. Madam Clerk. Lomeli: Madam Chair, no one else has signed up. Lorcher: You want to try Mr. Howard again? Lomeli: Madam Chair, he has permission to talk, so I -- I don't know if he has anything to say at this point. Grace: It looks like he went from unmuted -- excuse me -- muted to unmuted, so -- I don't know if he is trying, but -- Lorcher: Okay. Thank you. All right. Starman: So, Madam -- Madam Chair, can I just -- I want to make it clear for the record that the applicant indicated that Mr. Howard does not wish to speak. So, just I want the record to reflect that we have confirmation. Thank you. Lorcher: Okay. Since there is no other public testimony, does the applicant wish to come forward to make any other comments? Okay. Then we will close the public hearing. May I have a motion to close the public hearing for Treasure Valley Law Enforcement Childcare Center? Grace: So moved. Smith: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to close File No. H-2024-0030. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. F13] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 5,2024 Page 10 of 76 Lorcher: Commissioners, do we have any comments about this application? Sandoval: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Sandoval. Sandoval: Yeah. I think this is a -- a great project; right? We look at law enforcement and everything they are dealing with, how many hours they are putting in, often daycare is really hard to find, so I think this is a -- a great example of what we should be putting in there. Lorcher: Okay. Anybody else? Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Mr. -- Commissioner Smith. Smith: Yeah. I -- I agree. I think this is a great project. I think I'm -- I'm relatively amenable to the applicant's ask for alternate compliance. I would like, if possible, for us to include in the final motion -- and this is just where I'm at -- something that -- that's a little bit more substantive than those kind of stakes and plastic chain. It seems like the applicant is amenable to, you know, more of a barrier or extruded curb or something like that. I would just like something that is a little bit more -- more restrictive given the location and given the -- the use at hand with -- with children nearby. But other than that I think it's a great project and fully support it. Grace: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Grace. Grace: I would -- I would just be probably reiterating what my fellow commissioners have said. I think it's a great project. I love the -- I thought I read or heard about the increased hours for law enforcement. I think that's fantastic to support our -- our local law enforcement and I agree with Commissioner Smith I -- I'm amenable to that alternate language with some assurances that like, you said, it's -- it's a little bit more stout and not susceptible to damage, so -- great project. Lorcher: Do any of my fellow Commissioners wish to propose a motion? Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: I was going to say if Commissioner Grace wants to go for it he can as well. 14 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 5,2024 Page 11 of 76 Grace: Madam Chair, I just had a question and that is do we -- if we -- if we make the motion do we have to address the alternate language request? Starman: Thank you, Chairman and Commissioner. Yes, this -- this is going to -- this will become the condition for the -- within the conditional use permit and you are the approving body, so I would recommend that the condition be explicit and clear in your motion. I guess I would add if you -- if you like you can ask -- staff may have a suggestion, that would strike the balance you are looking for that would meet the spirit of what the applicant is requiring, but to some of the Commissioners' questions and comments earlier perhaps staff can help you craft some language between Nick and Bill that we kind of hit the -- hit the spot you are looking for, that it's a more substantive barrier, not some of the other examples we discussed this evening. Lorcher: Nick, do you have any suggestions of what would be sturdy for this particular lot? Napoli: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, you know, there is concrete barriers that are not very sightly, could be a little bit -- I would say excessive potentially for blocking that off. Fencing as well. Not very sightly. Typically when we do see fencing -- well, it's chain link and half the time it's half falling down. I would say -- so, you know, I would say that if they can propose a -- either type of fencing that, you know, will be maintained and kept, as well as the ground, I think that's part of something that we would like to see as well, that it -- that it is maintained, the empty lot, so it doesn't become overgrown additionally with that. But as far as additional suggestions, I would say fencing is a great option. I would say concrete barriers is a potential option, but it could potentially be excessive. Starman: And, Madam Chair, I would add -- I would add maybe a third alternative. Nick just got my creative juices flowing, but something on the line of maybe bollards with metal chain link would -- might be a -- something in between that would be somewhat similar to the photo of the applicant showed with the T post and lighter material, but similar concept, but with more stout and attractive bollards and some more stout chain, as opposed to lighter material. That's an idea. Lorcher: Okay. Parsons: So, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, it really comes down to how much do you want to keep people out? I think extruded curb can work as well, but people can still drive over that, so it really comes down to whatever your comfort level is. I just know Nick and I -- or at least staff just wants a condition that says this is not approved for parking and it shouldn't be used as that and it needs to be maintained weed free like you see in these other developments. So, I think that's -- to me from our -- from staffs standpoint that's the more -- most important thing is we don't want people tracking dirt and mud all over the development and, then, like you said, after hours people doing bad things and, then, all of a sudden it gets very popular, because other developments coming -- are happening in the area and people are just parking on it, 15 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 5,2024 Page 12 of 76 because everything is full. That's what we keep seeing is people just using dirt lots -- as Nick had -- had mentioned is we are just -- people are using it for parking and it's not approved parking and we just don't want to create problems for code enforcement. So, I do -- I do like the bollard idea with the -- with the chains. I think that would be a great solution for an interim fix to keep people out of there. Commissioner Smith, does that help you with some language for the motion? Smith: Yes, Madam Chair. I think I have got something and it's -- I still want to leave it a little bit open to the applicant, but can include those relevant options or similar option. I don't want to close it off to just those if they have something that -- that staff-- they can present and staff is -- is okay with as well. So, I'm -- I'm happy to make a motion if anyone is -- is all right. Lorcher: Okay. We are all ears. Smith: Al right. After hearing all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve Item No. H-2024-0030 as presented in the staff report with a modification to replace the requirement for expanded parking with a requirement for cordoning off the parking to be used with fencing, barriers and extruded curb or a combination of the above in order to adequately and consistently restrict the flow of motor vehicles. Lorcher: Do I have a second? Grace: I will second that. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to approve Treasure Valley Law Enforcement Childcare with the condition of a barrier for the parking area that has been mentioned in the motion. All those in favor say aye. Nay? Motion carries. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. 6. Public Hearing for Apex Farr Subdivision (H-2024-0014) by Brighton Corporation, located at west side of S. Locust Grove Rd., north of E. Lake Hazel Rd. and east of S. Meridian Rd. A. Request: Modified Development Agreement to remove the property annexed with South Meridian Arbor Ridge (H-2015-0019), Inst.#2016-007071 and portions of the property annexed with Shafer View Terrace (H-2020-0117), Inst.#2021-102396 and Apex (H-2020-0066), Inst.#2020-178120 from the existing development agreements to include in a new agreement and update the overall conceptual development plan for the site and other provisions as applicable. F16] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 5,2024 Page 13 of 76 B. Request: Rezone of 38.69 acres of land from the R-2 to the R-8 (0.76 acre), R-15 to C-C (6.66 acres), and R-4 to R-8 (31.27 acres) zoning districts. C. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 381 single family residential building lots, 6 commercial building lots and 60 common lots on 131.89 acres of land in the R-8, R-15 and C-C zoning districts. Lorcher: Okay. The next file on the agenda is File No. H-2024-0014. Is a request for a modification for the development agreement, rezone and preliminary plat for Apex Farr Subdivision. We will begin with the staff report. Allen: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. The next application before you is -- oops. Let me get here to the right spot here. Is a request for a development agreement modification, a rezone and a preliminary plat. I just wanted to make a note that there was a discrepancy in the hearing notice for the rezone, but the description on the agenda is correct and it has been corrected for the Council notice. This site consists of 131.89 acres of land. It's zoned R-4, R-8 and R-15 and is located on the west side of South Locust Grove Road, north of East Lake Hazel Road and east of South Meridian Road. A little history on this property. Except for the R-2 zoned portion, the -- the rest of it was annexed in 2015 with an R-4 zoning district as part of the South Meridian Category A annexation, which included -- excuse me? Oh, I'm so sorry. I didn't realize I was -- or wasn't. All right. Let's try that again. So, it was annexed as part of the South Meridian Category A annexation, which included multiple properties and property owners. A placeholder R-4 zoning district was approved with individual development agreements for each property owner, i.e., Arbor Ridge, Brighton Investments, LLC; SCS, Brighton, LLC, and Murgoitio Limited Partnership, which require modification prior to development of the property to approve any proposed development plan. In 2020 a modification to the existing development agreements for Brighton, SCS Brighton, Murgoitio Partnership was approved, which replaced these agreements with one new agreement, which was Apex. A rezone was approved for much of the subject property from the R-2 -- excuse me -- R-4 to the R-8 and R-15 districts. The Arbor Ridge R-4 zoned property along the northern boundary was under different ownership at that time and was not included in the rezone, but is part of the subject rezone application. A preliminary plat was also approved for Apex Northwest Subdivision, which included the R-15 zoned portion of the subject property at the southeast corner of the site. The conceptual master plan included in the development agreement depicts future development with no specific development plan for the areas not included in the preliminary plat with a general street layout on the south -- land southwest of the Williams gas pipeline and a future school at the northwest corner of Locust Grove and Crescendo. In 2021 the R-2 zoned portion of the property was annexed with the development agreement and included in the Shafer View Terrace Subdivision as Lot 1, Block 5. This lot was depicted as a future phase with no specific development plan. A preliminary plat was approved in 2021 for Apex West Subdivision, which included Lot 1, Block 5, Shafer View Terrace Subdivision and a portion of the F17] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 5,2024 Page 14 of 76 subject property. A portion of this property is included in the subject preliminary plat. The remainder will be part of Apex West Subdivision. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation for this property -- it's on the middle map here -- is designated low density residential, medium density residential and mixed-use community, with a future school designation. The applicant is requesting a development agreement modification to include the South Meridian Arbor Ridge property and portions of the property annexed with Shafer View Terrace and Apex and a new development agreement with an updated conceptual development plan as shown. These properties will no longer be subject to the previous development agreements. The proposed development plan is generally consistent with the future land use map. The future school previously planned at the northwest corner of Locust Grove and Crescendo was shifted to the south side of Lake Hazel, east of Locust Grove. A rezone of a total of 38.69 acres of land from R-2 to R-8, which is .76 of an acre, R-15 to C-C, which is 6.66 acres and R-4 to R-8, which is 31.27 acres, is proposed. The area proposed to be rezoned to R-8 is designated medium density residential on the future land use map, except for a .76 acre portion, which is designated low density residential. The area proposed to be zoned C-C is designated mixed-use community. The proposed zoning is consistent with the associated future land use map designations. A preliminary plat is proposed consisting of 381 single family residential building lots, six commercial building lots and 60 common lots on 131.89 acres of land in the R-8, R-15 and C-C zoning districts and is a resubdivision of a portion of Lot 1, Block 5, Shafer View Terrace Subdivision. The remainder of which will be included in the Apex West final plat. The plat is proposed to develop in seven phases as shown on the phasing plan on the right. Minimum lot size proposed is 4,180 square feet, with an average lot size of 8,021 square feet. A gross density of 2.84 units per acre, with a net density of 5.43 units per acre is proposed, which is consistent with the density desired in the medium density future land use map designation. A mix of front loaded and alley loaded single family residential detached units in a variety of different lot sizes are proposed, with larger lots along the northern boundary to provide a transition between the rural lots to the north of the Farr Lateral. Access is proposed via the extension of East Quartz Creek Street, East Trenton Street and East Liberator Court at the project's west boundary and from South Locust Grove Road via South Apex Way and East Crescendo Street. An emergency access is proposed at the northern boundary via South Margaret Avenue. Several common driveways are proposed as depicted on the plat. Stub streets are proposed for future extension and interconnectivity with adjacent development and future development in Apex Pinnacle. A collector street is stubbed to the north, which will extend to East Amity Road, with future development and South Apex Way will extend to South Locust Grove Road as a collector street in accord at the master street map. Cross-access ingress-egress easements should be provided between all of the commercial lots. There are several common driveways that are depicted on the plat. Private streets are proposed to access for the residential units in Blocks 2 and 23. As shown ACHD will not allow those streets to be public alleys, because some of the lots don't have frontage on a public street. This also creates an issue with addressing the units that have frontage on both a public street and the proposed private street, which staff is concerned will create confusion for emergency responders. Therefore, staff is recommending these blocks are reconfigured, so that public alleys may be allowed and 18 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 5,2024 Page 15 of 76 addressing can be from the adjacent public street. Lot 23 at the southeast corner of the development consists of rear loaded single family residential units on the west side and commercial uses on the east side as shown on the layout on the left. A 25 foot wide buffer to residential uses is required on the C-C zoned property per the UDC. The applicant is requesting a reduction in the buffer width to zero with the provision of a 15 foot wide common MEW on the residential portion, which will include landscaping and a sidewalk. Staff is not in favor of the proposed layout with the residential units abutting the parking lot for the commercial area with only a 15 foot wide landscape area in between. Staff recommends the access drives for the residential units are constructed as alleys, instead of private streets and a north-south public street is provided between the residential and the commercial lots for addressing purposes for the east facing residential units, which is an issue with the proposed layout for on-street parking for the residential units and as a transition separation between land uses as shown on the layout on the right. There are several site constraints that affect the design and layout of the project. They include the following: The Carlson Lateral runs along the northwest boundary of the site. The Farr Lateral runs along the northeast boundary of the site at the highest elevation of the project. The McBurney Lateral will be piped and is located in the southeast portion of the project. The Watkins Drain runs through the northwest quadrant. The Williams Northwest gas pipeline bisects this site within a 75 foot wide easement and that's shown in orange there on the plan. There is an existing sewer trunk line on the northwest corner of the property and a 25 foot wide easement and there are slopes between seven and 12 percent along the northeast boundary of the site within the area shown in red on the map. Due to these constraints the applicant is requesting a waiver from City Council to the maximum block face length standard of 750 feet without an intersecting street or alley. Block faces are allowed to extend up to one thousand feet where a pedestrian connection is proposed between the streets within the block. The face of Block 12 along Precipice Drive is approximately 2,500 feet and that is the street that runs along the northern -- northeast boundary of the site right here. There are two pedestrian connections proposed within the block that provide pedestrian access between streets. The Farr Lateral runs along the north side of the street at the highest point of the development as I mentioned. The face of Block 12 along West Vertex Drive is approximately 1,500 feet long. One pedestrian connection is proposed within the block that provides pedestrian access between streets and that is just the other side of this block. So, it's this area right here. Traffic calming is proposed in the form of a 29 foot wide street section for West Precipice Drive along the Farr Lateral, which will only allow parking on one side of the street and bulb outs and choke points at pedestrian crossings as shown. A landscape plan was submitted with a preliminary plat that depicts street buffers and common open space landscaping for the development. A fencing plan was also submitted as shown on the right. Multi-use pathways are proposed within the Williams Pipeline easement and along Locust Grove Road. A minimum of 15 percent or 18.93 acres of land is required for qualified open space to be provided in the R-8 and R-15 zoning districts. A total of 36.1 acres, which is 29 percent, is proposed at almost double the required amount. Site amenities totaling a minimum of 26 points from each category are required to be provided. Amenities totaling 30 points are proposed consisting of two fitness courses, a dog park and two education gardens from the quality of life category. A swimming pool with changing facilities and restrooms F-19 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 5,2024 Page 16 of 76 and two tot lots and natural play areas from the recreation activity category. .37 mile of pathway aligned with linear open space and 1.61 miles of multi-use pathways from the pedestrian or bicycle circulation system category and, finally, a bicycle repair station from the multi-modal category. This does, again, exceed UDC standards. Several conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed residential development as shown. A mix of single story and two-story homes are proposed that include a variety of siding styles with masonry accents in a variety of colors and design elements and features with varying roof profiles and wall modulation that demonstrates the high quality of development proposed. No elevations were submitted for the commercial portion of the development, but they will be subject to design review standards. Written testimony has been received from Amanda McNutt, Brighton. That's from the applicant, the response to the staff report. The applicant requests deletion of the following conditions: There -- there is several, so I won't -- I won't go through each of the conditions. They are in your hearing outline. But I will go through the items that they are requesting for deletion. They are asking for the ten foot wide detached sidewalks to be provided along all collector streets for public safety in lieu of the on-street bicycle lanes. They want deletion of that, because they are -- only five foot wide sidewalks are proposed in the remainder of the development that's already gone through and has been approved for consistency and staff is okay with that request and just requiring the typical five foot detached sidewalks required by code. They are also asking deletion of the north-south public street to be provided between the residential and the commercial lots in Block 23. They are requesting deletion of the requirement for the revision to the lot layout in Block 2 to comply with ACHD's requirements for public alleys, so that the lots only have frontage on one named street. They are requesting deletion of the requirement for a sidewalk on the north side of West Precipice Drive. That is a UDC standard that staff can't waive. They are requesting modification to Condition No. 3 to clarify the landscape plan, which will be revised at the time of final plat and staff is in agreement with this clarification and they are asking a modification to include language on Condition No. 9 requiring the alternative compliance to the common driveway in Block 12 if requested to be submitted concurrently with the final plat application and staff is in agreement with that request as well. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed applications with the conditions in the staff report. Staff will stand for any questions. Lorcher: Would the applicant like to come forward? McNutt: Thank you. Mike Wardle is handing out just the little blurb of changes that we requested, just so it's a little easier for you guys to find. I'm Amanda McNutt. 2929 West Navigator Drive, Meridian. 83642. 1 apologize I don't know if there is a way to make this a little bit smaller in here. Oh. Never mind. I got it. All right. So, thank you again for having us. This is Apex Farr, which is the next portion of the Pinnacle community out at Locust Grove and Lake Hazel Roads. As Sonya mentioned, it's 131.8 acres, 381 new residential units, six commercial lots and there are 60 common lots. As mentioned it's about .8 acres from the R-2 zone to the R-8 zone, 29 and .9 acres from the -- R-4 holding zone to an R-8 zone and 5.3 acres from the R-15 to C-C zone. Again, this is consistent with the future land use map. I would like to take a moment to F20] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 5,2024 Page 17 of 76 discuss the site specific constraints. We do have significant grade along the Farr Lateral and the Williams Pipeline is a constrictive vertical grade as well. So, we really can't change any grade between those two points. So, the Farr Lateral and the Williams Pipeline are -- are very constricting in our site. That -- that is driving a lot of the design in this particular development. As you can kind of see from this graphic here a lot of linear things are following those two points and, again, that's -- that's driven by the site itself. So, to the first variance request that we are asking for with that Precipice Street along the Farr Lateral, again, it -- it mostly is due to the fact that we have significant grade there that makes it extremely difficult to add any additional road connections. It would be to the point where we actually couldn't meet ADA requirements if we were to add additional roadway sections through there. As it is we are going to have to do probably some major grading efforts to make lots work through that area and to get those pathway connections. Also I wanted to note that both ACHD and city staff were supportive of this design with both Precipice and Vertex Drive. Vertex Drive is a little bit less of a concern I think due to the length. There are several intersections, as well as two pathway connections that intersect that street. Several choke points as well to try to calm traffic through there, as well as some variation in the straightness. I guess it's not completely straight through there. The next variance request that we are asking for is to allow more than three lots on a common driveway on a single side. So, I believe code allows for four lots total on a common drive, just not on a single side. This particular layout is a little bit unique. You can kind of see that we have some additional parking next to or between Lot 76 and Lot 77. Lot 76 is that driveway. The way that it lays out, obviously, four lots are taking access from that driveway, but we believe that this is a little bit better design, rather than having two abutting driveways with no through access, when we spoke to the fire department they agreed that this was a better design as far as access to and through those homes. The next variance request that we are asking for is the 25 foot buffer between the residential and commercial zones be removed. The intent here is that we want to integrate those uses as much as possible, both for pedestrian and the other homes within this area to be able to access the commercial uses. These are going to be neighborhood type commercial uses, not heavy commercial uses and we believe that this is going to allow just a better flow in the area. We do have the 15 foot MEW as described by Sonya and, then, we also have a ten foot lawn area between the MEW and the front of the homes, which, essentially, will equal a 25 foot separation between the front of the home and the parking lot and we just feel that this is going to be a much more seamless transition between uses and to serve the neighborhood. We have a variety of amenities within the community already. Pinnacle residents will have access to all new amenities in this pre-plat, as well as all the previous and any future development. Pinnacle is developing as a single community. As Sonya mentioned we have several areas where we are proposing amenities. They are a little subject to change, although the area with the pool is likely to stay. And, then, we have some concrete pathways, a natural pathway along the Williams Pipeline, as well as a ten foot wide concrete pathway along the Williams Pipeline and a 14 foot concrete pathway that bisects the development as well. We wanted to show kind of a graphic of the intertwining pathways, which you can see there on the bottom left. It just gives some variation in the pathway system there, so it's not all straight concrete without anything there. We plan to have some natural elements in that pathway system. 21 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 5,2024 Page 18 of 76 Obviously, we are a little bit limited, because it is in the pipeline, but we want to provide as much of a natural feel as possible through there, so it's not just grass and concrete and -- and kind of boring. Along the pathway area we are also going to have some natural play areas and education gardens with, you know, more details to come at a later date. Additionally, we will have another community pool and clubhouse, outdoor gym, a dog park, bike repair station, as Sonya mentioned. We propose to develop in about seven phases. This is also subject to change, but generally we are considering starting at the southeast corner and developing toward the northwest. You did see some of these living choices already. We will have some single family conventional style homes, some paired homes as well. And, then, we will have our Carriage Lane homes on those Carriage Lane areas. So, we would request a recommendation of approval to City Council for the pre-plat, the rezone, the length of West Precipice Drive, the length of West Vertex Drive, four lots on a single side of a common drive. We will submit an alternative compliance to be submitted with the final plat. Removal of the buffer between the C-C and R-15 zone and update conditions to include the deletions and modifications in the memo dated -- and I apologize, that's actually dated September 6th, 2024. Lorcher: Are there any questions for the applicant at this time? Grace: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Grace. Grace: Hi, Amanda. So, can you just give me a little more information about -- you -- you -- you indicated with respect to Block 23 and the 25 foot buffer, that eliminating it and doing the things you are doing it better integrates the commercial and residential spaces? I -- just tell me where I'm wrong, but I would think that I would want as much buffer as possible if I were living there between me and the commercial space. How am I looking at that wrong? McNutt: The type of use that's going to be proposed there as far as the residential units they will be paired small lot units. We don't expect that people are going to be spending a lot of time in their yards. It's kind of that type of development where you would be wanting to go into those commercial uses, the coffee shop or go to the fitness center or something like that, rather than spending time in your home or really trying to develop a community where people want to get out and spend time together with their neighbors, instead of just in their homes. Grace: And thank you for that, because maybe I missed what the types of commercial activities were going to be there and they are sort of what you described there, more retail, more friendly to people wanting to be over there and walk over there, that kind of thing. McNutt: Uh-huh. F22 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 5,2024 Page 19 of 76 Grace: Yeah. Follow-up, Madam Chair? I -- I have to confess I'm not sure I'm following -- not that I disagree necessarily. I'm just -- I want to make sure I understand it. The maximum block face length, can you just explain that piece to me again? McNutt: Yeah. So, Sonya, you can remind me what those lengths are that -- the maximums are? Allen: Yes. Would you like me to respond? Grace: Sure. Yeah. If that's -- Allen: So, that the UDC allows a maximum block face length of 750 feet, unless -- well, that's for an intersecting street or alley. They will allow up to one thousand feet if a pedestrian pathway is provided that provides a connection between the two streets on either side of the block. A block face is broken by a street or a 90 degree angle. So, while these have a little bit of a -- a little curvature in the align, in -- in the alignment, it does not constitute a break in a block face per city code. Grace: So, a waiver would be needed? Allen: Council waiver of the block length -- length standard would be needed, yes. Or a redesign of those blocks. Grace: And is that due to the realities of the site and the restrictions by the laterals and the pipeline and everything that was mentioned? Allen: Yeah. And that's the applicant's reason for the request. Our code allows for requests for waivers to these standards in certain instances and one of those is slopes in excess of ten percent and I believe they are seven to 12 percent in that area. McNutt: Yeah. Madam Chair, Commissioner Grace, we also have the -- the Farr Lateral there, which is also another provision that if you have a waterway abutting a roadway it can also exceed. So, we -- we kind of are duplicating that reasoning there is the slopes and also a -- a waterway. Allen: Yes. That is correct. Grace: And I apologize, this might be a question for staff. I -- there were some instances where you indicated what staff feels about it. Did you -- did you put in the report and I missed it what your feelings were on that request? Allen: I did not. It's a -- it's a Council waiver. So, staff did not provide a recommendation on that. We -- we did speak to the applicant in our pre-app meetings about redesigning those blocks, so that they weren't so long. They are -- they are quite long. They are more than double our standards. The applicant can explain to you their 23 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 5,2024 Page 20 of 76 reasoning why they chose not to do that, but, yes, we did ask them to do that and we would prefer that, if it's workable. McNutt: Madam Chair, Commissioner, unfortunately, the grades and -- and other restrictions there it -- it is nearly impossible to add roadway connections. Literally we -- we just wouldn't be able to meet minimum standards to get additional roadway connections in there. It's very steep and it would be extremely difficult. Basically we would -- I mean you can create a road, but you would have a fall on each side of the road. Grace: Thank you. Lorcher: Commissioner Smith or Sandoval, do you have any questions for the applicant or take public testimony? Sandoval: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Sandoval. Sandoval: Quick question for the applicant. So, were you requesting the reduction from 25 to 15 feet. Is there any screening that's going to be going on there to shield some of the headlights pulling in and out in that parking lot? McNutt: Madam Chair, Commissioner, no, we don't propose any screening through there. Sandoval: Thank you. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you. McNutt: Thank you. Lorcher: Madam Clerk, do we have anybody to testify? Lomeli: Thank you, Madam Chair. We have Julie Edwards online. Can you hear us, Julie? Edwards: Yes, I can. Can you hear me? Lomeli: Yes. Lorcher: Can you state your name and address for the record, please? Edwards: Sure. My name is Julie Edwards and address is 1310 East Mary Lane, which is just north of the Farr Lateral. And, Madam Chair and Commissioners, I had a few questions. It might be more of a -- a P&Z thing, rather than a developer thing, but firstly F24] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 5,2024 Page 21 of 76 -- or first off, I had questions about the area requested to be rezoned from R-4 to R-8. In an earlier Brighton postcard for a hearing that I received there was a section up there noted -- it was zoned NAP, which I didn't see anything on the city's website, but other websites said it was natural area protected. So, you can kind of see behind that R-4 there is a darker mass in the center and I was just wondering when that changed, if that changed when it was annexed and why the city would have removed that designation, because it's currently a predatory bird nesting area and at one point before all the construction came along there were coyotes, fox, deer down there and so it's just kind of, you know, disappointing that something like that would be removed. So, just wondering why that wasn't protected. Second, about the block face maximum, so I hear this a lot in a lot of meetings, a lot of waivers and, you know, variances and things like that and I just feel like if there is a standard set, the developers know that there is -- there are rules to follow and why do we keep bending and twisting and letting them do what they want, you know, even though that's not what it says, you know, you have to hold everybody to the same standard I guess is what I'm saying. So, you know, I live here. I'm on the canal a lot. The slope to the south -- just to the south of me doesn't seem as steep. It is further down to the west, but where I am, you know, it doesn't really feel like you would fall off the road if they put a road in there that -- and connected it to Vertex. So, just something, I don't know, maybe somebody can drive by and have a look and see about that and after speaking with my neighbors on Mary Lane we were wanting to request from the developer that along the south side of the Farr Lateral from approximately Locust Grove area up to where it would connect with Margaret, if there could be -- I guess to my understanding that from the canal to Precipice it's a 25 foot grass buffer and we are wondering if trees can go up there, because some of us up here have been living here for over 40 years and so we are used to looking at farmland and so this is quite a change with all the houses going in. So, we are just looking to kind of have some tree buffer, so we don't have to look at the massive roofs and, lastly, just in listening to this now I just want personal input. The homes that were over by the commercial down on the southeast area, there is no way that people would want to look out their front window into a parking lot. That's just my personal opinion. But there has to be some sort of shrubbery, you know, I don't -- I like the idea of putting the road in there, how you have on the right side, but there should be a fence or something. I mean there is one thing about community living, but nobody wants to look at a parking lot, you know. So, thank you. Lorcher: Thank you. Madam Clerk, do we have anybody else for public testimony? Lomeli: Thank you, Madam Chair. I have Melissa Fulkerson. Fulkerson: First time doing this, so -- Lorcher: Okay. State your name and address for the record and you will have three minutes. Fulkerson: Melissa Fulkerson at 298 East Caldera Street, Meridian, Idaho. 83642. Okay. So, I am in the Prevail neighborhood just west to this property. So, my couple 25 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 5,2024 Page 22 of 76 questions are related to the phase six, specifically ensuring that that grass property of what the proposal is stays. Right now that -- the way that our neighborhood is designed there is -- the street above me is a cul-de-sac with an extension. So, up in the -- the grass area where you can kind of see like a little half circle, in the -- the gray area, that is a steeper grade and ensuring that there is -- that retains as a great grassy area and that that does not become a through street, that would be extremely -- I would be extremely concerned with the amount of traffic coming through there and with the way people drive through neighborhoods and with the steep grade there. The other thing that I had a question about -- or would like to understand more is actually the extension of the main street to connect to -- from Meridian to Locust Grove. So, the Quartz Creek that kind of dog legs down and, then, connects over to Locust Grove, I would like to understand more about what that timeline looks like and how that would play into the overall phasing of the project. With that, yes, it's nice and it's nice that it -- it is not just a straight through so people can just speed on through. Again, there is a lot of kids in these neighborhoods. We have a massive amount of kids in our neighborhood and I am nervous about people just speeding through. So, I would like to see some alternative ways to slow down traffic through that area, not just a curve in the street. Thank you. Lorcher: Thank you. Lomeli: Madam Chair, no one else has signed up to testify. Lorcher: Is there anybody in Chambers that would like to testify on this application? Would the applicant come forward and address some of the concerns. McNutt: Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm going to start and, then, Jon Wardle with Brightness is also going to come up and kind of close this out. So, that phase six grassy area that was discussed that, again, is such a steep slope right there I don't think there is any way that we could even put a -- a street through there if we wanted to. So, I would say don't worry about that. That's probably not going to be able to change. Plus that is where we propose our -- our pool and clubhouse. Up against that slope we are going to try to do some cool stuff, maybe a -- a sledding hill or something up there. We haven't fully vetted that, but since it is a slope we are going to try to work with it and -- and make it pretty neat. As far as along Precipice on whether or not we could do some trees, it is something that we can look into. The Farr Lateral does have an easement that, obviously, we would either need some kind of a -- an agreement with them or something to be able to get some trees in there, but if it's -- if it's possible to do that we can definitely look at doing that. As far as on the other side against where the -- the homes will be, there -- there are going to be some trees and other landscape there. I'm going to let Jon speak about the Quartz Creek phasing. I -- I believe there -- there is some other stuff going on with that one, so I will let him speak to that and, then, I think I was missing one of Julie's questions. Oh, about neighbors not wanting to look directly at a -- at a parking lot. You know, I think one thing that a lot of people get hung up on is how they would like to live. To be totally honest, I don't know that I would live there either. I live on a half acre, but there are a lot of people, especially young families with F26] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 5,2024 Page 23 of 76 no kids, who do want to be in a more urbanized area, but still live in Meridian. So, I -- I think it just depends on who you are if you want to live there or not and, you know, everybody's different and entitled to their own opinions of where they live. Frankly, I don't think we would build it if people weren't going to buy those. So, that is something kind of to consider with that, you know, and also to the Precipice length, we certainly would like more roadway connections in there if they were doable. Unfortunately, I think in this case it's just -- it's just not doable with the Williams Pipeline not being able to be raised up and the Farr Lateral not being able to be brought down. So, we are doing what we can in there and with that I'm going to turn it over to Jon Wardle. Wardle: Commissioners, good evening. My name is Jon Wardle. 2929 West Navigator, Meridian, Idaho. 83642. Amanda did a really good job explaining the project. I just want to stand up, because I do have context on the whole project, because I have been here from the very beginning. There was a question raised by Julie about this NAP. When we first started Pinnacle we did not own that part and we titled it NAP, which was not a part. It wasn't a natural preserved area. If you go back and you look at it it was an old farmhouse, farmstead. The area around it was farmed. Yes, there were trees there I'm sure. There has been all sorts of wildlife in and around, but, to be clear, that is not a natural preserve. It was just simply at the time that when we started Pinnacle it was not a part of our ownership, but it is now and so we have brought that into the project and have requested a rezone to match the -- the area that was rezoned around it. Contextually that property was actually brought in by the city when the city extended sewer to the south. There were a number of properties or owners that participated in that and they all came in as an R-4 and, then, when we acquired it we thought we would just wait until this time to bring it in and develop it together. Regarding the -- the question on the open space and Prevail, we were surprised when Prevail phase three was developed and they put a cul-de-sac at the end of that with a stub street coming to us. If you walked out there there is a significant grade between that cul-de-sac on the north, which you can kind of see up here in the upper left corner, there is a little cul-de-sac that was there and, then, the open space down below. We have a number of things going on there, but I can unequivocally commit that we are not developing that other than open space as you see it right now. There is a sewer main line -- the city sewer main line comes through there and makes a hard left over to Prevail. We have the Watkins drain which goes through there. We also have the pipeline that -- which is on the right-hand side of that area and we are trying to make that an amenity with also some slope. We are much lower than the Prevail neighborhood up above and we do not intend to put a road through that area. We did look at a number of different ways to design Precipice along the Farr. It actually does sit -- the roadway does sit below the Farr Lateral some distance already, but -- and there are parts of it which are flat. If you get over to Locust Grove it is pretty flat. But as you move your way west along the lateral and towards the Prevail neighborhood the slope is dramatic and there really is not a way to build a road -- well, anything's possible. You can build a road, but the walls would be significantly tall or you would be tapering at a very long distance. So, the alternatives we came up with were choke points, pedestrian access through. There was another street that was proposed originally that's a public street called Margaret. That's not the connection we are going F27] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 5,2024 Page 24 of 76 to make. It's a little bit farther to the west. And so Precipice is designed that way. That will be an item that we will discuss with Council. It's more of an informational piece for the Commission tonight to make you aware. It wasn't our first design, but it is the best design and there is also opportunities for traffic calming there and pedestrian access back and forth and just, finally, on the part that's down by the commercial, that was not designed in a vacuum either. We looked at two things as one where what are the type of commercial uses that we see happening in that location. The things that we have -- that we have proposed that we are working on right now would include a public fitness facility that we -- that people throughout the community could use. A daycare and a community church. Those would be the elements that would fit we believe on the commercial piece with the residential across the parking lot. Typically the city code states that a 25 foot buffer is to be on the commercial side. Most of the time that you have these residential projects and you have commercial projects that are done by different owners. This case we own both. We are still providing a 25 foot buffer, but it happens to be on the residential side. Fifteen feet of it is in a common lot, which will also include a north-south pedestrian connection, which gets you up into the Williams Pipeline and it will also allow us to plant trees and other things like that. We do not intend to build a fence, but we do intend to make it a very nice livable corridor. We also designed it after a similar project we did in Barber Valley, which is on the east side of Boise. We have townhomes which are right up against an office project separated by a pathway and a parking lot. The dimensions are almost identical. So, yes, maybe not everybody would want to live in this situation, but we feel like it does present an opportunity for a different type of living opportunity at Pinnacle, which we are offering many different types from attached to detached, large lots, small lot, but I think the key to this community Apex Farr is the amount of open space, connectivity. We have been very thoughtful about the pathway system, how this all works together and within the constraints of a lot of topography, pipelines and three or four waterways as well. So, we appreciate your consideration and request your approval and recommendation to the City Council. Lorcher: Commissioners, do we have any questions for Mr. Wardle? Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: Yeah. Just regarding that commercial facing aspect, how do you address parking for the residents? Are there -- do you anticipate there being dedicated parking stalls for each of those residencies in lieu of on-street parking? You know, help me understand that. Wardle: Sorry. Commissioner Smith, hold on one second. Each of the -- we are very aware of the city's requirements for residential parking, so each of the units there will have available parking for themselves, required parking. So, each unit will meet that. We will also have -- and while it doesn't count towards it, but on-street parking. The nice thing is these homes are serviced by a carriage lane or an alley and so you don't -- F28] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 5,2024 Page 25 of 76 you are not contending with driveways on the adjoining road, which is Apex, but, yes, each of the homes will have to provide for its own required parking per the city code. Smith: Thank you. Lorcher: Mr. Wardle, just a follow up. So, the homes that are on -- that lay along the commercial, you said they are alley loaded. So, do they have parking in the alley, so each one has like covered parking or a garage on the backside that you can't see? Wardle: Correct. Each of these homes would have a garage -- two car garage with them. We also are providing a parking space up to the north of that site and we would provide some guest parking as well. Lorcher: So, to understand the concept of this home they will have parking in the back of the alley, so they have no backyard and their front yard really is just kind of a visual. It's not some place that they would probably spend time, because they are looking out at a community church or a daycare or a fitness center; correct? Wardle: Madam Chair, this is actually -- yeah, that is correct. But you want to expand a little bit. They also will all have side yards and private patio areas. We just completed the same type of -- well, these will be a little bit different. These are still paired homes and we just built 56 paired homes in Apex Northwest No. 1. Sorry. Where they were paired homes and they each had their own patio and their own side -- private side yard as well. So, they will have the side yard, that they will be able to use as their private space. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you. Commissioners, any other questions for Mr. Wardle? Thank you. Wardle: Thank you. Lorcher: All right. May I get a motion -- oh, no. No, we are good. No, you are good. Just thinking. I will take a motion to close the public hearing. Grace: So moved. Lorcher: Do I have a second? Smith: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing. All those in favor, please, say aye. Okay. Motion -- motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Lorcher: Anybody like to start on this? F29] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 5,2024 Page 26 of 76 Sandoval: Madam Chair. Lorcher: Commissioner Sandoval. Sandoval: I will keep this pretty short. You are asking for quite a few exemptions. I'm not crazy that there is no screening in between that parking lot. I think -- but I do think likely the windows are going to be placed in the location hopefully that those lights aren't just going to shine right into people's living areas. Working with the constraints you guys are working and the fact that you doubled the open space I think is a huge positive and I think overall it's a pretty good project. Lorcher: Thank you. Commissioner Smith? Smith: Yeah. Madam Chair, thank you. I -- I think to the significant majority of this project I -- I understand some of the -- the requests for -- for the variations and things like that. I'm having a real hard time with -- with this Lot 23 approach. I -- I -- I understand it's -- it looks like it's about ten lots -- or ten -- ten homes. It's not going to make or break, you know, the -- the -- the city as a whole, but I think you owe it to these people to make sure that they are -- you know, the -- the -- the -- the homes that they purchase or rent are -- are livable within a reasonable extent and I -- I -- I don't know that I have ever seen a layout like the existing layout. It -- it doesn't make sense to me for the addressing reasons that the staff mentioned for -- for some of the -- the parking reasons and some of the kind of reasons that Commissioner Grace laid out of, you know, if I want to go to the commercial -- to the commercial section I can still take the crosswalk at the north and south end, but I -- I would prefer to have some of my own space. If that extends my walk to the coffee shop by 30 seconds I'm okay with it. Then, again, that's a personal preference and I understand there might be people with different preferences, but I think there are too many things about this that are just kind of -- no, not that a single one are a red flag, but there are a lot of yellow flags here and I'm not fully comfortable with the existing layout. Lorcher: Thank you. Commissioner Grace. Grace: Thanks, Madam Chair. So, yeah, I think that -- I mean it's a pretty sizable project. There is a lot going on. I like it generally. I don't -- I don't -- I don't love everything in it and, you know, the amenities are great. The open space is great. I appreciate that the applicant, you know, was willing to work with some of the -- the neighbors on the tree buffers. I don't personally have an issue with the modification to that 25 foot buffer. I think that folks who are going to live there are going to have to make an informed decision whether they want to live there and -- and -- and -- and sort of have that commercial space across from them. Everybody's different; right? And, hopefully, those will be, you know, informed decisions when they make them. I have some issue with the requested block lengths I guess. I -- they -- they seem very long. They seem -- it doesn't seem right. I get the constraints of the site. As it relates to those sort of specific variances, if that's what you want to call them, I would support the ones that staff supported. I thought their rationale was good for those. The ones that F30] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 5,2024 Page 27 of 76 maybe -- because of the UDC, at least on one of them, I wouldn't -- I would -- I wouldn't. My question is it looks like we have three things in front of us. We got the plat, we got the rezone and we got the development agreement. You know, can we -- I -- I -- I -- I'm not against those three things, I just is it -- do we just -- what do we do, make our thoughts on some of these specific items known to the -- to the Council, so that they can have a sense of where we were on them? Okay. So -- so, I'm not sure what you take from all that, but -- Lorcher: Okay. Well, I have -- I have a few comments as well. Can -- can we pull up the last slide from the presentation? I think it had a list of the things that were going to be part of the motion. I think they were bullet points at the last slide, please. Allen: Madam Chair, are you asking about the applicant's presentation? Lorcher: What -- is this your last slide here? Allen: This is staff's presentation. Lorcher: Then the applicant's. Is that available to us? Allen: Yes. Lorcher: My two comments would be -- I'm struggling with the crossover from the commercial to the -- to the residential as well. It would have been nice to see your Barber Park displays, because maybe that would help us conceptually with it. My first thought when I think about cars in front of a house -- it almost feels like it's a motel, you know, where you got your front door and you have got cars pulling into a stall, whether they are backing in or fronting in and the headlights are going to come through your front window, you know, if it -- if it's a fitness center that's available 24/7, you know, may or may not be parked over there, but who is -- who is to say? So -- but like Commissioner Grace said, we are not the ones buying them. So, you know, everybody has their own choices as far as that's concerned, but as -- I agree with the city that there should be more of a buffer between the commercial and the residential just to create that kind of space and not having those parking stalls right in front of their houses. Fencing is not necessary, but just having that and walking another ten or 15 feet across that open alley would just give everybody a little bit more wiggle room and, then, secondly, I do have concerns with the streets that are private in which law enforcement or emergency services might get confused on how to get to those people based on addressing. So, you have got your collector street, but, then, you have got a private street that may or may not be the same name and, then, how do you find that place. I live in a -- in a subdivision or a circle and half of the streets have a name going left and the next street is going right, but it's actually the same street and it's -- it's good, because we are a circle, so you -- you eventually get there, but it -- it is relatively confusing. So, I live that every day. So, I -- I am a little bit knowledgeable on that part. So, those would probably be the two things that I would have a problem with, but not to F31 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 5,2024 Page 28 of 76 stop it from going forward to City Council. Sonya, is this the last page of their presentation? Allen: No, but is that the last page you were -- Lorcher: No. I was looking at the bullet points. Allen: Okay. Lorcher: Up a little bit. Right here. So, as a Commission we are looking at a pre-plat. This was a very good slide by the way. Thank you very much. A pre-plat, a rezone -- a rezone and the third thing we are -- and the development agreement modification. So, when we make our motion tonight those would be the three things that we will have to address in our motion. Allen: Madam Chair, may I? Lorcher: Yes. Allen: It is a Council decision. It does not require a recommendation from the Commission on the block face waiver or the waiver to the buffer between the -- on the commercial property to the residential use. You are welcome to say your opinion on those two matters, but it does not require recommendation if you don't wish to make one. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you. Sandoval: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Yes. Sandoval: Yeah. So, I'm looking at this topo map right now of that north section and that's a very challenging grade to work with, so looking at the exemptions and everything that's requested, I think we, hopefully, are all understand -- understanding that, yeah, maybe the commercial to residential isn't great and that can be improved, but I think we should -- my opinion move this forward with a recommendation of approval and, then, let Council decide on all the exemptions. Lorcher: Do we have anybody who wants to put a motion together or -- Grace: Madam Chair, if we are going to put on the record our feelings about some of the requested modifications I guess maybe I thought I was in the minority, so -- on some of those and I don't want to make a motion that doesn't reflect what the Commission would like, so -- I mean I can make a motion, but others felt like, for instance, a 25 foot buffer was okay, so -- and it seemed like that was the majority opinion. 32 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 5,2024 Page 29 of 76 Lorcher: Right. But Sonya also mentioned that that would be a City Council decision. That doesn't have to be in our motion. Grace: Okay. Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: I -- to that I would also be fine, you know, with punting on that, essentially, and not addressing that in the motion, if -- if -- if -- Commissioner Grace, if that makes you feel more comfortable. I don't have that necessarily the -- the paper that got handed out, so I was a little hesitant to make a motion on my end. Lorcher: Again, we are -- we are making a recommendation for a pre-plat, rezone and development modification. Grace: Madam Chair, I can take a stab at a motion then. Lorcher: Commissioner Grace. Grace: Make sure I got the right -- see that, I did not have the right one. After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File No. H-2024-0014 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of September 5th, 2024, with I guess specific recommendations of approval related to the -- the pre-plat proposal, the rezoning request and the -- the DA modification request. Sandoval: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to make -- make a recommendation to City Council on Apex Farr Subdivision with the -- with no modifications. Allen: Madam Chair, may I clarify the motion, please? Lorcher: Yes. Allen: Is -- is that motion based on staffs recommended conditions of approval? Grace: Yes. Allen: Thank you. Lorcher: So, let's repeat it just to be safe. Grace: Okay. So, you want me to read the whole motion again? 33 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 5,2024 Page 30 of 76 Lorcher: Yes, please. Grace: Wow, I barely got through it the first time. After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File No. H- 2024-0014 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of September 5th, 2024, with no modifications and I guess in accordance with staff recommendations and to the extent I need to specifically call out those three -- those three issues that were -- the applicant is requesting those are specifically recommended for approval. Lorcher: Does that work, Kurt? Starman: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, I think that works. I think just to -- to clarify with the maker of the motion, I think that -- that last comment about the three requests you are referring to, the preliminary plat, the modified development agreement -- which, actually, is a Council decision as well, but you are -- you are welcome to make a recommendation, but that's the Council's prerogative and the director is the recommending body. So, I think if you are referring to -- and, then, the rezoning request. So, those are the three items we are referring to, I -- I think that motion works just fine. Lorcher: Okay. All right. I won't make you repeat it again. May I have a second? Sandoval: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to approve File H-2024-0014 with a recommendation to City Council with the aforementioned items. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. 7. Public Hearing for Raising Cane's (H-2024-0006) by Michael O'Reilly, Kimley Horn, located at 2700 N. Eagle Rd. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit to construct a drive-through restaurant with food and drink services including an indoor/outdoor seating area. The drive-through restaurant will be approximately 2,862 gross square feet overall and is one-story in height with landscaping along two perimeter property lines. Lorcher: All right. It is a quarter 8:00 and let me see -- oh, we have a -- let's do one more. We have a conditional use permit for Raising Cane's and we will give everybody a chance to get situated and we will start with the staff report. Ritter: Okay. Good evening, Madam Chair and Commissioners. So, tonight we are here for a conditional use permit request for Raising Cane's. This site consists of 1.46 acres of land, zoned C-G, and it's located at 2700 North Eagle Road. So, the request is F34 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 5,2024 Page 31 of 76 for a conditional use permit to construct a drive through restaurant with food and drink serving -- services, including an indoor and outdoor seating area. The drive through restaurant will be approximately 2,862 gross square feet overall and is one story in height with landscaping along two perimeter property lines. A conditional use permit is required as the proposed drive through is within 300 feet of an existing drive through. The proposed hours of operation being requested through this conditional use permit are Sunday through Thursday with the closing time of 1:30 a.m. Friday and Saturday with a closing time of 3:30 a.m. or as restricted through this CUP process. As proposed the use complies with the zoning for this site and is subject to specific standards listed in 11-3-3-11 of the UDC. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed restaurant. The proposed building design includes composite lumber, brick veneer, metal and aluminum panels. Final design is required to comply with design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual. The applicant shall obtain a certificate of zoning compliance and go through administrative design review approvals before submitting for any building permits with this development. So, the Idaho Transportation Department requested chip generation information to determine what mitigation, if any, may be required to complete. The applicant needs to reach out to ITD to discuss their comments. There was no written testimony for this application and staff recommends approval of this proposed conditional use permit with the conditions outlined in the staff report and so -- excuse me. I need to show you my beautiful slides. I was ready to get this done. So, this is the site plan and this is a landscape plan. This are -- these are the elevations that were submitted and this is an overview of the area. So, at this time staff will stand for any questions that you may have pertaining to this application. Lorcher: Would the applicant like to come forward? Chiles: Hi. My name is Kelli Chiles. Address is 1100 West Idaho Street, Suite 210, Boise, Idaho. 83702. 1 don't know if we have that PowerPoint getting pulled up. Perfect. Apologies. Just making sure we can see it good here. All righty. Good evening, Madam Chair and Commissioners. Tonight we are here talking about the Raising Cane's drive through restaurant. We are requesting a conditional use permit for this project. So, the project team that we have for this project consists of Michael O'Reilly, who is the engineer for this project. Myself, who is helping out in a planning capacity. R.V. Vann, who is joined with us on the phone, who is a representative of Raising Cane's and Marissa Muja, who is the architect for the project also on the phone and should be available to answer any questions tonight. There we go. Are you changing it also? Lorcher: It's a little sensitive. Chiles: I see that. So, the timeline that we took to get to this hearing tonight first started with a pre-app meeting that was held in April of 2024. We, then, rolled into a neighborhood meeting to get community feedback in May. We submitted our applications in May and, then, we are having our Planning and Zoning Commission hearing tonight in September. So, the project is located closest to the cross streets of Ustick and Eagle Road. It is near Gateway Marketplace directly to the north of the site. F35] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 5,2024 Page 32 of 76 The address is 2700 North Eagle Road. This is a more zoomed in picture of the area. It consists of 1.46 acres and is located within the Sessions Parkway Subdivision, which on the next slide I have an overall view of just to show what's going -- this property was recently subdivided, so the Raising Cane's restaurant will be in this Lot 1. These associated improvements in roads are currently under construction in the final plat for that will be recording soon. So, the future land use map for this site is designated as mixed-use regional, which is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan as it calls for commercial land use to provide a mix of employment, retail, residential dwellings and public uses near -- near major arterial intersections. The site is zoned general retail and service commercial, in which a drive through restaurant is a permitted use. Like staff mentioned, a conditional use permit is required because the drive through will be located within 300 feet of another drive through and that drive through that qualifies us is located north of our site in one of those shopping centers. This is our proposed site plan. You can see on this site now -- on the screen now we are proposing a one story 2,862 square foot building. We will be providing two entrances into the site that travel both ways and those will be located off of the internal access road that's being built as a part of the subdivision. We will be providing two drive-through lanes, as well as a bypass lane for people to exit the drive through if they need to early for any reason at all. We are also providing a 35 foot landscape buffer along Eagle Road, as well as a ten foot landscape buffer to the north of the site adjacent to the internal access road. We are also providing 35 parking spaces and the required amount of parking spaces is seven. So, we are well exceeding those requirements. These are some of the conceptual elevations we are suggesting for this site. As you can see the exterior is a mixture of brick and wood veneer. So, we had a chance to review the staff report ahead of time and we are good with all the conditions as they were written in the staff report. The next step in our process is this certificate of zoning compliance. So, the staff will have another chance to provide us feedback and -- and take a look at all the specific items that we are proposing. We did mention already that ITD had a condition that we needed to work with them on the trip generation that this site will be generating and we will comply with all those conditions as well. So, lastly, Raising Cane's would just like to say that this is their first location in Idaho and they are very excited to be in this market. So, they are excited and so we request approval of the conditional use permit. Thank you so much and I stand for any questions. Lorcher: Thank you. Commissioners, do we have any questions for the applicant? Sandoval: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Sandoval. Sandoval: Quick question for the applicant. That east-west sidewalk -- I'm assuming that's a sidewalk. What is the width? Is that a six foot? That goes straight through the center. Chiles: This guy right here? F36] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 5,2024 Page 33 of 76 Sandoval: Yes. Chiles: I'm assuming five foot, but I might have to double check that number. Sandoval: Okay. And, then, does it connect to anything on the far east side? Chiles: So, there will be a -- a crosswalk through that -- through the drive through that leads up to the -- the sidewalks kind of around the building and that was one of the conditions that was noted in the staff report that that crosswalk should have differing materials, so people going through the drive through can understand that that's a crosswalk a little bit clearer. Sandoval: Okay. And last question. Is there going to be any kind of bike parking along that east side of the building or anywhere on the patio? Chiles: Yeah. That -- that is actually another one of the conditions in the staff report that we plan to comply with. Sandoval: Okay. Thank you. Grace: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Grace. Grace: Kelli, you said that there was a neighborhood -- you had your neighborhood meeting in May. Did you get any feedback from neighbors? Chiles: I wasn't personally present, but based on the no's I'm -- nope. Grace: I'm not completely an old -- an old curmudgeon, but 3:30 a.m. on Fridays and Saturdays, is that pretty -- is that your business model? Chiles: So, that is Raising Cane's preferred hours of operations that they have seen in other markets. So, they would like to keep that amount of flexibility if this market does end up demanding that. They -- I think the intent there would be to back those hours off if the market doesn't actually work for that in this area. Grace: I just -- I don't know of any other establishment or restaurant or anything that's -- that's around there on Eagle Road that's going to be open that late. Maybe there are, but I wonder if it's -- if it has a potential turn out as a place for people to gather that late and directly east of the site are those projected to be multi-family apartments? Chiles: Yeah. So, what's existing -- so just east of the screen is a multi-family. This -- these three parcels that you see on the screen directly to the east of us is proposed to be a hotel. 37 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 5,2024 Page 34 of 76 Grace: Say that again. Chiles: A hotel. Grace: Directly in these lots -- Chiles: To the east. So, yeah, you see like Lots 3, 4 and 5. Those -- those are being combined to be one hotel. Grace: Okay. All right. Thank you. Lorcher: Madam Clerk, do we have anybody signed up for -- to testify? Lomeli: Thank you, Madam Chair. We have Perry Coles. Lorcher: Hi. Coles: Good evening. Perry Coles. I represent East River Valley Street, LLC, and Copper Canary Fine Jewelry. We are adjacent to this project. Lorcher: Can I have your address, please? Coles: 2590 North Eagle Road. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you. Coles: You are welcome. I would like to be able to get on the screen if we can -- or, actually, it is on the screen. Thank you. Where we are located is -- you see Block 1, where -- where Raising Cane's is going in you have a vacant lot below it and, then, just on the other side of that road is where we are. Lorcher: Okay. Coles: We recently had our entrance closed on Eagle Road and our new entrance is now a right-turn lane going -- going around the north part of our building. Okay? And, then, it goes into our parking lot. If I can see -- see that again real quick. Lorcher: We are going to -- Coles: I'm sorry. Oh. Okay. That's fine. Anyway, I will -- I will just go on real -- real quick. What we are concerned with is we are concerned about the amount of traffic. They are -- they are -- you are going to be turning right around their -- their development into that backage road. That backage road connects pretty much to our parking lot and I'm very familiar with Raising Cane's. I came from southern California. I had one in my neighborhood. They are very successful. They are very busy. You know, I think it's wonderful that they are a successful business, but they have people backed up in their F38] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 5,2024 Page 35 of 76 drive throughs and onto the street and I -- they look to me where they have the feeling to me like a Chick-fil-A. So, they are a very busy business and I know this is the first time they are coming to Idaho. Most of the people I have talked to are not familiar with them. I'm very familiar, because I lived in a neighborhood for years. When they came in and I saw what happened. What I'm really worried about is I'm worried about the backage road and all the cars coming around and the fact is they are going to -- these cars are going to back up, maybe even up to Eagle Road and, then, once people get smart they are going to -- they are going to come on the other side of -- which -- which is the right turn lane around our building and they are going to come into that backage road the other way. That backage road is not -- is not wide enough. The roads leading into the right turn lanes are not wide enough for the amount of traffic that's going to go. It's not just their business, but right behind them as -- as the developer mentioned, is going to be a Wyndham hotel of over 120 or 30 units. So, that's all dumping on that same road and, then, you have a 330 unit apartment complex dumping on that road right behind the hotel spot and -- and, then, they have -- they have added a connection next to -- just to the south of the new apartments going in and there is another apartment complex right next to it and they have allowed access onto that same road, too. Okay. And, then, you have an empty lot yet, which still isn't developed. You have way too many commercial, you know, businesses and facilities going onto this area and I'm -- what I'm really worried about is I'm very worried about us -- we only have one way out now and that's right on to that -- those roads and so I'm worried about my employees, I'm worried about my customers and you are just going to be free fall and I'm worried about potential accidents, people getting hurt. There is just way too much going on in that particular area and the roads need to be widened. Something needs to happen. I'm not against the development by all means. I'm surrounded by empty lots and they are developing around me and I'm okay with that. It's just what is being proposed here is just, you know, it's just crazy what's going to happen there. There is just too -- there is too many people, too many cars and too much developing on a small -- a small backage road and the right turn lanes -- both right turn lanes aren't adequate either for that amount of traffic. Lorcher: All right. Thank you very much. Coles: Okay. Thank you. Lorcher: Madam Clerk? Lomeli: Madam Chair, Robert Vann raised his hand online if he would like to speak. Lorcher: Mr. Vann, please, state your name and address for the record? I see your microphone has a line across it, so I don't think we can hear you. Well, I know we can't hear you. Vann: Can you hear me now? Lorcher: Yes. F39] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 5,2024 Page 36 of 76 Vann: Okay. I apologize for that. My name is Robert Vann. I go by R.V. and my address is 6800 Bishop Road, Plano, Texas. 75024. Madam Chair and Commission, I -- I appreciate you all's time and thank you very much for hearing our CUP tonight. I had raised my hand earlier when Kelli was speaking with regard to the hours of operation and I wanted to explain that a little bit. We asked for that and if -- obviously, if our business doesn't demand that time we won't stay open until 3:30 in the morning. If -- if the business shows it's 11:30, 12:00, 1:00 o'clock, yeah, we will -- we will close, because there is, obviously, no reason for us to stay open. But what we -- we -- we ask for that time, so that in the event -- you know, as opposed to asking for a -- let's just say midnight, but, then, we find out, you know, at midnight we still have a demand, we can't stay open past midnight. So, you know, we are not going to -- we are not going to -- we are not going to stay open. There won't be loud music playing and if it's not -- we don't -- we don't create an environment or a habitat for people just to come hang out just because we are open. If -- if we need to close we will close. So, I just wanted to make that clear. That's the reasoning for asking for those times. Those are our standard times. But, again, if there is no demand we will not -- we will not stay open. So, I hope that answers your question. Lorcher: All right. Thank you very much. Madam Clerk? Lomeli: Madam Chair, no one else has signed up. Lorcher: Would the applicant -- oh, is there somebody in Chambers that would like to speak? Will you come up to the microphone. Please state your name and -- we are very formal here. So, please, state your name and address -- Hein: My name is Kristy Hein. I live at 3933 North Amberwood Avenue. Quick comment to add on to the gentleman that owns a jewelry store and with a map already up there I travel Eagle Road everyday home from work and I can tell you right now I think it's a very poor location choice for this restaurant. I am, too, from California, very familiar with this chain. Visited -- a big fan of it, so not anti the chain at all. Just think it's a very poor location and I -- I feel it's going to be a huge safety risk. Being a frequent traveler of this road I can tell you right now according to the map when you see the jewelry store, which is on there and it's going to be adjacent to the proposed Raising Cane's, the gentleman does have really valid concerns because that portion of Eagle Road, as you are probably aware, it has the two lanes and it does have that third lane right there on the far right that does go out. It is a right turn only lane that a lot of people -- what they do is once they pass that East River Valley Road they rush through the signal light and they try to bypass the traffic, even though they know it's going out and, then, they try to cut into the traffic at the last minute. So, I would say if you are going to propose -- or if you are going to approve that location or consider it -- and, again, it's not going to be possible that it -- it wouldn't have to -- it -- it couldn't have access out to Eagle Road, because that would be foolish, because it would be a right turn only into a lane that's already going out. It's not a lane that anyone goes through. So, you already have a lane that already creates traffic hazards as it is. It forces you to turn right into the parking lot with Five Guys and Servpro. So, to me you are asking for additional F40] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 5,2024 Page 37 of 76 accidents. You are asking for increased traffic. It's a -- to me it's -- it's a very dangerous location for this particular type of development. I think there is a more appropriate location for it. This is asking for a lot of trouble. It's going to create additional traffic on Records Avenue, which is already 25 mile per hour one lane each way. I -- I think it's going to cause a disaster and that's just my two cents on this. Thank you. Lorcher: All right. Thank you very much. Anybody else in Chambers would like to testify? Please come up to the podium. Hi. Please state your name and address for the record. Vrba: I'm Jeff Vrba. I live at 3005 North LeBlanc Way in Meridian, Idaho. Lorcher: Thank you. Vrba: Our house is just basically west of that item going through there. I do drive that road every day. I am all for Raising Cane's going in there. I know you guys probably don't hear that enough in there, but, yes, I agree there might be some traffic issues, but that -- we need to work with the Ada County Highway District to either block those lanes off or something else going in there. I prefer that going in there than the hotel that they were mentioning that's going in behind there with another 120 some cars that could be possibly going through that area on a daily basis. Raising Cane's I -- is -- once again it's limited. It's not going to be busy during major rush hours all the time. It's throughout the entire day, so the traffic's not going to be as bad as the next item we are going to be talking about, so I appreciate your time. Thank you, Madam Chair and Commissioners. Lorcher: Thank you very much. Anybody else in Chambers have a comment? Please come up to the podium. Hi. State your name and address for the record, please. Stern: Sure. Doug Stern. 2793 North Centrepoint. Lorcher: Okay. Stern: 1, too, am not here for this particular, but I will -- I'm here for the debacle that's coming after this. I worked for Jack-in-the-Box for 35 years before I moved here and opened up our business. Anybody who thinks that a restaurant open until 3:30 in the morning is not going to attract kids and be a hangout has not worked in the fast food industry. So, I mean we were open 24 hours when I worked for them and that's all that came in -- that finally ended, but the people who say nothing good happens after midnight -- I mean if my grandson thought I was saying anything negative about Raising Cane's he would never talk to me again, but -- and I'm all for it to be there, but I think you should think about the hours. Lorcher: Thank you. Anybody else in Chambers would like to speak? Would the applicant like to come forward and address some of the concerns. Actually, comments I suppose. There were many. Hi. Please state your name and address for the record. F41 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 5,2024 Page 38 of 76 O'Reilly: Hello, Madam Chair and Commissioners. Michael O'Reilly with Kimley Horn. My address is 1100 West Idaho Street, Boise, Idaho. 83702. Lorcher: Thank you. O'Reilly: I just wanted to speak quickly to address some of the traffic concerns that were mentioned. So, a few items. There was a traffic study done with the Sessions Parkway Subdivision. An overall traffic study. And it did contemplate a restaurant with a drive through use and so that traffic study was done in coordination with ITD and the city and, you know, they had to install the improvements that were required for that. So, this use is very compatible with that traffic study, was already contemplated, which was one of the reasons why the new right turn lane went in just north of our site and so it's -- it's something that's been contemplated. Also we are right by Eagle Road, which is, you know, a main thoroughfare. It's where this use is intended to go, honestly. I mean it is a well-trafficked road. I drive it every day. I live right by it, but it's -- it's the kind of -- of area where this use is supposed to be, you know, and that's why it's zoned and -- and allowed; right? So, I just wanted to point that out. Also Raising Cane's tries to do a very good job with their reputation in the community. They try and come in and work well with everyone. If needed they employ off-duty officers for traffic control and just trying to -- to merge seamlessly there. So, I think Raising Cane's wants to see this operate well as -- as much as the rest of us; right? They plan on doing more stores in Idaho and don't want this to be a -- a -- a traffic debacle. So, just want to address some of those concerns. And, then, also point out that our operating hours don't start until 9:30 in the morning, which is after the peak hour. So, in one way it's not really affecting one of the most travel times a day and so just want to point those items out and see if you guys had any other questions. Lorcher: All right. Thank you very much. Grace: Madam Chair, can I ask a question? Lorcher: Yes. Grace: Michael, the comments about Raising Cane's being a busy restaurant to the point that it -- it could look -- you know, it could have lots of backed up traffic in the drive through and look like some other places I have seen. In your experience with your other locations is that accurate? O'Reilly: It's certainly a busy restaurant. I mean it's a successful restaurant. I think you have heard that a lot of people are excited about it, including myself. But I think with this site layout there is a lot of queuing allowed. We have the double lanes and the emergency escape lane, as well as on-site queuing. So, we don't anticipate stacking out into the shared drive, much less out toward Eagle. F42 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 5,2024 Page 39 of 76 Grace: And -- and maybe this is what you are getting at, but do you take measures to manage that traffic, like some restaurants have people -- employees walking out and doing things. Do you take -- O'Reilly: Right. Yeah. During high use hours they will have the employees with the tablets walking, moving traffic along very quickly and efficiently. You know, multiple lanes open to do that to speed up the ordering. As I stated before, if needed they do employ, like I said, off-duty officers who are used for traffic control, although we don't anticipate that with this location. But, yes, they do try and move everyone through efficiently and keep things from being clogged. Grace: Okay. Thank you. Lorcher: Have you had a conversation with the jewelry store next door to be able to address some of his concerns? O'Reilly: Unfortunately we haven't. We did have the neighborhood meeting and there was no attendees, so we -- we weren't able to address it at that point, nor when we got the staff report was there any comments in there that we saw, at least at the time when we received it. Honestly, those concerns seem to be a little bit more of a -- a global concern, you know, with -- with all of the -- with the development as a whole and not necessarily a one parcel. You know, ITD closing that access is consistent with their goal to reduce access points onto a major street like Eagle, which in the end is better for -- for collisions, because you have fewer accesses, but it does put -- put more traffic onto the accesses you have. That's not really a Cane's decision or something we are involved with. Lorcher: Okay. Commissioners, do you have any other questions for the applicant? All right. Thank you very much. O'Reilly: Thank you. Lorcher: Can I get a motion to close the public hearing? Smith: So moved. Grace: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for Raising Cane's. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Starman: Madam Chair, I wonder if I could take just a moment. I think this might be helpful for the Commission and perhaps for our audiences as well, the members of the public, but I just want to take a moment to kind of frame the issues before the F43] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 5,2024 Page 40 of 76 Commission. So, this is one of those projects -- number one, you are the decision making body tonight, so you will make the decision as to whether to grant this CUP and under what conditions, but it's also one of these projects that was -- has a lot of entitlements in place already. So, it has a development agreement that allows certain things to happen on this site. It has zoning in place that allows certain things to happen on this site and so it has a plat that contemplates uses of this nature. So, this property is well into the entitlement process. It's before you tonight because it -- this particular applicant is looking for a drive through that's within 300 feet of another drive through, therefore, our code says we need to go through a CUP process. By this point to make sure we understood the context that this -- this site has been heavily entitled up to this point in time. To some of the concerns you heard tonight, however, I would say that's exactly what a CUP is for. If you have -- you know, if you foresee potential problems or issues or constraints with the site, that's your prerogative as Commissioners is to place conditions on this permit that says to make the site work well, you know, the site layout or other conditions, that you may want to place to make sure it functions correctly, that's all within your purview, but I primarily want to make the point that this site is largely entitled today for uses just like this. The conditional use permit process is really to put some -- some side boards on that to make sure it functions well and you can make some tweaks to site designs and things of that nature, but it's not really a question of whether, you know, the use of this nature goes in there or not, it's what conditions would be placed around it to make sure it works well. Lorcher: Thank you for the clarification. Where did we leave off? Oh, we are talking about it. Commissioners, do we have any comments about Raising Cane's? Sandoval: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Sandoval. Sandoval: Is it too late to ask staff a question? I know I should have done that a little earlier. May I? Lorcher: Go ahead. Sandoval: Two questions. One is the other drive through directly north or is it a different one south of the proposed project? Ritter: Can you see my cursor? Sandoval: Yes. Ritter: There is a Firehouse Sub right here. Sandoval: Okay. Thank you. Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Sandoval. F44 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 5,2024 Page 41 of 76 Sandoval: So, from what I see there is a pretty good divide there and that would be the only reason that we would be doing this CUP was that 300 feet. That's my understanding at least. I do disagree a little bit with Commissioner Grace as far as the hours and that is solely because I travel all the time and I wake up at 3:00 a.m. every morning and I'm the only thing that's awake. So, as far as hours I'm much more flexible to market conditions, especially when there is going to be a hotel directly abutting it or adjacent to it. I think that's a pretty smart use, especially if you are traveling from out of town and the only thing that's open is a gas station. You are probably going hungry that night, as I have many times. So, overall, I -- I think we should approve it and I don't think we really need to place any conditions on it. I'm open to hearing what the other Commissioners have to say about it though. Lorcher: Thank you. Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: Thank you. I -- I -- I agree pretty -- one to one with Commissioner Sandoval's thoughts around the time -- timing especially. I think, you know, as someone who is also a bit more of a night owl in -- in daily life, sometimes you are trying -- you realize that 11:59 p.m. that you haven't eaten that day or you haven't eaten, you know, since breakfast or something like that and it's nice for there to be some options and I think there is -- given the time that a lot of other things close, I think it's -- it's -- it's -- there is a potential, especially here a hotel and on -- on a major street, I think there is value to kind of being willing to -- to kind of see how -- the results of this. I think Raising Cane's -- I can -- I can confirm. I'm also someone who is originally from southern California, but I can confirm what the applicant said of Raising Cane's properties have always been well maintained, the ones that I have seen and I -- I haven't seen any of the kind of deterioration or -- or lack of care that -- that might invite some more, you know, gathering or -- or -- or some -- some seedy behavior or things like that and so I think if there is -- if there is an applicant to kind of test the waters on this, the -- the type of applicant like Raising Cane's is -- I think is -- is more in line with what I would expect to be able to responsibly fit those -- those -- those needs from what I have seen in my -- my personal experience. So, it's not the end of the world if we want to set some restrictions if that's where the majority lies, but I would be fine without those restrictions on that. Lorcher: I guess my only comments are -- this is a flagship store for this chain and so if it goes poorly, then, that limits their marketability for the rest of the state. So, I have a feeling that everything is going to be done very well and I'm sure you are going to be a good neighbor and move things along. Eagle Road is a thoroughfare and it's designed for businesses. ITD is asking you to do some mitigations, so as they connect with you I'm sure you will be compatible to that. So, I'm in favor of it well. Do you have any comments, Commissioner Grace? F45 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 5,2024 Page 42 of 76 Grace: Madam Chair, just that I don't know if it's -- I just -- what I don't want to see is what I see in other places right around Eagle Road, maybe a little bit further south, with cars backing up forever. I -- I do -- I can empathize with the folks that are going to be living and working in those streets -- not Eagle Road necessarily, but those streets that are right around there, because if it's as busy as what I'm hearing, you got to find a place to put those vehicles and -- but I also would say if you -- if-- if you -- if Eagle Road is not the right place for this I don't know what is. This -- there is probably no other better great place for this kind of activity. The hours I think will probably adjust themselves. I'm not as concerned. But, you know, Doug's comments are well -- are well taken about what goes on after midnight. But we are -- we got to grow up and we got to -- you know, if -- if things need to be -- you know, as a city and as a community and if things need to be open later that's fine. I do -- I am concerned about the -- the traffic. I just don't know what you do to address it, other than telling people they just can't wait in line, which I'm not prepared to do, so I -- overall I probably would not be voting against this. Lorcher: Okay. Well, I confirmed with our city attorney that I am allowed to give a motion. So, after considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File No. H-2024-0021 as presented in the staff report -- no, that's not right. File No. H- 2024-0006 as presented the staff report with no modifications. Grace: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to approve Raising Cane's File 2024-0006 with no modifications. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Lorcher: Everybody who is in the Chambers I know that you have been waiting very patiently and we appreciate that, but can we have a five minute break just to gather ourselves for a moment and we will take the last application. Okay? Thanks. (Recess: 8:25 p.m. to 8:31 p.m.) 8. Public Hearing for Centrepoint Apartments (H-2024-0019) by Nicolette Womack, Kimley-Horn, located at 3030 N. Cajun Lane and 3100 N. Centrepoint Way, near the southwest corner of N. Eagle Rd. and E. Ustick Rd. A. Request Modified Development Agreement to amend the existing Development Agreement (DA) (Inst. # 2022-079000) for the purpose of updating the concept plan, building elevations and certain DA provisions to increase the number of dwelling units from 215 to 295. F46] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 5,2024 Page 43 of 76 B. Request: Conditional Use to construct a 295-unit multi-family affordable apartment project consisting of five (5) four-story structures. C. Request: Alternative Compliance(s) to deviate for the parking lot landscaping and multi-family common open space design standards set forth in UDC 11-313-8C and 11-4-3-27C. Lorcher: All right. Thank you for your patience. I appreciate it. All right. The final item on the agenda is H-2024-0019 -- is a request for a modification to the development agreement, conditional use permit, for multi-family housing and alternative compliance for Centrepoint Apartments. We will start with the staff report. Ritter: Well, good evening again. So, tonight we are here for, again, an alternative compliance conditional use permit and modification to the development agreement for Centrepoint Apartments. The site consists of 9.99 acres of land. It's zoned C-G and it's located at 3100 Centrepoint Way. So, the modifications to the existing development agreement and conditional use permit to facilitate the construction of a 279 unit multi- family affordable apartment complex. This proposal strictly pertains to the residential component of the approved development plan. The applicant is also requesting alternative compliance to the open space and parking lot landscaping. So, for the alternative compliance the applicant -- applicant is requesting a reduction in the qualified open space as the applicant is deficient by 8,940 square feet. They are also requesting alternative compliance for the removal of parking lot islands under the covered parking internal to the parking lots. The applicant is requesting the following modifications to the development agreement and CUP. They want to modify the CUP to increase the building height to 45 feet, instead of limiting it to three stories. They want to increase the number of units from 215 to 279, which is an increase of 64 additional units. So, this site encompasses one parcel located south of East Ustick Road. The parcel was part of a development agreement modification and conditional use permit application in 2019 that removed the subject parcel from an existing development agreement for the purpose of entering into a new development agreement with a new conceptual plan and building elevations. So, the first request was for a new athletic club and spa and indoor recreation facility, Villa Sports. The CUP approval for the indoor recreation facility has since expired and the property was sold. The current CUP and development agreement was approved to construct the mixed-use development consistent of commercial space and a 215 unit multi-family development in lieu of an athletics club slash spa and commercial building. The proposed CUP and DA modification proposes a deed restricted affordable multi-family development with the 279 units. So, the submitted conceptual plan depicts five multi-family buildings with internal access. The multi-family is split into three four story buildings on the larger area of the site east of Centrepoint Way, one four story building west of Centrepoint Way and one four story building on the east side of Cajun Lane. The submitted landscape plan shows a 25 foot landscape buffer along the west and southern perimeters of the property according to the specific use standards for multi-family development. Common open space may not be counted toward the required minimum when it is adjacent to it -- F47] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 5,2024 Page 44 of 76 excuse me. The applicant has proposed a common open space here, but according to our UDC common open space may not be counted towards the required minimum when it is adjacent to arterials, unless approved through the CUP process. Therefore, the proposed open space shown may not be allowed as qualified open space if the Planning Commission and City Council do not approve it in its current location. This is concerning, because at the Commission -- for the applicant it may be concerning, because if the Commission does not approve the proposed site plan and open space will further diminish when combined with the minimum open space standards and revisions would likely be needed. So, the previously approved CUP and development agreement modification -- again, it had a maximum of 215 units. It limited the building height to three stories. It met the intent of the open space requirements. It provided the following qualifying amenities. It had a clubhouse with a business lounge, plaza areas, a swimming pool, a fitness facility, an outdoor kitchen, a dog run, a micropath system, sports courts and a bicycle repair room. All of the proposed amenities, except for the dog run, were located within the central open space area or part of the -- of the three central buildings. So, this was a previous approved plan. So, all of your amenities were located in this area, except for the dog run. The proposed amendment to the CUP and development agreement, they are asking for 279 units. They are requesting four stories and increasing the building height to 45 feet -- does not meet the open space requirement, because it's deficient by 8,940 square feet. The applicant is asking for alternative compliance for the qualified open space requirement stating that the site is irregular, has a unique targeted demographic of an affordable housing community, has significant indoor and outdoor passive and active amenities, and excellent connectivity to public parks within walking distance. Although the project is located less than one mile from Charles F. McDevitt Youth Sports Complex, Julius Kleiner Memorial Park, Champion Park, the residents would have to cross either Ustick Road, a residential arterial, or Eagle Road, a state highway, to assess them -- to access them. So, the proposed following qualifying amenities that are being proposed is the clubhouse with the fitness facility, a children's play structure, a dog park with a waste station, a shaded picnic area with barbecue grills, tables, benches and landscaping shaded plaza courtyard with activity lawn, a micropath system, sports court and a bicycle repair area. The sports court and the dog park are located near Cajun Lane, so this is the sports court and the dog park area here. Based on the analysis staff feels the applicant is proposing too many units for the development to be compliant with the comprehensive planning UDC requirements. Staff feels that the proposal to lose the parallel parking along the north property line and relocate the open space away from Ustick Road, an arterial, it would be a nice addition to the community. So, the applicant is proposing a reduction of the 35 foot wide landscape buffer along Ustick Road, up to a 50 percent reduction down to 17 and a half feet as allowed with the implementation of water conserving designs. Staff has no objection to the applicant's request to provide water conserving designs for the -- for the street buffer along Ustick Road. The applicant is proposing alternative compliance to remove parking lot islands beneath the covered parking areas within development. Instead the applicant plans to install solar carports, which will serve as the green infrastructure amenity by providing an alternative power source for development and its residence. The solar carports would also fulfill the requirement for covered parking and help reduce the heat impact of the surface parking F48] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 5,2024 Page 45 of 76 lot. So, according to the applicant the removal of the parking islands under the solar carports will enhance solar panel efficiency by improving daylight captured and reducing maintenance tasks, such as cleaning leaves and debris and replacing plants or trees. Additionally, the solar carports are expected to offset utility costs for the residents. The applicant also knows that despite the removal of these islands the overall landscape buffer percentage does not decrease, as the buffers along the east side of Centrepoint Way exceeds the city code requirements. All -- all uncovered parking will continue to comply with the requirements of the parking lot islands. As far as landscape buffers adjacent to the uses, as stated before there is a 25 foot landscape buffer along here and along here for the residential portion of the -- that's adjacent to the neighborhood to the south and to the west and the applicant is also providing an eight foot masonry wall that -- along the west side of the property. So, staff finds the proposed landscape buffer adjacent to the resident neighborhood meets the requirement of the UDC and requires a detail of the masonry wall to be submitted for review with their certificate of zoning compliance application. So, we will go back to the open space. So, the proposed project will include 104,345 square feet of qualified open space, which is 8,940 square feet less than required. Again, the applicant is asking for alternative compliance for the qualified open space requirements, state -- again stating that the site is irregular, has a unique targeted demographic of affordable housing, has significant indoor and outdoor path, active amenities and excellent housing community. Connectivity to public parks within walking distance. So, the project also again includes an extensive network of pedestrian oriented pathways, including the outer loop around the entire project with internal connections to various amenities for the project allowing for free movement of pedestrians throughout the site. So, there are pathways being proposed around the site. The Comprehensive Plan goal is for developments to plan for safe, attractive and well maintained neighborhoods that have ample open space and generous amenities that provide varied lifestyle choices. The Comprehensive Plan's goal emphasizes the importance of safe, attractive and well maintained neighborhoods, again, with ample open space amenities. Reducing these elements regardless of the parcel shape or targeted demographic contradicts the plan standards. Furthermore, the applicant is increasing the density of the site beyond what was previously approved, understanding they are also reducing the open space. Adequate open space and amenities are fundamental to maintaining the vibrancy and functionality of a neighborhood. Adhering to the comprehensive plan ensures development contributes positively to the community and upholds the quality of life for its residents. It's important to recognize that proximity to parks and sports complexes does not fully address the need for accessible and usable open space within neighborhoods. Even though the project is less than a mile from the parks that were mentioned earlier, residents would still face challenges of crossing major arterial roads to reach these amenities. Pedestrians and bicycle crossings of these major roadways adversely affect signal performance and signal timing and is one of the stated reasons for mixed-use areas analysis to not include areas bisected by major roadways. This can be a significant barrier particularly for families with young children, elderly residents, or those without convenient transportation options. And this is the area that we talked about earlier that would require approval through this conditional use permit. They would need to -- if they were allowed to keep this here they would need to berm it, provide at least a four foot berm F49 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 5,2024 Page 46 of 76 along here, but as presented it's not approved by our UDC. As for parking, all street parking for the multi-family development is required to be provided per the table in our UDC based on the number of bedroom units. The applicant is proposing 279 units, consisting of 139 one bedroom units, 105 two bedroom units and 35 three bedroom units. In addition, one guest space for every ten units is required. Based on the total number of units and their bedroom count distribution, a minimum of 552 parking spaces, with a minimum of 279 of these spaces to be covered in a garage or by a carport. In addition to meeting the minimum off-street parking the current development agreement Council was not comfortable with the parking areas west of Centrepoint Way and expressed a desire for all the buildings to be self parked within their respective areas of the site. The previous application provided documents taking show -- documentation showing the buildings to be self-parked within their respective areas of the site. Although the buildings within the proposed development are not self-parked within their prospective areas of the -- as shown in the table, the proposal meets the parking requirement in the UDC. The applicant -- based on the parking provided by the applicant this area to the east -- part of the parking is on the parcel to the east that is the commercial parking. The applicant will either need to enter into a shared agreement -- shared parking agreement with the property to the east of Building C or do a property boundary adjustment to have all the parking stalls on their property, just so that there is no issue if this parcel sells -- right now it's under common ownership and we know that the applicant for the affordable housing is looking at purchasing this and so at this point it will be under different ownership, so we will need some type of shared parking agreement or a property boundary line adjustment for this proposal. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for this proposed multi-family building. The applicant is requesting a design exception of the reduced articulation of the building facade and the omission of the masonry along the base of the building. This is an administrative decision to be determined by the director. Final design will be required to comply with the design standards of the architectural manual and recorded agreement unless otherwise waived by the community director through a design exception request. The applicant is requesting a modification to the DA to increase the building height from three stories to 45 feet. Staff feels in order to obtain cohesiveness with the surrounding areas the building height should remain as shown on the proposed concept plan. So, basically, what we are saying is that the building should not be higher than 41 feet as being proposed. Again, the applicant is requesting a modification to the existing development agreement again to include the following changes. They are updating language and proposed concept plans. Increasing the building height to 45 feet and removing the limitation of three stories. They are increasing the number of units from 215 to 279, which -- again which is an increase of 279 units. So, the city did receive written testimony. We had seven written testimony in opposition to the development. So, these are just pictures of the site. This is the site. This is looking west. I can't see my own screen. This is from Eagle Road looking south. This is from Centrepoint looking east. This is from Ustick Road looking south. And this is from the drive aisle that connects to Cajun Lane looking east. So, with the conditions that we have outlined in the staff report staff recommends approval of this project and at this time I will stand for any questions that City Council -- that the Commission may have. F50] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 5,2024 Page 47 of 76 Lorcher: Would the applicant like to come forward? Hi. Please state your name and address for the record. Huber: I am Chase Huber. 37532 Southeast Fury Street, Snoqualmie, Washington. Womack: Nicolette Womack. 1100 West Idaho Street, Boise, Idaho. 83702. Lorcher: Thank you. Huber: Powerpoint pulled up? First of all, thank you to the Commissioners and everyone in attendance tonight for allowing us to present this project to you. Centrepoint Apartments is a proposed 279 unit affordable housing community located at the corner of Eagle and Ustick Road. Over the course of tonight's presentation we will cover details regarding the development proposal. Next slide. First introduction to Devco. Devco Residential Group is a vertically integrated affordable housing developer based in Bellevue, Washington. Devco has been developing affordable housing in the state of Washington for the better part of the last 30 years and is the largest affordable housing owner in the state of Washington, with a portfolio of over 10,000 units. Three years ago Devco began its expansion outside of Washington and our first new construction project was recently delivered in Boise. The Arbor is 112 unit affordable housing community off of Franklin Road. That opened in August. Here is some photos. This slide describes our project at a high level. The project will be deed restricted, offering income restricted units at varying AMI levels, with an average income of 60 percent of the area median income. It will offer units dedicated to families with one, two and three bedrooms and will contain green components for energy and water conservation, including solar carports, energy efficient compliances and water wise landscaping and fixtures. As we detailed on the prior slide, this project will be deed restricted, meaning that the affordable housing restrictions will be recorded with the land and will be in place for a period of 40 years. The project is income restricted, meaning that our rents are based on the -- on the area median income for Ada county and tenants will need to income qualify to live within the community. Below is a chart that details the difference between our proposed maximum rents and the comparable rents of two projects that are close neighbors, The Village Apartments and the Regency at River Valley. As you can see -- go back. As you can see our project grants are significantly lower than the competing market rents in the area, giving our future residents the opportunity to live in this great area without the significant rent burden that similar projects would require. Finally, the income restricted nature of our project will require residents to income qualify for the project. We expect our project to offer units -- the income band for families making between 35,000 and 60,000 per year. When we identify a project we typically hire a third-party consultant to provide a market study to help us better understand the affordable housing need in any given market. The information provided on this slide has been pulled by a market study conducted by Novogradac in March of 2024 and is focused on the primary market area displayed in the photograph. The primary market area looks at data within a four mile radius of our proposed site. The market study identified that there are approximately 3300 income eligible households in that primary market area. This statistic describes a number of F51 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 5,2024 Page 48 of 76 residents in this community who could qualify for the income restricted requirements of the project. Despite such a large number of income qualified individuals in the area, there are only 96 existing affordable housing units available to them, with only 76 being planned. This leaves only 172 units available for the 3,300 individuals who would qualify to live in these units. This leaves a significant amount of demand for income restricted units in this area, which is further supported by a 1.1 vacancy rate for these projects. Finally, as we detailed in the previous slide, the market study identified a gap between the affordable housing rents and the market rents for comparable properties to be between 38 and 40 percent. This means that individuals must pay on average 38 to 40 percent higher rent due to the lack of affordable housing options available or live further outside of town to find housing that is affordable. Along with our application we have provided, we have been reaching out to our stakeholders within the community to better understand the demands for the project. Attached with our application are various letters of support -- I will not read them here today -- from housing stakeholders in the community. Nicolette will take you through the rest of the presentation. Womack: Chair, Commissioners, thank you for your time tonight. So, shown here you can see a vicinity map of the site. We are adjacent Ustick and Eagle Roadways. We are nearby the popular Trader Joe's, Kohl's and Hobby Lobby. We also have great proximity to jobs, parks, schools and shopping and that creates economic mobility in people's lifestyles. It's important we cover the process to get here today. So, on this site in 2019 Villa Sport had a development agreement and CUP that was for an athletic club and retail. In 2022 there was a DA MOD and CUP for multi-family and drive through. Now, we understand that there is a lot of fears of several permit modifications on any one project. We do need to clarify, though, that the developer on this site is changing hands in this case and so this would be moving from a market rate apartment community into an affordable housing apartment community. So, Devco, which is under contract for the site, began their work back in April with a pre-app and neighborhood meeting. They submitted in May. We are here tonight. We are hoping to go to Council in October and the impact to the long-term construction timeline is in February of 2025, we would have civil and building plan approvals and in spring-summer 2025 we are hoping to start construction. There are specific nuances for affordable housing projects. These projects are tightly tied to federal loans and the timelines of those loans and so it's very important for affordable housing projects to remain moving in a timely manner. We want to make sure we address all the comments or concerns tonight, but we would just emphasize that we be allowed to continue to coordinate with staff to work out any outstanding issues, so that we can remain on the upcoming hearing dates. It became obvious as we worked through the site that there were a lot of competing opportunities and constraints that we were needing to resolve in the site plan. First we are adjacent in-fill. We are an in-fill parcel adjacent, established, varied residential and commercial subdivisions. We also have an established roadway network and the Milk Lateral, which is undergrounded with an easement, bisects the site into three sections with irregular shapes, where adjacent two high capacity roadways that do lack pedestrian networks and we are excited to fix some of that. Also since the prior approvals the code has changed and there is an increase -- increased requirement in open space and parking, so we are attempting to meet the new standards. Shown here is an overview F52] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 5,2024 Page 49 of 76 of our site. Again we are at ten -- about ten acres. We are currently proposing 279 units. We have a similar equal split between one bedroom apartments and the other half being two and three bedroom apartments. We are at 27.9 dwelling units per acre, proposing 552 spaces, which is close to about two -- two parking spaces per unit and, then, again, covered parking 291 spaces. So, again, compared to the private -- prior approval the parking requirements have increased and we are providing more parking spaces per unit. There is lots of benefits of the proposed site plan you have today. We are providing affordable three bedroom family units within an area greatly needing it and giving them the closest access to those amenity areas. We are proposing traffic calming to ensure safe pedestrian crossings. We are positioning largest buildings and units away from the neighboring residential in the south and west property line. We are also providing, again, more parking spaces per unit than the previous project and we are meeting -- meeting all those parking requirements without any off-shared -- off-site shared parking agreements with commercial, which is common in a project like this. So, again, we need that DA modification and CUP modification. That's to modify the conceptual plan for residential uses. It's to change from the approved 215 mixed-use development that had studio one and two-bedroom apartments to 279 unit multi-family affordable apartment development with one, two and three bedroom apartments. If you are trying to keep track of all the numbers we are showing, we are requesting an addition of 64 units and we are providing an addition of 110 parking stalls. We do need to change how height is defined on the project. So, previously, two and three story buildings were specified. We need to change that to a max height of 45 feet, which is the typical range of the three story building and we can walk you through that. There is no change to the existing commercial uses and we are requesting the DA be updated to reflect these changes. There is two alternative compliance requests and I will walk you through those. Alternative compliance number one is removal of those landscape islands under covered parking and that's so we can put solar on top of the carports as shown outlined in red here. By not having those landscaping islands just in these covered carport areas we are preserving solar panel efficiency and ensuring that we can capture more daylight, because we have less interference from the tree canopies. We reduce maintenance requirements and the need to remove leaf debris regularly. This proposal provides equal or superior benefits to the community by, again, relieving the visual and heat island effect of asphalt in the parking lots and our studies show that decreases the heat in that area by about 18 degrees underneath the solar carports. We would also be providing more traffic calming in the parking lots and improving pedestrian safety and, again, this does reduce utility costs for our future residents. Alternative compliance number two in the request is the reduction of qualified open space. We believe we are providing equal or superior benefit, because, again, we are providing that unique targeted demographic of an affordable housing community. We are providing 3.3 acres of qualified open space with amenities and the -- there is another 43,000 of non-qualified open space with pedestrian pathways that I will walk you through. The proposal doubles the required amenities, while providing private open space. So, shown here, just to lay it all out for you guys, you can see in the dark green is the qualified open space and, then, the lighter green there is nonqualified open space. The nonqualified open space is only not qualified because it's less than 20 feet in width. So, shown here on this chart we are required 2.6 acres of -- of qualified open F53] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 5,2024 Page 50 of 76 space. We are providing 2.4 acres of qualified open space, including almost an acre of nonqualified open space, which brings our total to 3.3 acres of open space. We are proposing extra amenities. Those are shown here. The code requires four amenities. We are providing nine amenities. That's double the requirements. And what's unique to that is in many affordable housing projects the first thing to go to make sure we can provide the rents that we are showing is usually the amenities. Here we are showing fabulous amenities for this area, including this -- these great walking trails that surround the site. Here are some example amenity from other Devco projects. It includes a clubhouse with community space and leasing office, fitness facilities, dog park with waste station, two common grassy areas, shaded plaza and courtyard, picnic area, barbecue grills, benches, walking trails, play structure, sports court and bicycle parking. Shown here is a side-by-side comparison of the previously approved elevations on the left and the proposed elevations on the right. So, you can see that, yes, we go from three to four stories, but because we are using a flat roof, instead of a pitched roof, and also our floor plates are slightly different dimensions, we remain at the same height as previously approved. So, we need that to specify remaining underneath 45 feet and this is similar to Regents at River Valley and Village Apartments in the surrounding area and it's below the height exception that was granted for the storage off of Eagle recently, which was 50 feet. Here are those building elevations. We will go through the design review process. Just to keep on time here is a graphic we can pull up later if you are looking for any dimensions from the neighbors. Here are some cross-sections. Very quickly it shows our building structures. It shows the surface parking lots and walls and landscaping and the expansive space between us and the neighbors. There are several revisions along the way. Staff has been great to work through lots of different ideas and versions of this. Obviously, on an affordable housing project unit count is critical to making sure we can actually provide units at the rates we are showing tonight. The initial proposal was for 300 units. Now, we have reduced that by 21 units. We have added 118 parking stalls on site. We removed an original alternative compliance request for reducing the balcony square footages. We have increased the number of amenities. We have expanded the open space. We have reduced the deficit of open space requirements. We originally were short 27,000. We are now only short about 8,000. We have improved our multi-use pathway landscaping. We have reduced our building heights along the way. We have reduced our number of driveways on Centrepoint Way and we are adding safe pedestrian connections. We are grateful for working with staff on this. The DA conditions -- several of the conditions in the staff report we are able to agree to outright. The ones we need to bring specific attention to is the development agreement condition D and staff condition 1.1.D. We proposed language in the updated development agreement to just clarify the separation of the Ustick Road improvements from the commercial road improvements along Eagle Road. So, that needs to be separated. The latest landscaping plan needs to be put into the record and, then, we worked with staff to talk about a condition to address this open space concern along Ustick Road. We are happy to work through it and come up with yet another site plan. We are only on number 30 or something. But we just need that condition modified, so that the wording in red will allow us to continue to work through that issue. Again we will stand for your recommendation of approval. Again, timing is critical on this, so, please, allow us to work with staff where we can or condition where 54 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 5,2024 Page 51 of 76 we can to keep moving and we will stand for any questions. Several people are here tonight and can help with those questions as well. Lorcher: Thank you very much. Commissioners, are there any questions for staff at this time or should we take public testimony? Sandoval: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Sandoval. Sandoval: So, for the applicant you are talking about alternative compliance for solar, specifically the islands -- you are talking about affordable housing. Have you done any studies on what it's going to cost to maintain and replace all those panels in the long term? Is it worth it? Womack: Chair, Commissioners, I will bring Devco up. They have done a solar on several of their sites and had a lot of success. Huber: This is Chase Huber. 37532 Southeast Fury Street, Snoqualmie, Washington. Yes, you are correct, there is ongoing maintenance surrounding the solar panels. That's been built into our analysis. For the most part they are pretty resilient. I think they lose like less than a percent of efficiency every year for -- after like the fifth year they are in operation, so they don't wear down overtime as -- as much as you might believe. They are pretty resilient. Lorcher: Thank you. All right. Thank you very much. Madam Clerk, do we -- who is first to testify? Lomeli: Thank you, Madam Chair. We have a Vince Skinner online. Lorcher: All right. Mr. Skinner, if you can state your name and address for the record. Skinner: Can you hear me okay? Lorcher: Yes, I can. Skinner: Excellent. Yeah. Vince Skinner. 3023 North Centrepoint Way. Okay. Lorcher: All right. Skinner: So, I'm a native Idahoan. I have been living in the area since 2003. 1 have seen this community grow and prosper and the homeowners of the Jackson Square neighborhood parts of the entire group that is here, we have moved here to -- due to the quality of the neighborhood, the location, family, community. My children play at the grass locations that the applicant mentioned earlier. I -- I do want to get a -- a specific example and definition of what affordable housing means. This has come across F55] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 5,2024 Page 52 of 76 substantial amount of times in the previous testimony that was given and this is a quite nebulous and relative term and I would like to have some specifics around proposed costs, actual costs, because we can all speculate many things, but reality is a different thing. Tonight I'm going to give some emotional arguments and there are also some technical data that I will present as well. So, again, on the perception of whether it's low income housing, affordable housing, what's the difference between that and housing in the surrounding neighborhood? So, that's one question. I have numerous questions that I -- I would like answered. The negative impacts that I see to this -- one is you have a significant concentration of people in an existing nonconcentrated area. This leads to concentrated poverty and many times low income housing concentrates into crime as well. One other aspect there is strains on local resources. This poses a monolith residential enclave, which would be an overburden to our already overburdened schools, overburdening the local healthcare, emergency services and additional public infrastructure and I would like to have specifics on how that will be addressed. Also with more residents and rents, et cetera, there is going to be an increased tax burden due to those strains that I mentioned before and thus that would reduce the income of not only the existing residents, but others that could be otherwise invested. I mentioned crime earlier. Studies have shown that concentrated low income housing can sometimes correlate with higher crime rates, particularly if those housing areas are not managed accurately, well, and they also lack any type of social support services. I mentioned earlier with the decreased property values, whether they be perceived or potential and that is market and in the end with many of these low income housing developments they do decrease the values of not only the businesses around them, but also the residents and this makes it also -- Lorcher: Mr. Skinner, I need you to wrap up, please. Skinner: Okay. This makes it much more difficult to sell houses. From a technical perspective you are going from 118 dwellings to 413. That's an increase of 252 percent increase in that single location, not even referring to Leslie Way, which is next door. also Jackson Square is currently 22 acres, which comes down to five dwellings per acre. This new expansion would be 29 units per acre, which is a 490 percent increase in the concentration of the dwellings. Lorcher: Okay. Skinner: So -- Lorcher: Your time is up, so any final thoughts? Skinner: Yeah. I have significant concerns about this and my children, the safety of traffic and there is a lot of additional questions that I have and I would like specific data on how those are going to be -- those concerns are going to be addressed. F56] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 5,2024 Page 53 of 76 Lorcher: Okay. We will ask the applicant to address some of those. Thank you very much. Madam Clerk. Skinner: Thank you. Lomeli: Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a Nick Stoppello that signed up online. I don't see that name. I don't know if he is here in the audience. Lorcher: We do have quite a few people in Chambers tonight. The -- the rule for Planning and Zoning is three minutes per person, unless you are addressing a larger group, like a home owners association, then, they are allowed ten. For the ability of time, please, be respectful of the time and I appreciate that. So, if you can state your name and address for the record that would be great. Stoppello: Nick Stoppello. 2305 Northwest 15th in Meridian. Lorcher: Thank you. Stoppello: I will keep this brief, because I feel like I'm probably persona non grata in this group, but I am for the project. Lorcher: Okay. Stoppello: The -- I just want to start by giving some specific data on income and housing specific to our market here. So, the U.S. Census Bureau says that Meridian median household income is 90,000 dollars. A reasonable estimate on an approved mortgage loan at that income, assuming that they have good credit and little to no other consumer debt, amounts to about 350,000 dollars from a mortgage standpoint and as of this evening there are four listings on the MLS that are 350,000 or less in our market, two of which are manufactured homes and those require special financing. So, of the two remaining one is 981 square feet and the other is 616 square feet. I don't think anybody here wants to live in that small of a dwelling to begin with and certainly not for 350,000 dollars. So, from my perspective we have got two options. We can either increase the median wage for those working in our community, which would ultimately increase the cost of goods and services rendered in our community and impact the end user and consumer or we can try to decrease the cost of housing to give those individuals the opportunity and a place to live in our community and contribute to our local economy. The affordable housing project, such as the one being discussed, is -- it's not a bullet to the problem, but it is a step in the right direction, whether it be small or large, in giving housing to people that don't otherwise qualify for anything that is available to them in the market. I -- I have been here for 33 years. I was born in St. Luke's in Meridian. I lived at Mallard Landing on Linder. I live off Linder currently. And I'm moving just south of this project at the northwest corner of Fairview and Eagle here shortly. So, I understand that Meridian is like the town of Mayberry. It's an awesome place to be and live and grow up and have a family, of which I'm growing now and establishing businesses, but we really need to make a conscious decision to be F57] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 5,2024 Page 54 of 76 proactive in addressing the challenges that growth present to our community, rather than burying our heads in the sand and wishing that this place was what it was 20 years ago. I -- we are not ostriches. I don't see any birds in the room. So, let's understand that things are going to change, challenges come along with that and work with the developer and the people that want to give opportunities to those that otherwise couldn't have them. Lorcher: Thank you very much. Appreciate it. What's next? Lomeli: Madam Chair, Steve Grant. Grant: My name is Steve Grant. I live at 1534 North Leslie Way in Meridian. Lorcher: Thank you. Grant: Madam Chair, Commissioners, when Mike Mafia of MTM Meridian proposed his project in November of '22 the City Council advised him to reduce the project from four floors to three in the main complex and improve the construction of two-story units on the west side of Centrepoint. Going from three to four stories increases the density of 30 percent, which I believe is an unacceptable level for this parcel due to traffic and parking issues. I'm sure that the density is driven by economics. The developer's ability to be profitable shouldn't be the catalyst for approving this project at the density requested. If I recall correctly, the main reason the Council required the project to be limited to three stories was a traffic congestion high density housing would create. As you know, Centrepoint at Ustick has only two lanes, one in each direction. Even with three stories traffic loads will require widening the intersection to add a dedicated left turn lane to access Ustick going west. During peak hours traffic will stack from the light at Ustick all the way back into the complex parking lot. Residents living on the west side of Centrepoint who attempt to exit their parking area with a left turn during peak hours will face congestion from parked cars exiting the main campus. Frustrated drivers will avoid the congestion by traveling through Jackson Square Subdivision, which will increase safety concerns for Jackson Square residents. I understand that the ACHD has approved widening Centrepoint, but I'm not sure if a left turn lane has been contemplated there. If this project is approved as proposed the adjacent neighborhoods to the south and west will experience peak hour traffic congestion and overflow parking problems. Motorists seek the path of least resistance. If it is quicker to travel through the adjacent neighborhood drivers will, as I live on Leslie Way and motorists continue to cut through our street to avoid congestion at Centrepoint and Eagle Road. With the high cost of renting it is not unusual for leaseholders to sublease apartments to friends and relatives. If an apartment has an allotted two parking spaces and another person with a car moves in, the third car would not have a dedicated space and would be forced to park on neighborhood streets. This overcrowding will create conflict and safety concerns with neighboring homeowners. I would ask the Commission to do the following: Require the applicant to widen Centrepoint at Ustick to allow for a dedicated left turn westbound on Ustick and I guess it has to be the same thing on the north side. Require the applicant to limit the construction of the main campus to three stories and F58] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 5,2024 Page 55 of 76 two stories for units west of Centrepoint and ensure that the masonry wall along the western boundary, which is part of the existing development agreement, be extended along the same sight line at the same height with the same materials. Traffic congestion has been a concern for this parcel ever since hearings were conducted when the nightclub was being proposed. I understand the city's interest in the construction of affordable housing. I don't believe this parcel is well suited for the proposed density. Anyway, thank you for your time. Lorcher: Anyone next? Lomeli: Madam Chair, Brenda Jones. Lorcher: Hi. Jones: Hi. Good evening. Brenda Jones. 659 West Blue Downs Street in Meridian, Idaho. 83642. Lorcher: Thank you. Jones: You bet. I'm actually here this evening on behalf of St. Luke's and I would like to voice our support for the Centrepoint Apartment project. This housing development offers high quality, affordable, workforce housing units, which greatly are needed in our community. Our 23 -- our 2023 community health needs assessment identified safe, stable housing as a significant need and because stable housing impacts one's health, housing has become an identified impact area for our health system and we are trying to address that. St. Luke's has a history of supporting housing solutions and currently partners with many organizations across our footprint addressing the significant needs of affordable housing and workforce housing. We recognize the importance of having safe, affordable and well-located housing options for all of our community members. As Idaho's largest private employer housing has become an integral part of our stable employment. In order for our workforce and the community to maintain healthy and robust, we must have adequate housing. The Centrepoint Apartment project would meet several of these needs of our community members and providing the one, two and three bedroom units, all designed to accommodate residents and workforce incomes raging anywhere from 30 percent up to 70 percent, which is the area median income, which the other gentleman was speaking to. In addition the location of the development really is great, because it accesses retail, grocery stores, jobs and excellent schools here in the West Ada School District. A project such as this we feel like would really provide a great opportunity for all of our Meridian residents. Thank you for your time. Lorcher: Thank you very much. Madam Clerk? Lomeli: Somebody has raised their hand online. Would you like for me to allow them to talk? I'm not sure what their name is. Lorcher: Has everybody who signed up to speak has -- has spoken? F59] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 5,2024 Page 56 of 76 Lomeli: No. Lorcher: So, let's go in order. Lomeli: So, we have Kristy Hein. Hein: Good evening again. Lorcher: Yes. Please -- please repeat it. Your name and address. Hein: Madam Chair, my name is Kristy Hein. I live at 3933 North Amberwood Avenue in Meridian. Lorcher: Thank you. Hein: So, I am speaking in opposition of this project. Once again I think we can all agree that housing is an issue. I think we are all in agreement that affordable housing is a good thing. Again, I'm just not in favor of this particular location for a lot of reasons. With this particular project, with the proposed amount of units, we are looking at potentially two vehicles at least per unit. That's a total of 560 additional vehicles on this stretch of road. Where I currently live it's directly on the north side of Centrepoint off of the -- Eagle Road currently handles around 60,000 vehicles per day. It sees approximately 400 crashes per year as you know per the Mayor's report in August. We currently own the home that's at North Amberwood Avenue. Again, off of Centrepoint Drive. The section of Ustick Road between Eagle and Locust Grove is only two lanes in each direction and Centrepoint Drive already experiences significant congestion. Every morning we find ourselves struck -- or excuse me -- stuck for two to three light cycles just to turn onto West Ustick and start our commute each morning. My parents, along with their neighbors, live in the Village Bungalows, which is an active 55 and over community just west of the proposed development along West Ustick Road. The average age of the residents there is around 75 to 80 years old. Many of them still drive enjoying their independence. The convenient access to Trader Joe's, Albertson's, local banks and doctor's offices is a significant part of what drew them to the Village Bungalows. However, they are now deeply concerned about the impact that this large proposed development would have on an already congested stretch of Ustick Road. The increased traffic would not only hinder their daily routines, but could also jeopardize their ability to safely and easily access the essential services they rely upon. This project risks compromising the very qualities that made the area desirable for these older residents in the first place. As far as emergency services, the nearest fire station is located at 3545 North Locust Grove Road, which is near the intersection of Locust Grove and Ustick. I recently spoke with the representative of the local fire department here in Meridian who expressed serious concerns about the increase -- the increasing approval of these low rise developments, such as the one we are discussing tonight. He highlighted the strain that these places -- or that these developments place on emergency response capabilities. For instance, he noted that if a fire were to break out on a development such as this with the proposed 45 feet in height that the developer is 60 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 5,2024 Page 57 of 76 proposing, he would need at least 43 firefighters to respond effectively. Currently he would only have 27 personnel available. His concern is that he would not be able to efficiently respond to a fire and emergency. Those are my concerns and I really wish that you and the Commissioners would consider this as a -- it's a safety concern and I really appreciate your time. Lorcher: Thank you very much. Hein: Thank you. Lomeli: Madam Chair, the next is Landon Johnson. Lorcher: Mr. Johnson. Johnson: Good evening, Chair, Members of the Commission. My name is Landon Johnson. I live at 2940 North Centrepoint Way, Meridian, Idaho. 83646. So, I am in the Jackson Square Subdivision on Centrepoint just south of this proposed development. Get straight to the point. Well, I urge you guys to deny this, the permit and the development agreement modification, 295, now 279 -- I mean even 215 the existing apparently agreed upon is too much for this neighborhood. Where Jackson Square is a little enclave that is -- has limited ingress-egress on Ustick and Eagle. Now, there is three spots you can make a right. You can go out on Eagle in two spots -- or excuse me -- Ustick and Eagle one directly, but the left turn, which was brought up by somebody earlier, coming out Centrepoint, you had, you know, 200 units, 300 units, it is going to be a significant negative impact. This is congestion. Safety hazard. If they are three bedrooms, they are targeting families, which is great to provide. Everybody loves affordable housing and we need it. Not here. I have -- I'm a planner by training and profession. I know a little about this stuff and it's great, I love smart growth. TOD. There is no bus line here, so everybody is going to have one car at least, two cars, probably more and they will spill in -- into our development, which is quiet right now, except for those people trying to bypass Eagle and Ustick intersection and it's just going to get worse. There -- of course, I mean I think there was under representation in the staff report, as well as in the developer stuff as consideration to the surrounding community existing environment and I don't think enough consideration was given to that. I don't like the idea of being stuck in my development because there are 200, 300 people living in there or more -- you know, that's a lot more, yeah, one, two and three bedroom. I don't like it. To me that's not freedom at all. You know, restricting physically my access. I go left a lot. Right now the intersection is great, because there is no development. Everybody expects this vacant land to be developed, but, you know, not for these barracks style big -- in my opinion not very appealing -- visually appealing, you know, affordable rental apartments. I would rather something lower. Definitely not four stories. Three stories, if they are allowed that, that's fine. I understand they have entitlements and we will be done. Should it move forward, you know, I would like to see things in the city providing bus transit, so we can make in-fill projects for affordable housing like this move forward. Again, I don't much care for the reduction in -- or excuse me -- the open space issue. That's not a huge amount, but I 61 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 5,2024 Page 58 of 76 appreciate that providing open space, especially a dog park, I wish that would be open to our community, too. I know that they won't do it, but, you know, when I spoke with them in the neighborhood meeting they had is off the open space, but they were under the impression, as far as I -- there was a bus line going on Ustick. No. I have tried doing a walkable thing. It is not a walkable neighborhood and not designed -- that was not the intent. It was single family. It was zoned commercial, mixed-use. All right? There is strong stores, you know, roadside and, then, housing in the back. Lorcher: I need to -- I need to have you wrap up. Thank you. Johnson: I appreciate it. There are mitigation things you can do, but I think a redesign, rather than these big rectangles that are four stories as proposed. It's just not right for the area and it's a stark contrast to existing community that's around there. Thank you. Lorcher: Thank you. Madam Clerk? Lomeli: Madam Chair, Janet Bailey. Bailey: Hello. Janet Bailey. 2925 North Centrepoint Way. Lorcher: Thank you. Bailey: Thank you. I just have a few comments on this. I -- I have lived in my house 12 years, so I have watched the neighborhood evolve. This housing apartment complex in the front -- I think it's going to be disastrous. Absolutely. I -- I ask you, please, deny the whole thing. There is too many apartments, too high, too tall, we -- I started our neighborhood watch 12 years ago, so I have seen things come through. The traffic is crazy through there. It's a raceway down Centrepoint. With all those added cars and all the parking, it will spill in the Centrepoint and it's to our expense to maintain our neighborhood. The HOA -- we had graffiti on this walking path behind our homes. Okay. Well, that was taken care of, because it was our neighborhood and our expense. So, anything to spill it over from these apartments it's going to be at our cost. We have to maintain the pathway. We maintain all of that in there. I have seen the increase in traffic. Centrepoint to Ustick, it's two lights to get out. There have been numerous accidents there. I don't know if that's in your report as well, but there is always accidents out there and the traffic is at least 50 cars deep to try to get out there in the peak driving, so I have one concern and it's a question for you guys, why -- or why is it allowed for a Seattle developer to come into our Meridian and tell us what we need? Because at the neighborhood meeting I asked questions and the developer had kept telling me this is what Meridian needs. I disagree. I disagree. He's bringing his Seattle ideas into our home, our Meridian. This is our home. I don't believe his ideas fit our neighborhood to put it in our front yard. I think it's going to be disastrous. I think it's going to cause a chain reaction of events that -- and there is a lot of people talking that I have spoken to that are talking this could possibly force us to sell our homes. I don't want to do that. That was our investment. This is our retirement place, you know. This is where we decided to retire and, you know, until the next step. But it's not turning out 62 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 5,2024 Page 59 of 76 to be that way and anytime these developers come in with big promises, it doesn't happen. When Mayor De Weerd had expressed her distaste for the apartments on occasion, she even said somebody dropped the ball on those, because when I moved in they had told us they would be 26 to 28, like-minded housing like ours along there and, then, they put those -- whatever they are called over there, so -- and just to correct the developer, the parks are not within walking distance. Settlers Park is two miles down to the west. The McDevitt Sports Place is on McMillan and Eagle and Champion Park Subdivision -- you have to go into their subdivision to get to their park. There is nothing around. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you. Bailey: Thank you. Lorcher: All right. Madam Clerk. Lomeli: Madam Chair, Jeffrey Miller. Lorcher: Hi. Miller: Hi. Good evening. Jeffrey Miller. 2487 East Foster Lane. Lorcher: Thank you. Miller: I happen to be a resident of Village Bungalows, so I -- Lorcher: Okay. Miller: -- I know what they are talking about and there -- there is a need for low income housing. That's not an issue here. The issue is actually the density that's going into this development. The traffic on Ustick in the morning is backed up from Eagle Road all the way back to Verado, the second development behind me, half mile away and it's -- it's horrendous. I mean you can't walk -- you can't cross the lights. You have -- there is no crossing -- mention was made of access to parks. There is no Ustick. You have to walk a half a mile up to the nearest crosswalk just to cross to get to Champion Park. So, it's -- it's -- it's more of an issue than this. It's the density that bothers us and it's the traffic that's going to be the death of everybody. It's 60,000 cars a day on Eagle Road. It's backed up. You can't make the turn, you can't get out. When they are stuck at the left-hand turn on Eagle, if you want to go north on Eagle, you come out of Centrepoint, no room. Where are you going to go? So, you are waiting cycle after cycle. It's just going to be a mess. I just adamantly hope that you -- you guys use your infinite wisdom and deny this program. Thank you. Lorcher: Thank you. Madam Clerk. Lomeli: Madam Chair, Barry Holsinger. F63] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 5,2024 Page 60 of 76 Lorcher: All right. We can come back to him. Lomeli: Okay. Doug Stern. Stern: Hello again. Lorcher: Hello. Stern: Doug Stern. 2793 North Centrepoint. I cannot think of a worse use of land to an existing neighborhood in this entire city than what's being proposed to that corner. The homes that were built there -- I have lived there for 12 years. These are custom built homes in this neighborhood and the traffic and the parking right now is a mess, because if you go up Bourbon Street east of my street, the existing tenants are parking on both sides of the street now. You can get one car through at a time. I can't imagine what it would be like with adding 600 more drivers in every direction from this monstrosity that they are trying to put in. I drove up -- I drove up and down once I saw the signs that they were going to do this, I drove up and down Records and Ustick and Eagle trying to figure out why here, why would they do this? Have they done this to another existing established neighborhood and I can't find a single example. If you go up Records and see all the new apartments, they are fine. They are on the right -- or they are on the west side of the street. The existing neighborhoods are on the east side of the street. They don't -- the existing -- the apartment dwellers don't have to go into the existing neighborhoods like they do in this instant. I -- I agree with affordable housing and I know everybody says the same thing, not in my neighborhood, not in my neighborhood, but in this situation it doesn't fit. I never even knew that they approved the 211 and I have been there for 11 -- like I said, 11, 12 years. I don't know how that even got approved, yet some of the other things I think we can -- we can come together and come up with a much better use for that land than adding this -- whatever this is that they are doing. It's going to exactly ruin our neighborhood. Lorcher: Thank you. Let's see if Barry got back. Lomeli: Madam Chair, Barry Holsinger. Lorcher: Hi. If you can state your name and address for the record, please. Holsinger: My name is Barry Holsinger. I live at 2836 North Centrepoint Way, Meridian. I just want to add one simple other concern. The -- we are part of the Nampa Irrigation District and we have been fighting with them and -- and keeping our lawns green this year we have just barely had enough water out of the canal and now they are going to propose to put green space all over that -- all over that apartment complex. There isn't enough water for it. Thank you. Lorcher: Thank you. Lomeli: Madam Chair, Jared Schofield. F64] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 5,2024 Page 61 of 76 Lorcher: Good evening. Schofield: Jared Schofield. 1566 North Leslie Way, Meridian. 84664 or -- one of the primary concerns of high density affordable housing is the impact on property values. Studies have indicated that property situated near high density developments may experience a decline in value due to various factors, including increased traffic congestion, noise levels and perceived decrease in the neighborhood appeal. These three elements will directly correlate to both the value and desirability of the immediate voting properties with secondary effects to the neighboring property in a cascading effect. The traffic will continue to be extreme and with a massive increase of vehicles that will go into this structure -- or into this development, as there is no other point of entry to access westbound Ustick, Centrepoint will be overly burdened at the intersection to Ustick. This, in turn, will add more hostile drivers to mix with current normal excessive traffic. Traffic studies are typically based on the number of vehicles per day, but not necessarily account for peak traffic hours. Several accidents have been personally witnessed by myself with two incidents nearly involving myself and family. One of the incidents involved an irate individual who could not wait until my family was in -- across the crosswalk -- walk and proceeded to maneuver around a car in front of them at a high rate of speed. This vehicle I was close enough that I could actually reach back and have touched it. This vehicle was traveling from the area of the apartments located on Centrepoint behind Kohl's, which is currently being expanded. An additional accident occurred while I was waiting to exit off of Leslie Way. An inattentive driver rear-ended the vehicle traveling eastbound on Ustick directly in front of my vehicle. Vehicular accidents within the immediate vicinity of this complex have now become an almost daily event. The immediate vicinity around already has a significant volume of high density housing. So, all the apartments located further to the east, further to the north on -- on Centrepoint and one thing that should be noted is that those of us that live directly in relationship to this will have the highest impact on. It does not affect those that live elsewhere in -- within the city. It does not affect those that are going to be moving elsewhere in the city. This is very much in our backyard. This is something that impacts us directly. It impacts our families, it impacts our lives, it impacts my children who play in my backyard. It impacts every detail of everything we do every day. The previous CUP should have never been approved as it is. I wish we could go back and take several steps back and start over from ground zero. One of the other things I want to bring up is when you also have the -- oh, a couple things. The -- the proposal they presented on drawing A-05 it indicates the comparison to a two story home from their building, which the two-story home should be -- indicate my home. My home is a single story ranch home last I checked. So, it makes me wonder how many other items have received an artistic interpretation of -- with no basis in reality? Community safety is a big issue. Recently we had an individual on their vacant property that was videoing my daughter in my backyard the police had to be called about. You put apartments -- four story apartments, two story apartments, whatever, in my backyard where they have the privacy of windows staring into my backyard and my daughters, that -- that is a complete disregard for my daughters and their safety. I appreciate what you guys do and I appreciate you allowing me the time to speak. Thank you. F65] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 5,2024 Page 62 of 76 Lorcher: Thank you very much. Lomeli: Madam Chair, no one else has indicated to testify. Lorcher: There was one gentleman online. Are they still there? If you are still online and you wanted to speak, please, raise your hand. Uretta: Yes, I'm online. Lorcher: Okay. Go ahead. State your name and address for the record and, then, we will take the Chamber's next. Uretta: Abisay Uretta. 3022 North Centrepoint Way. My house would be one of the nearest to this development on one side of the street and I just want to say that I fully support the rest of my neighbors that are in a position to this and one thing that I would like the Council to keep in mind is the only people in support of -- of this current proposal are the people that will not be living with the results. Us here in our neighborhood are the ones that will be deeply impacted are the ones opposing. I have not heard one person in support of this development that will have to live with the -- with the results of this development. So, I would like you to keep that in mind as you look to perform your duties for-- for the best of our city today. Thank you. Lorcher: Thank you. All right. Is there anybody in Chambers? You had your hand up first. Dickinson: Ruth Dickinson. I live at 2771 North Centrepoint. Lorcher: Okay. Dickinson: So, I think it's kind of been covered as far as Centrepoint and the difficulty getting off of Centrepoint and Ustick, but one of the things I noticed in reviewing all the maps is that the other street that goes out, which is just escaped my mind, sorry, but on the east side of the apartment complex they are showing that street going out and currently serves the commercial that's on the corner of Eagle and Ustick. Lorcher: Cajun. Dickinson: Cajun Lane. Thank you. Lorcher: Okay. Dickinson: So, what I'm seeing there, at least in the maps I was looking at today, is there is actually parking planned head in off of Cajun Lane, which means those people would have to back out into Cajun Lane to try to exit. So, to me that's really bad planning, because, one, it's going to be really, really crowded. Half -- I assume half of the exits are destined to go out that direction one way or another into an -- into a turn 66 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 5,2024 Page 63 of 76 lane, which, by the way, you can't pull out into if there is any traffic at all, so those people have no -- no other option, but to go back into the other neighborhood, around the traffic circle and try to get out on Eagle Road that way or to follow down all the way to Centrepoint and try to go out on a street that really isn't wide enough for a left turn lane. So, I haven't heard that or seen that exactly addressed, how they are going to deal with that, but it's just a bad traffic plan and somebody mentioned emergency vehicles. I think they would have a tough time getting in and out of the neighborhood, not just to service us, the people that have already lived there for years, but if anybody should need help or assistance in those apartments. So, just a bad plan. The other thing I noticed is in our -- one of the previous presentations is you have a certain color designated that shows where you are going to put the chicken place and all up in the corner and that same color designation covers that space that goes around the corner on Ustick. It was originally designed to be commercial. If you had commercial there will be traffic no matter what, but at least it would be a minimal amount of traffic that probably that area couldn't handle -- would have to handle and so I would just say, please, deny this and let's do something better for our community than this project. Thank you. Lorcher: Thank you, ma'am. Gammon: I'm Carrie Gammon 3055 North Centrepoint Way, Meridian, Idaho. 83646. Lorcher: Thank you. Gammon: I just want to point out that I have lived here for about 12 or 13 years and I have never seen a development idea that has scared me so much. I totally agree with affordable housing. I myself am back in school again. I know what it's like to struggle, but putting something like that in that small of a space is not going to work. I am actually the first house here that was actually in some of the videos and I will be that person that will be looking at a four story building and have all those eyes back on me and anything and anyone that I have in my house. I also don't like the idea of looking at a concrete jungle when I can see the mountains for now, but that's not even the most important thing. I think is it worth putting something like this when it's going to jeopardize other people's safety. The traffic I know has been brought up, but I cannot even back out of my driveway. I have to sit there and watch cars go by and race by. It is a speedway and I would ask anyone that is even considering putting this here, especially if you don't live there, please, just come there and stand there for five minutes and see what the traffic is like. The people -- they don't even use the right side of the road. Today they were speeding around the divider trying to get there first. When you try to turn out right onto Ustick or left onto Ustick you do sit there for multiple, multiple lights. I leave an hour early to get to school as it is and that is because the traffic is that bad. If you are talking about putting this many places in such a small area it's going to be insanely congested and dangerous for all the small kids, the elderly people and everyone in between that lives in my neighborhood and I really think that they need to consider doing something a lot different, because this just isn't going to work and it's going to be dangerous and I am scared to live there and I have never heard so many F67] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 5,2024 Page 64 of 76 neighbors that, you know, maybe couldn't come out or were afraid to come out tonight that don't want to live there because of what's going in. I don't mind something going in, but not this. Lorcher: Thank you. Gammon: Thank you. Lorcher: Anybody else in Chambers? Sir. Vrba: Madam Chair and committee -- or Commissioners, my name is Jeff Vrba. I live at 3005 North LeBlanc Way in Meridian, Idaho. 83646. Lorcher: Thank you. Vrba: I am the vice-president of the Jackson Square Homeowners Association. I wanted to allow my homeowners to actually talk to you, so you can actually see their concerns. Some of the main concerns that we also have with the way the development is set up -- if you look at the entrances in the Centrepoint Way from their individuals there that's in the middle of the block, they are going to be backed up there. The other one -- they got another entrance down on Cajun Way or Cajun Lane down there. Cajun Lane, half of Picard, which is just south of there -- down there and Bourbon Street are all private roads. These have to be maintained by the homeowners associations. If something happens and the road gets damaged I am having to pay for that. Our homeowners are having to pay for that. By having these extra cars like we talked about -- you heard a lot of homeowners trying to get onto Ustick, there will be cars going down through Cajun Way south around the roundabout and out on East Bourbon Street. That's taken up private roads there that we were told had to be private. The next concern we have is we have a fence that's running along the entire length of that road there, a wooden fence that's up. We have been maintaining that for over 14 years now that we were required to put up and we were required to put up the brick wall on the other side by the Planning and Zoning and the city when the original developer for that whole area went in. With this fence going -- with our wooden fence there and possibility of damage on it, our homeowners association is going to be responsible for it. If you guys would like to put this in and let it go up why don't we have a brick wall -- an eight foot wall along that whole entire Picard Way there, too, to prevent the individuals damaging the fence that belongs to our properties that our homeowners aren't going to be accounted for. The other thing I'm concerned with is the elevation. I know in the past we have -- the city's talked about elevation of the buildings in the area. I can travel up and down Ustick and look. I do not see any apartment complexes that have the flat rooftops on Ustick. They all have the elevation. They have the peak. They are three stories tall right around the other park that's a little bit further down. That's where my concern is at. We do not want four stories there. The original plat was the two buildings that were closest to the homes were going to be two stories. The other ones were going to be three stories to match -- or close to the existing areas there. The other thing we had problems with is when they are talking 500 plus cars through that area there, 68 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 5,2024 Page 65 of 76 they will be coming through the subdivision. There is no problem with that. That's going to be tied up and we are going to be stuck with that. Centrepoint Way is only two lanes, two and a half lanes if you really get up at the intersection there. You might be able to get a third car around. The other concern is -- I don't know if they have taken an effect where the Milk Lateral actually runs, because that's already buried under the ground and if I'm not mistaken it's going to run between -- underneath two of their buildings. So, either they are going to have to move that around, reposition it. Some of the maps I have seen had it routed wrong, but I know right where it runs. So, there are going to be issues with that. You take away people's water further downstream you are going to have a lot more problems here in Idaho with that. So, overall, like you said, you heard from a lot of our homeowners here how much we are concerned with the way this is bad with the extra houses in here. I have actually gone through with the previous one plat -- I was in here protesting against that, too. We were against it at that time. I didn't have as many homeowners. Here the city said last time with one of the other developers in there, but we don't have homeowners here, so it must not be -- they must not really be concerned about it. So, we called into action our homeowners so you could actually hear from them and also get the a-mails and letters mailed in from them, too. So, it's just not me as the vice-president of the association talking about it. My main concern is the traffic. Traffic on Eagle Road -- they -- they keep saying that's the sixth or fifth busiest intersection in all of Idaho. Do we need to add another group of cars through there? Granted it's not going to be all day long, but between 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. peak traffic, people going to work, taking kids to school, evenings coming in. Eagle Road is backed up already trying to make that left turn going from -- if you are heading north on Eagle Road trying to take that left turn onto Ustick. Sometimes it's backed up and it's causing people trying to, like they said, cut through subdivisions, turn wrong down Ustick trying to cut across lanes and everything else like that. So, I plead with you guys to take that into consideration, our concerns. I know that you got a lot weighing on you right now and that and a lot of decisions to be made. I appreciate your time and everything you do for our great City of Meridian. I have lived in my home for over nine years now. I moved into there and when I first moved in they said it was going to be general retail out there. I didn't have problems with general retail going in, even with the noise that would be possibly caused by deliveries at night, forklift driving around, I would -- when I moved into my house I was expecting that. I wasn't expecting a three -- two, three, four story apartment complex going in. Thank you for your time. Lorcher: Thank you. Anybody else in Chambers would like to speak? Ma'am. E.Gammon: I'm Elizabeth Gammon. 3055 North Centrepoint Way, Meridian. Lorcher: Thank you. E.Gammon: And that house right there and -- and I wish it was on here. It's right here by the -- where the one is coming up. It's right next to it -- completely next to it and it's actually two -- four if it's built up four. There is two of them higher than the house and everyone can look into the house, can look into the yard and even the yard next door might be a problem, too. And, then, on the other side that's not even in our area, but it's F69] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 5,2024 Page 66 of 76 on the other side of the fence, there are two homes there at the end. The numbers are 1566 and 1598 and they can look into the yards. They have children. They are big yards and there will be a problem there and it might all -- with four of them being built there is going to be five houses around there that are going to have a problem. This one at 3055 is the very worst one and then -- so, you know that and people have talked about all the traffic and there is a tremendous amount of traffic and they are correct about it. There is a little bit more that they haven't really thought about, but over there at Kohl's people that go in there and have -- you know, go to the stores and that, when they come out they can't go to Eagle, so they come down and they come into Centrepoint and come around and turn around and that and, then, coming down that street that belongs to us, people come down there, there is a stop sign there, four out of five do not park, they just keep going. So, sometimes when I'm at the house and trying to get out I have to watch all the people coming down, the people coming there and sometimes I'm just sitting in the driveway and I will see at least five cars coming down there and, then, some coming the other way. So, people come from Dutch Brothers and all those places there, they come down that way, too, and also the people that are going to be living at the -- the places when they try to come out they are going to have tremendous cars coming each way. They are going to have a problem coming out and I think -- and, then, people come in way down from South Centrepoint, it turns a little bit and they can't see all the stuff coming, so it's dangerous to them. I actually think that because of all of this and all the traffic and all the people there, that there are going to be deaths and injuries and hits many times and so I think you should really think about everything that's going on here. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you very much. E.Gammon: We have a problem. Lorcher: Thank you. Anybody else in Chambers would like to speak? All right. Can I get a motion to close the public hearing -- oh, wait. No, I can't do that. I would like the applicant to come back up. Sorry. Almost. Womack: Chair, Commissioners, thank you for your time tonight and thank you for all the great feedback from the neighbors. We are excited to talk through some of these items. Regarding affordable housings, I will turn over the time to Chase in just a second. Going to address a few things. And, then, I'm also going to turn the time over to Brandon to talk through traffic. With the discussion on the differences between this project and the neighbors, just wanted to pull up a visual. So, you can see here from the previous plan to this plan, the building in the -- Building D in the -- I don't know if my mouse is showing up. Can you guys see that? Building D in the southwest corner, we actually have less units and they are further away from the western property line. We are still closest of all the adjacent units, 45 feet from the south. A lot of that has to do with the Milk Lateral being underground in this northwest corner, so we aren't able to move the building any further north. But, again, shown here you can see that our buildings are generally ranging between a hundred and -- sorry -- at the lowest end 45 feet and at the highest end almost two hundred feet from the neighbors and here you 70 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 5,2024 Page 67 of 76 can see how that plays out. I do hear the comment about the two-story homes. I'm happy to check that and if we need to switch that to a one story home in this graphic totally fine. I think you all can imagine a one story versus a four story just fine. Again, this project is requested in order to modify the permit to allow for the affordable housing units and the rents that are associated with that. Regarding the western boundary wall that was required in the previous approval, we are going to complete that boundary wall on the western side and that will provide further transition. Regarding the building heights to the adjacent neighbors, there is several ways we can continue to mitigate this further. Some of that typically includes modifications to windows on the upper stories to make sure that they have less of an impact on the neighbors, changes to the balconies on those upper stories and, then, we already have significant landscaping along the permanent property lines. With that I will turn the time over to Chase to talk about affordable housing and, then, Brandon to talk about traffic. Huber: Yeah. I think the -- the basis for, you know, what we believe this project could be is, you know, equal opportunity. We -- we really like -- well, we feel like this is a very excellent location for our project, because of the proximity to everything this community loves. We envision that our residents have the same opportunity to be close to Trader Joe's, to Kohl's, to hospitals, to the good schools, to the parks, to everything that kind of has been discussed tonight and that all these people love so dearly. We want to give an opportunity for people a little bit less fortunate to have exposure to all of that. We understand this is a very busy area, it's a very commercial area and we will certainly be adding to that, but it gives our residents a lot of economic opportunity to be closer to jobs, closer to good schools and not push to the outskirts of town where there is more land that's generally cheaper. This is an in-fill site that gives a lot of economic opportunity to tenants that really need it. So, we feel very strongly about that and I'm happy to answer any questions you might have. Womack: Quickly I wanted to add on the affordable housing component, when there is the nebulous term affordable thrown around in these types of hearings, they are not usually talking about a deed restricted product and Chase can talk through the nuances of that loan as well. Huber: Sure. Yeah. This is, as I mentioned earlier -- we will go back to this slide. This is deed restricted, income restricted, which means there is a certain rent we can charge. It is based on the area median income. Tenants have to income qualify. This is not studio apartments. This is not micro apartments. This is rent restricted housing dedicated for individuals making between a certain income level. So, hopefully, that helps expand on the affordable housing component. McDougald: Brandon McDougald with Kimley-Horn, 1100 West Idaho Street, Boise, Idaho. Wanted to just give a little bit of a general history about the traffic on this particular site. There was a traffic impact study that was completed as part of the Villa Sport proposal and ACHD reviewed, accepted and provided conditions of approval that needs to be made as part of the traffic that was generated for that particular project. Those mitigation measures have been completed on Eagle Road for the traffic that was F71 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 5,2024 Page 68 of 76 going to be generated for Villa Sport. This -- this project will actually reduce the traffic quite significantly than what Villa Sport was proposing. So, there is going to be approximately 1,400 fewer daily trips as a result of the -- the multi-family use versus the Villa Sport use, 73 fewer weekday a.m. peak trips and 158 fewer weekday p.m. peak hour trips. So, a reduction -- pretty substantial reduction from what was originally approved by ACHD and mitigation measures required to be done on Ustick Road. A couple of other things that I would like to just note. Heard a lot of comments with regards to speeding along Centrepoint Way and -- and concerns with pedestrian crossings. Obviously, ACHD controls Centrepoint Way, but we have identified -- we want something there to help control the speed. We have identified speed tables. If ACHD won't accept speed tables, we would look at bulb outs with -- which kind of restricts the pavement width in that particular area, which slows down traffic, in addition to providing protection for pedestrians and cyclists and, then, finally, we meet the requirements of the parking for what is being proposed here. So, a lot of talk about parking being spilled out onto the streets. We are complying with what's -- what's identified in city code for parking. Womack: I just want to bring it home. It looks like we have three minutes. So, one of the comments was about Cajun Lane and the parking in that area. We are doing our best to make sure that we are self-parking between the different areas of the building, but we do, obviously, have some space where we could pivot that -- that parking around elsewhere if needs be. Lastly we just need to reiterate again with affordable housing there are really tight timelines to get those federal loans, so we do need to keep moving in the process. We want to make sure that we are taking all the comments into consideration and doing the best we can to find the site plan that would work best for everyone, so that Devco could reasonably develop an affordable housing product on this. So, please, let us know of any conditions or items of concern and we will make sure we do our best to address that before City Council. Otherwise, we will stand for any questions. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you. Commissioners, do you have any questions for the -- any other questions for the applicant before we close the public hearing? Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: Can we go back to slide 21, please. Womack: Can you tell me what's on that? I can't see slide numbers. Smith: It is the distances to the abutting properties. Lorcher: One more. Womack: There you go. F72 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 5,2024 Page 69 of 76 Smith: So -- okay. So, it looks like this -- the shortest distance is 45 feet. Can we go to the next slide, please. What I saw inside of the staff report what we see here -- it looks like the distance in this visualization is 185 feet. Did you guys create any visualizations of what that -- that -- what this relationship between this four story building and this two- story -- or one story home would look like at 45 feet apart? Womack: Chair, Commissioners, we don't have it directly in this view. In our backup slides, in case you need any extra info, we do show the elevation of that building on that corner. So, you can see the north-south elevation that is what that side of the building would look like at the moment. We need to go through the design review process and, then, on the landscape plans from an aerial view you can see what landscaping is included in that area. Smith: Okay. Thank you. And, then, another question that I do have is regarding the qualified open space. If you -- I guess the question is what would it take -- not counting the nonqualified open space, what would you assume -- and I'm not that setting -- ask for anything to be set in stone, but what would the likely outcomes be or what would be necessary -- the next measures to be -- to meet the qualified open space, not counting any of the nonqualified? Womack: Chair, Commissioners -- team, correct me if I'm wrong and feel free to hop on up if you wanted to add anything, but my understanding is meeting the qualified open space would be severely restrictive, because we need to also meet the parking requirements which are now also larger and so we would likely be looking at a loss of units and at the same time -- I'm sorry, I need to clarify -- that we are only -- only providing additional amenities in order to support the alternative compliance request. So, if we are not able to get the alternative compliance requests we need to verify, because we are losing -- losing units if we also have to remove amenities. Smith: Okay. Thank you. Womack: Thank you. Grace: Madam Chair and -- Nicolette; right? Womack: Uh-huh. Grace: Can you just confirm what -- maybe what Brandon said? So, ACHD -- ACHD did a traffic study when it was -- when it was proposed to be Villa Sport and they did a traffic study with respect to what you are proposing and the traffic actually is reduced based on this proposal. McDougald: Yeah. Just a clarification there. So, ACHD didn't prepare that -- the traffic study. Another consulting firm prepared a traffic impact study when Villa Sport went through the entitlement process with the city here. So, that initial TIS was reviewed by ACHD, intercepted by ACHD, there was mitigation measures identified within that, 73 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 5,2024 Page 70 of 76 which have been completed thus far on -- on Eagle Road. A memo was drafted that identified what the reduction in -- in trips would be based on a multi-family use versus the commercial Villa Sport use and those numbers that I identified was the reduction based on our unit count proposed at this point in time. Grace: And the traffic studies that these different organizations complete, are they -- is there some standard by which you can compare apples to apples? They are not doing -- there is not different types of studies; right? McDougald: Absolutely. I mean ACHD has a pretty specific way that they want the TIS studies completed and, then, there is ITE manuals that identify the traffic that is generated based on particular uses. So, it's -- it's pretty specific black and white. Grace: So, just an editorial on my part. We don't control the roads. We -- we can consider the impact that a project will have on the roads, but, you know, unfortunately, we often get a lot of testimony and comments about the roads and the effects on the roads and we don't control -- we -- we -- we are not ITD or, you know, the -- the highway district, but we can consider the effects on it, so -- thank you for that. Lorcher: Can I get a motion to close the public hearing? Thank you. Smith: Madam Chair, I -- I do have one additional question -- Lorcher: Okay. Smith: -- before that. Sorry. Just as we go into deliberation, for the applicant I know that timelines are -- are an important factor here. It seems like there are some questions and so depending on the outcome of this deliberation, what does -- what are the next steps look like if this gets continued and/or denied? Womack: Chair, Commissioners, I will pull the timeline up. Chase, could you elaborate further on that? Here is an overview of the future processes we are hoping to meet and he can talk more. McDougald: Yeah. I think -- we don't own this land, we are under contract to purchase this land under fairly tight timelines. If there was a continuance we would have to figure out a way to figure that out. If it was denied this project would probably revert back to the original approved plan for a market rate project and we would go look elsewhere. Is -- does that answer your question? Smith: Yes. Thank you. Lorcher: Commissioners, anything else? Okay. Now I think we are good. Can I get a motion to close the public hearing. Smith: So moved. F74] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 5,2024 Page 71 of 76 Grace: Second. Lorcher: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Sandoval: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Sandoval. Sandoval: Quick question for Kurt. Are we the recommending body on all three items on -- are we the approving body for any of these? For the CUP maybe? Starman: Thank you, Madam Chair Commissioner Sandoval. So, you are a recommending body to the City Council. Technically per the city's code you are not -- you don't make an official recommendation relative to a request to modify a DA. That really comes from the director of the department, the community development director, but the reality is it's difficult for the Commission or for anybody to separate those items, so it wouldn't -- it wouldn't be unusual for you to make comments relative to the proposal as a whole, including the proposed modified development agreement, but, technically, that's not within your purview. The other items before you are, with the exception of alternative compliance, but, yeah, really, the items before you are all -- you are able to act upon and make a recommendation to the City Council. I -- I would advise, because of the complexity of the project before you and how all the pieces fit together, I think the best course of action would to -- would be to consider the package -- or the application as a whole and make a recommendation based upon that. Sandoval: Thank you. Lorcher: Want to start? Grace: Sure. You know, these are as hard as they get. They just are. And there is competing demands and I -- you know, it's easy for me to sit up here and -- and -- and, you know, try to be -- demonstrate wisdom and all -- and all the rest when I don't live there and it's -- it's -- it's hard. Everybody supports affordable housing, but solutions are tough to come by and I have heard that tonight, you know, lots of folks say they are not against it, they are just -- maybe not there. Where do we locate them, then, is -- is the question. I did hear a couple comments that I don't think were intended to be the way they came out, but I just want to say that, you know, characterizations about maybe poverty and crime are -- are tough as well, because I feel like these are our -- these are our kids, these are our neighbors that are trying to find places to live. People with degrees, people who work for government and they don't make a lot of money and so I -- I understand that -- that where you -- where most of you in the room live and why you bought there and those kinds of things, but I hope we all recognize that piece of it, too, that a lot of good people live in these -- in these -- in these places -- in these multi- 75 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 5,2024 Page 72 of 76 family. We need affordable housing in the -- in the city. We -- we do. In the valley. There is no doubt about that. I'm not as concerned maybe about the -- the requested alternatives. I don't think that's what's driving the concern here tonight, whether there is trees that are going to block the solar, you know, those are -- those are secondary issues to me anyway. The open space is related a little bit to one concern I have and that is I don't like the density. I -- I just -- it's tough. If -- and I'm glad that Commissioner Sandoval asked the question of -- of Kurt, because if -- personally, if I can parse some of this stuff out that's the one piece that I don't think fits. If we are a group of citizens sitting up here looking at this through the lens of citizens and the effect that it has, it's a tough fit where it is. It is. And looking at it through that lens and -- and not the -- not the economic portion and the affordable portion, it's a tough -- it's a tough fit there. So, I would be interested to see what my fellow commissioners would say. I understand the timelines and the applicants not looking for any sort of delays on this, but I -- what else goes there? I -- I understand some people have recommended certain things, but, you know, the housing problem is real and I'm not sure what we do about it when we can't find places to put these projects. So, those are my thoughts at the moment. Lorcher: Thank you. Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: I think -- I think I'm pretty well on this, Commissioner Grace. I -- I just -- this is also -- this is something that's been kind of an area of study of mine, so at the risk of getting on a soapbox a little bit, studies show, generally speaking, that there is not really a correlation between the development of affordable housing and crime rates. A lot of -- a lot of us tend to get the toggle chain backwards and we think affordable housing means crime. The reality is that affordable housing is generally built as a solution in poorer, higher crime rate areas, and so I really want to drive home two things. One, that I -- I hope when we think about affordable housing we are charitable and we are neighborly as Meridian has been to -- to my family, as Meridian I hope to be to -- to my children and any other people who -- who move here. I also want to emphasize that because of -- of the -- the things that I have -- I have read and the -- and the -- the research that I have done in a -- in a past life, in a policy life, I support affordable housing very strongly and I generally -- I -- I'm not even opposed to it in this location, but the lack of transition -- transition spaces, a four story, you know, complex next to 45 feet from -- from an existing house I can't support that. I -- I -- I genuinely can't. I -- I -- I can't support the -- the lack of open space. I -- I think if your goal is to provide more affordable housing, but we talked about a flagship product in Raising's Cane's and their incentive to make it a good product. If I -- if my goal is to expand my footprint and develop more affordable housing I sure don't want my first project to be a poorly implemented mess and I -- I grow increasingly concerned that this is the -- this is the case here. You are not often going to find me opposing more density in certain areas and certain developments. I think smart density can be very valuable and this type of density can be valuable to our community, but this is too much with too little transition 76 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 5,2024 Page 73 of 76 space, too little open space and there are too many red flags and too many alarms blaring for me to be able to support this and I -- I do believe that a decrease in density -- maybe not down to the -- maybe not even down to the original amount -- to that original 215, but lower than what it is now I think is -- is what would be needed for me to get to a point to support it in terms of, you know, increased open space, increased transition space and things like that. Lorcher: Thank you. I will get my two cents in. I don't know why -- I mean I think for your federal loans that you are getting you are calling it affordable housing. I have a daughter who graduated Boise State in the middle of COVID and has had a hard time getting a job and her first job out of college she makes 45,000 dollars a year and in order for her to live in our community she has to live with four other people, because there is car payments and there is gas and there is commute and there is all those things and she's a good person and she's young and she's just starting and she really doesn't want to live with four people. So, when we say affordable housing from 35,000 to 60K -- God, my first job out of college I would have loved to make 60K, but this isn't affordable housing. This is housing in our community. That part I love. I love that you are going green. I love that you are looking at alternatives to being able to save energy for the people who live in your community. I think that's fabulous. I love that you want to be in the center of things because, then, you don't have to worry about maybe having a car. Maybe you are an active senior and you -- you want to walk and Trader Joe's is right there and it's very -- it's very clear we do not have a good transportation corridor program here in Meridian. That is not what we are discussing tonight. It's just the way it is. So, what do these people do? But, on the other hand, to be able to put in 250, 270 in a very small space that's already overly congested, it would be -- it's not in the best interest of the City of Meridian, which is our purview. So, I plead with you to come up with a project -- if you have the ability to lower the density and continue to pursue your federal loans, please do. You can always appeal whatever decision we make to City Council, but I -- I think you have got a good project. It's just a little bit too big for the space and I agree with Commissioner Smith, the transition of a two story or even three story building behind a house that has a big backyard -- I know I wouldn't want to look at that behind my house as well. I think the transition needs to be a little bit more gradual and 45 feet is not enough. Commissioner Sandoval, do you have any other comments? Sandoval: Yes, Madam Chair. So, modifications to the DA, CUP, all compliance; right? And you are mainly citing this unique demographic. So, as a child I grew up in a shelter and, then, eventually transitioned into a townhouse that had open space and that was huge, not only for myself, but for all of my friends that were growing up with me, it really established that community, allowed you to engage physically, stay active, stay healthy and the difference in communities and the open space, the correlation, is -- it's absolute; right. My big hang up with this is I look at this project and the shape and the open space and I imagine myself living there and, honestly, I -- I feel like it's very poorly planned. There are elements that I do like about it. It's very centrally located, but you have some units where you are crossing two parking lots and another complex just to get in that central hub. So, you know, as it is now I love affordable housing. I'm all for 77 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 5,2024 Page 74 of 76 it. Clearly I think there is a need and I agree with everyone on that. I cannot be in favor of pushing this forward with a recommend of approval. Lorcher: Okay. Commissioners, do I have a motion? Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: At this point to me it's a question of a continuance or a denial; right? It would be -- is it -- do we think that this is something that can be sorted out if it's continued or do we deny and allow the applicant to appeal directly to -- to City Council? Those are kind of my two thoughts and I don't know if -- if we want to reopen and -- and pull the applicant back up and ask them what their preferred choice is, if that -- it -- it concerns timelines, but it seems like that's the question that I have at the moment. So, I'm not -- I'm not sure what motion to make, but that's where I'm at. Starman: So, Madam Chair and Commissioners, let me just add two thoughts. First, I know that -- I think at least two Commissioners talked about an appeal to City Council. Just as a reminder, you are a recommending body to Council, so you are not approving, nor are you denying an application. You are making a recommendation to the City Council. So, this is going to the City Council regardless at the appropriate time. Lorcher: Right. Starman: So, it's not an appeal, it's -- you are making a recommendation and the Council will make the decision -- is the first thought for you. The second is -- and I'm not -- I will defer to the chair and to the Commission if you want to reopen the hearing, but I thought I heard pretty clearly from the applicant on a couple of occasions tonight that timeline is important and they want to advance this to the Council for final decision, you know, whether the recommendation is in favor or not, what I heard was that they wanted to proceed with the process, because they had other time considerations. Grace: Sorry. So, is this an all-or-nothing proposition then? Is it a -- is it a recommended approval or recommended -- or a recommended denial or is it a -- personally just -- I will give you an example from my perspective -- I'm not sure I disapprove of the -- the -- the alternate compliant -- alternative compliance or the -- necessarily the height unless it impacts the density. I -- going from 215 to 279 is -- is my big -- and so I -- I was sort of asking is it an all or nothing proposition. Starman: So, Madam Chair and Commissioner Grace, I don't want to get too far into the weeds, so tell me if I'm getting too far into the weeds, but as I mentioned or alluded to at least earlier, really, technically, under our code, under the UDC, the Commission is not a recommending body for at least one of the items, which is a -- or that's -- that we discussed tonight and that is the modification to the development agreement. So, that that is really -- you are not charged with making recommendations relative to that, but, 78 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 5,2024 Page 75 of 76 as I mentioned earlier, it's virtually impossible to address an application of this complexity and not deal with it all as one complete application. But, technically, you are not the recommending body on -- on the development agreement modification. The alternative compliance topic gets gray and I would invite Mr. Parsons to help me out here. We -- up until recently we changed the code a few months back -- or maybe a year back now, but previously that was -- that was solely a department director decision. So, similar answer, that's not really within your purview for recommendation either, it really was deferred to the director. We modified our decision making table to say when. -- when an alternative compliance is coupled with other actions, like a CUP, then, the City Council does participate. I'm going to ask Bill how -- how do you view the Commission's role relative to alternative compliance when there is a CUP involved? Parsons: Thank you, Kurt, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. I think that's -- I think Kurt has -- legal has summarized it very well for you. These things are really -- really coupled. When we changed the code the intent of Council was if there is a DA involved they wanted the CUP -- or the alternative compliance to go concurrent, so they can look at the complete package. So, therefore, all of these applications really default to them to make the decision on all three of them. So, kind of alluding to what legal has advised you, had this not had the MDA you would be the decision maker on the old compliance, because it was coupled with the CUP. That's the difference here. It's that MDA that is carrying everything forward for Council to take under advisement. So, really, you are the recommending body. Just like staff. We gave you a recommendation on the project. Now, it's your turn to pass it on -- or make a decision -- make a recommendation onto City Council for their ultimate decision on the applications. Starman: So, my -- I would agree with all that. So, my -- my -- this -- this is my practical and pragmatic advice to the Commission is that it's virtually impossible to break these issues apart. MDA's, alternative compliance, CUPs, they all go hand-in-glove as parts of a puzzle. My recommendation is -- and the Council, you know, values the Commission's overall opinion relative the project and elements of the project. So, my -- my advice, just from a practical perspective, is that you deal with the project in its totality, you make your best recommendation to the City Council, including some of those issues we said they are not really technically within your purview. I know that the Council would value your -- your input on those regardless. So, I think that's kind of the practical way to approach it and I think the more feedback and more detail on your recommendation is always valuable for Council Members, but, you know, the Commission needs to gauge how deep you want to get into that. Grace: Well, Madam Chair, unless -- well, I should ask that if the Commission wants to talk about it, but given that guidance I -- I feel much more comfortable making a motion then. Lorcher: Commissioners, do you have any other comments? I think you can go forward. F79] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission September 5,2024 Page 76 of 76 Grace: So, Madam Chair, after considering all staff, applicant and public testimony I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File No. H-2024-0019 as presented during the hearing of -- during the hearing of September 5th, 2024, for the following reasons: And, essentially, those are the increased density based on the -- based on the proposal and potentially the additional height that's being requested to the extent that it increases the amount of units and increases the density. Lorcher: Do I have a second? Smith: I will second that. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to deny File No. H-2024-0019 with the aforementioned reasons. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Lorcher: Commissioners, can I get one more motion? Grace: Madam Chair, move to adjourn. Smith: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Have a good night. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:37 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS. ) APPROVED 9 19 24 1 MARIA LORCHER - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK F80] E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Approve Minutes of August 15, 2024, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 4 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission August 15,2024 Page 34 of 34 Lorcher: Do I have a second? Rivera: I will second. Lorcher: It has been moved and seconded to close the Planning and Zoning for August 15th, 2024. All those in favor say aye. And opposed? All right. Motion carries. We are adjourned. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:58 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS. ) APPROVED 9 15 I2024 MARIA LORCHER - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK F38 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for The Angels Home Childcare (H-2024- 0017) by Desange Muhawenimana, located at 167 W. Indian Rocks St. F39 CITY OF MERIDIAN V IDIAN;_-- FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ! DAHO DECISION& ORDER In the Matter of the Request for Conditional Use Permit for an In-home Group Daycare for Seven (7)to 12 Children in the R-4 Zoning District for The Angels Home Childcare,Located at 167 W. Indian Rocks St.in the R-4 Zoning District,by Desange Muhawenimana. Case No(s).H-2024-0017 For the Planning& Zoning Commission Hearing Date of. August 15,2024(Findings on September 5,2024) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of August 15, 2024,incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of August 15,2024, incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of August 15, 2024, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of August 15,2024, incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the"Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975,"codified at Chapter 65,Title 67, Idaho Code(I.C. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has,by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian,which was adopted April 19,2011,Resolution No. 11-784 and Maps. 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-5A. 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s)received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this decision,which shall be signed by the Chairman of the Commission and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2024-0017 Page 1 40 upon the applicant,the Planning Department,the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. 7. That this approval is subject to the conditions of approval in the attached staff report for the hearing date of August 15,2024, incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the Planning & Zoning Commission's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11- 5A and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant's request for conditional use permit is hereby approved in accord with the conditions of approval in the staff report for the hearing date of August 15, 2024, attached as Exhibit A. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits Notice of Two(2)Year Conditional Use Permit Duration Please take notice that the conditional use permit,when granted, shall be valid for a maximum period of two(2)years unless otherwise approved by the City in accord with UDC 11-513-6F.1. During this time,the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground. For conditional use permits that also require platting,the final plat must be signed by the City Engineer within this two(2)year period in accord with UDC 11-5B-6F.2. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11-5B-6.F.1,the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the use not to exceed one(1)two (2)year period.Additional time extensions up to two (2)years as determined and approved by the Commission may be granted. With all extensions,the Director or Commission may require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11. E. Judicial Review Pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-652 1(1)(d), if this final decision concerns a matter enumerated in Idaho Code § 67-652 1(1)(a), an affected person aggrieved by this final decision may,within twenty-eight (28)days after all remedies have been exhausted, including requesting reconsideration of this final decision as provided by Meridian City Code § 1-7-10, seek judicial review of this final decision as provided by chapter 52,title 67, Idaho Code. This notice is provided as a courtesy; the City of Meridian does not admit by this notice that this decision is subject to judicial review under LLUPA. F. Notice of Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis Pursuant to Idaho Code §§ 67-6521(1)(d) and 67-8003, an owner of private property that is the subject of a final decision may submit a written request with the Meridian City Clerk for a regulatory takings analysis. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2024-0017 Page 2 41 G. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of August 15,2024 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2024-0017 Page 3 42 By action of the Planning&Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the 5th day of September ,2024. COMMISSIONER MARIA LORCHER, CHAIRMAN VOTED COMMISSIONER JARED SMITH,VICE CHAIRMAN VOTED COMMISSIONER BRIAN GARRETT VOTED COMMISSIONER ANDREW SEAL VOTED COMMISSIONER PATRICK GRACE VOTED COMMISSIONER MATTHEW SANDOVAL VOTED COMMISSIONER ENRIQUE RIVERA VOTED Maria Lorcher, Chairman 9-5-2024 Attest: Chris Johnson, City Clerk 9-5-2024 Copy served upon the Applicant, the Planning and Development Services divisions of the Community Development Department,the Public Works Department and the City Attorney. 9-5-2024 By: Dated: City Clerk's Office Charlene Way, Assistant City Clerk CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2024-0017 Page 4 43 EXHIBIT A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT REPORT REPORT ✓✓ rY L HEARING 8/15/2024 Legend DATE: Continued from: 81112024 U Project Location m ;.%Area of Impact ® v �® TO: Planning&Zoning Commission city Limits OAnalysis - FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner - - 208-884-5533 . T �` '+ sallen@meridiancity.org 1­4 APPLICANT: Desange Muhawenimana SUBJECT: H-2024-0017 ,."NA The Angels Home Childcare-CUP LOCATION: 167 W. Indian Rocks St.,in the NE 1/4 _r of Section 1,T.3N.,R.I W. T_PAMPFI�l i MR -1 I. PROJECT OVERVIEW A. Summary Conditional use permit(CUP) for an in-home group daycare for 7 to 12 children in the R-4 zoning district. B. Issues/Waivers None C. Recommendation Staff. Approval with the conditions included below in Section IV. D. Decision Commission: Approved II. COMMUNITY METRICS Table 1•Land Use Description Details Map Ref. Existing Land Use(s)/Proposed Use Single-family residential home - Proposed Land Use(s) In-home group daycare for 6 to 12 children - Existing Zoning I R-4(medium low-density residential) VII.A.2 Future Land Use Designation MDR(Medium-Density Residential) VII.A.3 Table 2:Process Facts Description Details Preapplication Meeting date 3/19/2024 Neighborhood Meeting 5/9/2024 Site posting date 7/18/2024 City of Meridian I Department Report I. Project Overview ■ Table 3: Community Metrics Agency/Element Description/Issue Reference Ada County Highway District • Comments Received Yes - • Commission Action Required No - • Access W. Indian Rocks St.,a local street - Meridian Public Works Wastewater Services are provided to the site. Meridian Public Works Water Services are provided to the site. See City/Agency Comments and Conditions in Section IV and in the public record for all comments received. III. STAFF ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code(UDC) A. General Overview A CUP is required for a group daycare in the R-4 zoning district per UDC Table 11-2A-2; compliance with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-9 is required. The Applicant proposes an in-home group daycare for seven(7)to 12 children in the R-4 district. The Applicant is currently operating an in-home family daycare for six(6)or fewer children in this location. The proposed daycare facility is consistent with Policy#5.01.011)in the Comprehensive Plan, which states,"Plan for and encourage neighborhoods that provide reasonable pedestrian and bicycle access to services like healthcare, daycare, grocery stores, and recreational areas." Table 4:Proiect Overview Description Details History A-2019-0222(AUP for family daycare) Acreage 0.20-acre B. History and Process The Applicant currently has an accessory use permit(A-2019-0222)for an in-home family daycare for six(6) or fewer children in the R-4 zoning district. C. Site Development and Use Analysis 1. Existing Structures/Site Improvements (UDC 11-1): There is an existing home on the subject property and associated parking and landscaping. 2. Proposed Use Analysis (UDC 11-2): The UDC (Table 11-2A-2) lists group daycares as a conditional use in the R-4 zoning district, subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-9. 3. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): Future development is required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-5 for the R-4 zoning district. 4. Specific Use Standards (UDC 11-4-3): The proposed use is subject to the standards listed in 11-4-3-9.—Daycare Facility. The Applicant proposes to care for up to 12 children at any one time,including her own;the Applicant should not exceed this number. City of Meridian I Department Report 111. Staff Analysis ■ A 3-car parking pad exists on this site in front of the 3-car garage,which will provide off- street parking and a turnaround area to ensure safe discharge and pick up of clients. The Applicant is required to obtain a criminal background check and a fire inspection certificate as required by Title 39, Chapter 11,Idaho Code. The applicant or owner shall comply with all State of Idaho and Department of Health and Welfare requirements for daycare facilities. The proposed hours of operation are from 7:00 am to 10:00 pm; the hours of operation should not extend beyond this time period. Any extension of hours would require a modification to the CUP. D. Design Standards Analysis 1. Structure and Site Design Standards (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-19): No changes are proposed or required to the exterior of the existing home or property. 2. Parking(UDC 11-3C): Off-street vehicle parking is required in accord with the standards for single-family detached dwellings in UDC 11-3C-6. There are four(4)bedrooms in the home;therefore,a minimum of four(4) off-street parking spaces are required with at least two(2) of those in the garage; the other space may be a minimum 10' x 20' parking pad. There are three(3)vehicle parking spaces in the garage and three(3)on the parking pad in front of the garage. The Applicant states she'll pick up children to avoid traffic in her neighborhood; if parents want to come visit,they let her know ahead of time.All of their personal vehicles will be parked inside the garage and the parking pad outside will be available for parents to use that prefer to pick-up and drop-off their children to ensure safe discharge and pick up of clients in accord with UDC 11-4-3-9A.2. 3. Building Elevations (Comp Plan,Architectural Standards Manual): No changes are proposed to the exterior of the existing home. 4. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): Fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7 and 11-4-3-9B.1. A 6-foot tall solid wood fence exists along the side lot lines in the rear yard and an approximate 4-foot tall solid wood fence exists along the rear lot line(see photo below). The rear yard is adjacent to a common area that includes a pedestrian pathway. The UDC (11-3A- 7A.7)contains special regulations for fences that abut pathways and common open space lots. Fencing is restricted to an open vision or semi-private fence up to 6-feet in height as it provides visibility of the common area from adjacent homes or buildings. If closed vision fencing is used, it should not exceed 4-feet in height; an additional 2-feet in height of open vision fencing may be added to the top section of the fence. The specific use standards require all outdoor play areas to be completely enclosed by a minimum 6-foot tall non-scalable fence to secure against exit/entry by small children and to screen abutting properties. To meet this standard,Staff recommends an additional 2-feet of open vision fencing is added to the top of the 4-foot tall fence.Open vision fence is defined in UDC 11-1A-1 as, "A fence that does not restrict or impede vision or sight through the fence by more than 20%." City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ � I a. E. Transportation Analysis 1. Access (UDC 11-3A-3): Access is provided to this site via N. Indian Rocks St., a local street. 2. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): A sidewalk exists along N. Indian Rocks St. in accord with UDC standards. IV. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Meridian Planning Division 1. The Applicant shall comply with all previous conditions of approval associated with this development(A-2019-0222)as well as those listed below. 2. The Applicant shall have an ongoing obligation to comply with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-9. -Daycare Facility. 3. The maximum number of children allowed to be at the facility at one time, including the operator's children,is 12—the Applicant shall not exceed this number. 4. The hours of operation of the daycare facility shall not extend beyond the hours of 7:00 am to 10:00 pm as proposed with this application; extension of these hours shall require a modification to the conditional use permit. 5. The Applicant shall obtain proof of criminal background checks and fire inspection certificates as required by Title 39, Chapter 11,Idaho Code and comply with all State of Idaho and Department of Health and Welfare requirements for daycare facilities. 6. An additional 2-feet of open vision fencing that meets the requirement for such in UDC 1I- lA-1, shall be added to the top of the existing 4-foot tall fence adjacent to the common area along the rear property boundary in accord with UDC 11-4-3-9B.1.Note: UDC]I-]A-1 defines open vision fence as, `A fence that does not restrict or impede vision or sight through the fence by more than 20%." 7. Outdoor play equipment over 6-feet high shall not be located in a front yard or within any required yard per UDC 11-4-3-9B.2. 8. Outdoor play areas shall not be used after dusk per UDC 11-4-3-9B.3. 9. Any signage for the proposed use shall comply with the standards listed in UDC I1-3D-8B. 10. The Applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground within two (2)years from the date of approval of the subject conditional use permit; or apply for a City of Meridian I Department Report 111. Staff Analysis ■ time extension prior to that date as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6F in order for the conditional use permit to remain valid. Other Agency comments may be accessed in the project file, included in the public record. V. Findings A. Conditional Use(UDC 11-5B-6E) The commission shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request upon the following: 1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. Stafffinds the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all dimensional and development regulations of the R-4 zoning district. 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan and in accord with the requirements of this title. Stafffinds the proposed daycare use will be harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with applicable UDC standards with the conditions noted in Section IV of this report. 3. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. Stafffinds the operation of the proposed use should be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood, with the existing and intended character of the vicinity and will not adversely change the essential character of the area. 4. That the proposed use,if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Stafffinds the proposed use will not adversely affect other properties in the vicinity if it complies with the conditions in Section IV of this report. 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools,parks,police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal,water,and sewer. Stafffinds the proposed use will continue to be served by essential public facilities and services as required. 6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Stafffinds the proposed use will not create additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes,materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic,noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. Stafffinds the proposed use will not be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by the reasons noted above. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. Staff finds the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any such features. 9. Additional findings for the alteration or extension of a nonconforming use: This finding is not applicable. 10. That the proposed nonconforming use does not encourage or set a precedent for additional nonconforming uses within the area; and, This finding is not applicable. 11. That the proposed nonconforming use is developed to a similar or greater level of conformity with the development standards as set forth in this title as compared to the level of development of the surrounding properties. This finding is not applicable. VI. ACTION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed CUP application and finds it in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and the UDC with the conditions included in Section IV. A. Commission: The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard this item on August 15,2024.At the public hearing,the Commission moved to approve the subject CUP request. 1. Summary of the Commission public hearing: a. In favor: Desange Muhawenimana b. In opposition: None c. Commenting:None d. Written testimony:None e. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen f. Other Staff commenting on application: None 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony: a. None 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission: a. None 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. None City of Meridian I Department Report VI.Action ■ ' 1 1 r . S . uj -rT O•♦.z�' III - Y �, _Ih i ri CHERRY. - -Y ■■;-,�� _ - ■, FAIRVIEW -- -in -•- . = __=_�';::.::::'••' A...:;: IIi::11i�1,,a1n1111�����'' 116 _ unm 1 •Irr���� ! - a -_'�ullllL r■11■■■� ' ��::■■r I11111i■■� 1111 �1111 -► ���� . - nn■•� III■'iii��r 111 .■11 Pn= unua�'- r IIiiC:' 1 ■ ' - � u ■■■■■ US-T-ICK ..... iilll E 7�.C I ■Dias Z u � ..�i■■�■�:ii'rll ai:r' s Ike= �■: _ 111114. r a :�■ ;irr ►fin■■■rl�llllll IY Run YJ �Cp� p lumi�■� ■1 F�1 1 f.' 1:.Ir ■ 1U1 a■R■n ■� _`: ��nn1Y m�I=uuuu��■osiAlla i Q !f/�� 11111 111 unnr■ Q i —D�l�.� ■�uH:.pg11111111111 i:a 'aw ,�■■■ �lll\III =�111�111111 � ■■1 ,rnnu mama 1 u. n � � i ■ Z n■ q� a nml_r s�■u1 ■�Ross �r .S• IN +. :�II �a�ni:�■�.AIIIIII 11 � w` .,_■■w 1 u • . Il■.' � fj i yr .inoosn � '.�.eGn �Ir■ ♦ ��i�' � i J .II ' -■■■■ ■■u■■il■■■rl Jae�s= I■ RR ♦ r� 11 � •i I! r ■pr■ m111111111■ 1 � ■ ■■ ��i111 � ■ • � 111 �!!•l1:1 "■■'.C�Ilu■osuunnvl i ii i �p 'Pm ,y IA ■n ■ ►.�•1:i uu■��uuumnnuuil fit ��i�\:�-�� �m11 �-•.�■n urr Imunu mn■ludllin ����in : m Ilnnn �ruu V m snm lin■■ ■�. 1 r m■os■nq pnn . r■nn 0 u1 Rlirii� � :�"'iiii��■enm±= Il�•a� ��Il■ ■a••% nos n ■ _■■ice 'S a .' umml__ 11 .z I ♦fir.•i•'. _ ■" ` ■innr : J ►• ii�• nsa■► Nnl 1■■Ilrys ■n. ■un■4a••4i�•� � 1 == ��'�'1�.uq��r�r n■•�y fib■.■os v+�`rr11� usn►•�•• •.:a■III■ a. n- -Ir i■ ►�1i 111� faRarriu .�■m uses.■w:NI. u■'. . ■■Run ■ 11■r ::■■■ r:■■■11 1 S i■�+■m■ :r nR■■s■■iun:Sw ■ ■ nm -m■ —1•' nnnuroo lnnnnn _ ■ aj�osu ■:emu�• nminn„ ■■ si* O sy�■�■►ten■:'.:■ �V ■n■ �J I�*�� � CHERRY � FAfiRY•I�EW � IIi 1 - .I ii 111L �* ♦Ido*, w" ■ ._ ►III+:■■, ■■■ .■r1 �■n,mry::.:: .�i nmu Illl■N■rrrrzsm■■■.■rw /q11 Ina,■+p • - • • • Illy uulllal �A� - 1 rnu S�.'IIIIIIIrIIYllllllllrlrl NIII IluL u,-►_ � r �I'r*i*millr. E nnnni,= �`�Ml.�i ,•a►•�•a �- J`, .Iriiii 7 1 ' - • - ■��=�� warn■r ligill soon niarnr ur USTICK nu■■.� ==..Y= ,Iw In■��,� I 'tr�lrmm��Inn INNE. Il�annsllp nxmnuunn non■■ ♦ - c lal■1 ai, Wr,n ■■.■, - ��}IIr raW1 -_-_--_ ■non • �- 1�= ■ nn� man uum =__ �r1►■y■ ■ -� �III. ,� F �i■aa■■ n �r. norm +l■■■,�:1��■-"-�_ �� , ���IIII a• I�j�1- ,11,,,,,1 'll p,a,rara w■ ■, ■4an■■nu r \III p=_' I *Nu ............ ■:r IIIYmo a N�Ir/iu =�vml' �■ - • ,�ar,allll 111 W ,u :m■■■nm 1 W,■■mini '�=:p'.1•. .a�wa■mill■rll a �°►� ��:rum■ �1111 ■■ :r._rnl . moon 1111 r Ili annu■r■nrY .■ar■■�`;1A-i-,Aar n■.�._■unu�■!11■■a�■i;0Zs:■■�■a"a w-i•g1♦•:►:j��'.d•ir4�f ■�win- mail"■au!llllilr ■ 1■ .� ■1Valli Ii111111 Imp Z,`�. �■nmq�itl - Igpn �■►� n ♦ •. and w O �s i-IAAari► :-:... :• �1��'.:�J�•i♦�r�l��.�1♦�! + •�=■.fnnnoom iiu,S •P1=Gui ♦i♦ • - • �♦:r•r-■ {'� is ■r•��e_ •ir.s,l-.�- Ipa� imnl• Vru■ronuuruq =.u11n�11�■ �►/-':�jt'�4► 1■. � ��� r al i':E II` f�•.•i!�1•�4: ::�i 1 ir•rlllu■unn11j1unn '■■■ :_■ •r■C,� 1■�rur►�,��a •. nu ♦•.= p ►fy ■ Ilunrnaallln► w f■a. a•GAO �•rprn +q:-: 0a+�� ::: �if�•i=_I'= �4�•=ii 3I iiir :wmn m > it ate♦•+:� i �i�iINN" p::i is fi0 iii a,w+�aua■i■■umallln no �■om n r +. - ra.■■I n..unnano mmm/r +r,,,,,,,• �rmouuoof� rr■rl �nw 0 In aini�•+i►_:� iiii ■wm_• ��aA �al� '.r ff� a■■ -Crab ►S ■■■ ♦fa �-:. ::� .,Inm11=a .�:►�• �� ff+• iiu„i :�► J ■► r■■ -s ■,.•�:mono■== G�■ ♦ ♦ r♦ xly H::■::■iPr�iC h=� :■ iC ••y r♦r+f. 1111 111►•Iimna�i■i•� ra um irr ■una■■► HrnAu R •" ■our ••r�ari•• f V Q� r- ■4�1■■■■-r.. lu in■r c sou,■•iO♦ri.�An v�rrrau ■unai a r+ri:!i111. I"I .■■■ubl�a affig �� nnn■n f1� =Noun/f♦�h,1.I m■••:aaa♦;7. ■nON r 1♦r`rinum■�f♦ 0 �:::::�1 IhlK� r�r rrll ff++nuraa•Pr ■■■aq�♦.III r�.0 u■n i■:■� afu•Ilrr If■n,■■o r I;;) rr rr.. n�r�mumumll :n+� I'm OEM mo■■�Ial�..■n■Duna■:■. an nrnnarl� • ■'rnmm Elms■ •a.■naAl� i9 I'�1 �pnua W -........I ■■ ui nor■. :■��u■:a •♦ - - • - • r�r nua:a,nn■ :w� ■■w.�•■.f►••` ter uu■■■■aa■rl� --a+� ■���o rr■4• • nlnl r♦ arryannn111 7 urti11■:■:■a■:::•��♦i - , - ,r��o��� noun E■an■a��ii■ii �� F- C`� a ., E. -L ,mod• - • mill �. CHERRY FAIRVIEW ME 4 milli u fq IIIII ra ♦♦ ♦ ♦ 'lll� it►r+p.■ 1-j III rr Cp�IIRI 111111 _ nun• a>• n.:: Z Irmo , ���� 4*---=`r •�= == -.- = ''�3- • � �.■. sir • -- -�-.i1■ill6�■uurrrl/■■■�■o u Q Ir nh��a��.♦y Ir • - f ■u■■a�.. Ilal■af�i sri 12171-11 1.1-IGllllli�♦ •�.-. Ln.lmrw nnnAl our■r�L■■.■■_ .■ 1"1 �Ipm■+�q le• a_leugl J r/Hm uu ' • - • • • ;Ilrlr■aullal 1111I/ 0 ■1 a,,,r���'- __ allllllll,/11111111 rl A111111111- �-�i=�} ■nqe p IIIII IIIIIII'^, 1!•I �. - hull�_:11114111BII=i �I ; �jlr�:� �,^fi.rT.l e .■■ ■ • -� IIl iI111r ��� Innll,- lal • nh n�,r W �i Pun■Ifs•���� sv�nn rarer , rnnlfi !n .Iranlp Got� �� ii nor +Iru�i _ .• �} ►fir Aua■■ inn �;;�_ ��r a nl .w USTICK=�- • ��■- ,' X ungR.�jr 311 Hnlnunwn I►i■ oluo■■ n M• �-." �mnnnu nqp■, �� w��u,llr. �. �-�� npa■�♦� -____ il'n" hlls.�_ap.�._— �1�.1 � t'j• ■ 1 ou �n■■u►�■6, a+� --== .■ -- ■IIIIIIIIIr ■Q u11 r �u uu■ m +l• rnn■ra no on •a!1►. ■CC■ C:� _ mm �■miN n"-m•'.�■I I-� naa y�1a•�:�■!:,wyll iw •gaarm ■.�' �_ ■ ♦ 'y1af moon 'uu �Ir ■ .mole=..1 p -�I�■rnmr. rar�li u111Y■■n ri�� -�■mm 'non�>► ►f ��j�q aagl+ilH1 '�' n■ -mm III Jr� •i_ •-- ►I ■ un■�`, +�=-: 111 nr �c uuu lei� 1i illlll�d� �-="�n�+�:��■ ■�� 11 %%II\� �1 11■111 :r na111 ■■m""■■ar1�` H e 1111111111111111.0 ■1 ■unuglu S.1:,,,u-•N v i + r ._wm.■.\\111111111111111111. IIII±=e r ``.nmu■r munnnn r i � u• n � n ��::::' rEl moor► ri .I ■ n■1_■■� "<- J� 4 111 �p SIP •`rr::r r-���• Q�:pW:1 II n i�anll :E iii�iii iiiiiill'iiiillaml�♦�`� - w u •��♦ n��uV Oi?O•���i��! : F��!� W ♦f♦i•-• I: � r•Nar,■rrtnnnnr.lnnr i•• Iw,1�i� i��`fir♦ :'/:ii ��• ♦`♦ �•�� � it �■. >- •:♦; ►Iij r■prr p I.:♦ ♦ �1a.D♦�-r F I!1 . ■ _IIII� f1.� QI E� ■on■■�• frllmnm111111unnnlllr■ ■■■ ■w��■■■♦♦ p aur.!:rr�'�■� m ■!- Z f�•j .� ■C Iln`r`n111n�11nnr In i u•a• r��i`� �����nr lafa:�♦ra ��`r�: = iii ■a� a=_. C faa■I ■u■■w AI �■■■.• a �■r_C�� ��armor�...■ � �� Ay +� • 'w Ir11a11aarInllll tila,Irr1� {�ti�r ■ �♦.non■► ■■■ r✓tr\ A♦1� iair�uuuu� l la`�•'!. +■f�Innunr nnaalurlllumnallr" �i'C irur iwl-fnnri�nnnsaruw�a V ��Uuu aumnnnnu��•.■:■e.. r on■anmq� loan Ineulu i■na■■■nra \Inm ua alii■i•♦�ii�=_■:p^ iaii,■u lu,ule 1 ►���>. �IIr +�arf� rran 1 ■ iiiiii iiiiiinp as■■ ■r■ 0 'G N um°Il=' .1 ! a ♦♦f1 ►, ��o aL . +- J a■ +nn4f■+aa!::::::■ non v♦:nnul■-- G�■■ rr •1t•If 1' :a o nnrrAj - �► a rr.+ a■■■r..���-■nnll;� .■::■i•r r r ••ifr♦ � _r-.. ► III nr aE;■non • .. 1-_� • f ..�Illlll f11 fia +■.• W nrau■■ r ■la •rrrrfr p •9 • ■�...pnlr■nr ■■■■.r. r inn •� =nw■r ♦ r,r111■a1rlr ■u■■■Ir f1+r♦ram �� � '.---r r ■■ ♦ ■■r��� n,n_m■• ►rid♦irrn,ary nam umr r.•a■IIIa ♦-- � 14 =nnnr/♦♦i♦Ir 1.■u a.■f:��l♦1', ■moon rr1♦i r/noon r•r1 : iii-G LIB.1■:..:Illy 1j�S.S: •♦•+•rawnapr oou�p♦a�w,u,o■■■:1. mou1 .•1f■nnfo•. a ■ xn r•:■■■■■■■••11� it++■■oar,+■moo ilea.�non noon■■S. o�riHnonuanY=�r .a —�I+lunnnnnnan na:a law, rr♦-unAa/,rnnnnu:ell- ��pnau�•� r��Inln nlrunu 1a1.�wfa■-na11311111H11116 11�"'�r■►�aaa=/r ♦ . � �s�`■��' nln:anon■r �j i■V ■a\�Ia r�fr♦♦ ar �r .�mm ■ryJnnmll� �anti ■ ■■ ■ !. � - CHERRY FAIRVI:EW ,�IIIIII�- !�1_;, 1: MEN. �■=' ■ i■L-1 r �I i HIS i•.vrrq iL .► ■mi B. Subject Site Photos It s i J y 6 i3 I e C. Service Accessibility Report PARCEL R1471900090 SERVICE ACCESSIBILITY Overall Scare: 35 65th Percentile Description Locatlon In City Limits Extension Sewer Trunkshed mains a 500 ft.from parcel Floodplain Either not within the 100 yr floodplain or>2 acres Emergency Services Fire Response time a 5 min. Emergency Services police Meets response time goals most of the tlme Pathways Within 114 mile of current pathways Transit Not within 114 of current orfuture transit route Arterial Road Buildout Status Ultimate configuration(#of lanes in master streets plan)matches exlsting(#of lanes) School Walking Proximity From 112 to 1 mile walking YELLOW Either a High School or College within 2 miles OR a School Drivability Middle or Elementary School within 1 mile driving (existing or future) Either a Regional Parkwithin 1 mile OR a Community Park Walkability Park within 112 mile OR a Neighborhood Park within 114 mile walking Report generated on 07-29-2024 by MERIDIA%sallen City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ D. Aerial View of Property � M City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 9 t r r • k J v w a Ada County Assessor r �----[ ! Patio ! [ 154 Sf [ [ :30 ISO First Floor 1e0 920 sf Second Floor IIf1 31 1273 sf WO 3a 13A� Garage 775 sf [ Porch 102 sf City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 54 E K IDIAN:--- iuAn Planning and Zoning Presentations and outline Changes to Agenda: • Item #3: Calvary Chapel (H-2024-0020) – Application requires continuance to Sept. 19th due to the site not being posted with a public hearing notice within the required timeframe prior to the hearing. th • Item #4: Life Church (H-2024-0024) – Applicant requests continuance to Sept. 19 due to a scheduling conflict. Item #5: Treasure Valley Law Enforcement Childcare (H-2024-0030) Application(s): Conditional Use Permit Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 1.12 acres of land, zoned M-E (Mixed Employment), located north of I-84; between S. Black Cat Rd. and S. Ten Mile Rd. History: There is a DA in effect for this property that governs future development that anticipates this property developing with a mix of light manufacturing (i.e. classified as light industry) and commercial uses. A recent amendment to the agreement was approved but has not yet been recorded. A final plat and private street application are also being processed. This site also falls into the District at Ten Mile which is awaiting City Council's decision. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: High-Density Employment (HE) Summary of Request: The applicant requests a CUP to construct and operate a 7,504-square-foot daycare facility in the M-E zoning district. In both the M-E zoning and H-E FLUM in the TMISAP, child care is considered a complimentary use intended to serve area employees. The proposed use is consistent with the zoning, TMISAP, and the existing development agreement. Access: Access is proposed via La Vista Lane, a private street (yet to be approved) on the west boundary, from the future extension of W. Grand Mogul Way, a collector street, along the northern boundary of the site; direct access via I-84 is prohibited. A cross-access easement should be granted along the southeast boundary of the site for future interconnectivity and access to/from the parcel to the south in accord with UDC 11-3A-3A.2. An access easement should also be granted to the future lot to the north for use of the private street and interconnectivity between lots. Pathways: A 10-foot wide multi-use pathway is required within the Williams pipeline in accord with the Pathways Master Plan and should be constructed with the subdivision improvements associated with Vanguard Village. A 14-foot wide public use easement (10’ pathway + 2’ each side) is required to be submitted for the proposed pathway. Street Landscape Buffers: The landscaping within the street buffers along I-84, W. Grand Mogul Way and LaVista should be installed with the subdivision improvements associated with Vanguard Village Subdivision No. 1. However, if they’re not completed prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy within this development, this developer should be responsible for these improvements as required with the final plat (FP-2024-0012). Review of the street buffer landscaping for consistency with UDC standards will take place with FP-2024-0012. Building elevations and renderings: The architectural design of the proposed structures is required to comply with the design standards in the ASM, the structure and site design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19, and the design guidelines in the TMISAP for the Mixed Employment (ME) designation, as applicable. However, the District has proposed their own design standards and if approved by Council these would govern the site. Issues: The proposed development plan complies with the parking lot design standards. However, due to this development being the first in the subdivision staff has concerns about the future parking to the west not being installed. With offsite improvements already being made, staff recommends the entirety of the western parking area is installed. Additionally, staff is increasing the capacity for children from the applicant's proposed 75 to 125 to provide flexibility for the user as the Treasure Valley continues to grow (in case of a future expansion). By paving the additional parking, it will prevent overflow parking on unimproved surfaces, increase safety for the proposed use, and will provide better integration with future development. Staff recommends the site and landscape plan be revised to include the future parking to the west with this application. Written Testimony: Elizabeth Allen – The applicant has submitted written testimony with proposed alternative language to the following condition: “Provide additional parking further west designated as future parking on the concept plan to provide for adequate ingress and egress for employees, customers, and republic service.” Proposed: “Parking, driving, and similar activities will be prevented on unimproved property between the drive aisles to the site through the use of curbing, barricades or similar method until such time that the area develops for a future user” Staff Recommendation: Approval with conditions. Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- th 2024-0030, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of September 5, 2024, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2024- th 0030, as presented during the hearing on September 5, 2024, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2024-0030 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Item #6: Apex Farr (H-2024-0014) Application(s):  Development Agreement Modification  Rezone  Preliminary Plat (Note: There was a discrepancy in the hearing notice for the Rezone but the description on the agenda is correct. Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 131.89-acres of land, zoned R-4, R-8 and R-15, located on the west side of S. Locust Grove Rd., north of E. Lake Hazel Rd. and east of S. Meridian Rd. History: The subject property, except for the R-2 zoned portion, was annexed in 2015 with an R-4 zoning district as part of the South Meridian Category A annexation, which included multiple properties and property owners. A “placeholder” R-4 zoning district was approved with individual DA’s for each property owner \[i.e. Arbor Ridge, Brighton Investments LLC, SCS Brighton LLC, Murgoitio Limited Partnership\], which require modification prior to development of the property to approve any proposed development plan. In 2020, a modification to the existing DA’s for Brighton Investments LLC, SCS Brighton LLC and Murgoitio Ltd. Partnership was approved, which replaced those agreements with one (1) new agreement (Apex). A rezone was approved for much of the subject property from the R-4 to the R-8 and R-15 districts. The Arbor Ridge R-4 zoned property along the northern boundary was under different ownership at that time and was not included in the rezone but is part of the subject rezone application. A preliminary plat was also approved for Apex Northwest Subdivision, which included the R-15 zoned portion of the subject property at the SEC. The conceptual Master Plan included in the DA depicts “future development” with no specific development plan for the areas not included in the preliminary plat with a general street layout on the land southwest of the Williams gas pipeline and a future school at the northwest corner of Locust Grove and Crescendo. In 2021, the R-2 zoned portion of the property was annexed with a DA and included in Shafer View Terrace Subdivision as Lot 1, Block 5. This lot was depicted as a future phase with no specific development plan. A preliminary plat was approved in 2021 for Apex West Subdivision, which included Lot 1, Block 5, Shafer View Terrace Subdivision and a portion of the subject property. A portion of this property is included in the subject preliminary plat; the remainder will be part of Apex West. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: LDR (Low Density Residential), MDR (Medium Density Residential) and MU-C (Mixed Use – Community) with a future school designation. Summary of Request: The Applicant requests a DA modification to include the South Meridian (Arbor Ridge) property and portions of the property annexed with Shafer View Terrace & Apex in a new DA with an updated conceptual development plan; these properties will no longer be subject to the previous DA’s. The proposed development plan is generally consistent with the FLUM. The future school previously planned at the NWC of Locust Grove & Crescendo was shifted to the south side of Lake Hazel, east of Locust Grove. A Rezone of a total of 38.69-acres of land from R-2 to R-8 (0.76-acre), R-15 to C-C (6.66-acres) and R-4 to R-8 (31.27-acres) is proposed. The area proposed to be rezoned to R-8 is designated MDR on the Comp Plan FLUM, except for a 0.76-acre portion which is designated LDR. The area proposed to be zoned C-C is designated MU-C. The proposed zoning is consistent with the associated FLUM designations. A Preliminary Plat is proposed consisting of 381 SFR building lots, 6 commercial building lots & 60 common lots on 131.89-acres of land in the R-8, R-15 & C-C zoning districts and is a re-subdivision of a portion of Lot 1, Block 5, Shafer View Terrace Subdivision (the remainder of which will be included in the Apex West final plat). The plat is proposed to develop in (7) final plat phases as shown on the phasing plan. The minimum lot size proposed is 4,180 s.f. with an average lot size of 8,021 s.f. A gross density of 2.84 units/acre with a net density of 5.43 units/acre is proposed, which is consistent with the density desired in the MDR FLUM designation. A mix of front-loaded & alley-loaded SFR detached units in a variety of different lot sizes are proposed with larger lots along the northern boundary to provide a transition between the rural lots to the north of the Farr Lateral. Access is proposed via the extension of E. Quartz Creek St., E. Tranton St. & E. Liberator Ct. at the project’s west boundary; and from S. Locust Grove Rd. via S. Apex Way & E. Crescendo St. An emergency access is proposed at the north boundary via S. Margaret Ave. Several common driveways are proposed as depicted on the plat; the Stub streets are proposed for future extension & interconnectivity with adjacent development and future development in Apex/Pinnacle. A collector street is stubbed to the north, which will extend to E. Amity Rd. with future development; and S. Apex Way will extend to S. Locust Grove Rd. as a collector street in accord with the MSM. Cross-access/ingress-egress easements should be provided between all of the commercial lots. Private streets are proposed for access to the residential units in Blocks 2 & 23. ACHD won’t allow these streets to be public alleys because some of the lots don’t have frontage on a public street. This also creates an issue with addressing the units that have frontage on both a public street & the proposed private street, which Staff is concerned will create confusion for emergency responders. Therefore, Staff recommends these blocks are reconfigured so that public alleys may be allowed & addressing can be from the adjacent public street. Block 23 at the SEC of the development consists of rear-loaded SFR units on the west side and commercial uses on the east side as shown on the layout on the left. A 25’ wide buffer to residential uses is required on the C-C zoned property; the Applicant is requesting a reduction in the buffer width to 0’ with the provision of a 15’ wide common mew on the residential portion, which will include landscaping and a sidewalk. Staff is not in favor of the proposed layout with the residential units abutting the parking lot for the commercial area with only a 15-feet wide landscape area in between. Staff recommends the access drives for the residential units are constructed as alleys instead of private streets, and a north/south public street is provided between the residential & the commercial lots for addressing purposes for the east-facing residential units (which is an issue w/the proposed layout), for on-street parking for the residential units and as a transition/separation between land uses as shown in the layout on the right. There are several site constraints that effect the design and layout of this project, the include • The Carlson Lateral runs along the NW boundary of the site. • The Farr Lateral runs along the NE boundary of the site at the highest elevation of the project. • The McBirney Lateral will be piped and is located in the SE portion of the project. • The Watkins Drain runs through the NW quadrant. • The Williams Northwest Gas Pipeline bisects this site within a 75-foot wide easement. • There is an existing sewer trunk line on the NWC of the property in a 25’ wide easement. • There are slopes between 7 and 12% along the northeast boundary of the site within the area shown in red on the map. Due to these constraints, the Applicant requests a waiver from City Council to the maximum block face length standard of 750’ without an intersecting street or alley – block faces are allowed to extend up to 1,000’ where a pedestrian connection is proposed between streets within the block.  The face of Block 12 along W. Precipice Dr. is approximately 2,500’ – (2) pedestrian connections are proposed within the block that provide pedestrian access between streets. The Farr Lateral runs along the north side of the street at the highest point of the development.  The face of Block 12 along W. Vertex Dr. is approximately 1,500’. One (1) pedestrian connection is proposed within the block that provides pedestrian access between streets. Traffic calming is proposed in the form of a 29-foot wide street section for W. Precipice Dr. along the Farr Lateral, which will only allow parking on one side of the street, and bulb outs and choke points at pedestrian crossings as shown. A landscape plan was submitted with the preliminary plat that depicts street buffer and common open space landscaping for the development. A fencing plan was also submitted as shown. Multi-use pathways are proposed within the Williams pipeline easement and along Locust Grove Rd. A minimum of 15% (or 18.93-acres based on 126.2-acres of residential area) qualified open space is required to be provided in the R-8 and R-15 zoning districts; a total of 36.1-acres (or 29.1%) is proposed at almost double the required amount. Site amenities totaling a minimum of 26 points from each category are required to be provided; amenities totaling 30 points are proposed consisting of (2) fitness courses, a dog park and (2) education gardens from the quality of life category; a swimming pool w/changing facilities & restrooms and (2) tot lots/natural play areas from the recreation activity category; 0.37 mile of pathway aligned with linear open space & 1.61 miles of multi-use pathways from the pedestrian or bicycle circulation system category; and a bicycle repair station from the mulit-modal category. Several conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed residential development as shown. A mix of single-story & 2- story homes are proposed that include a variety of siding styles with masonry accents in a variety of colors and design elements/features with varying roof profiles and wall modulation that demonstrate the high quality of development proposed.No elevations were submitted for the commercial portion of the development. Written Testimony: Amanda McNutt, Brighton (Applicant response to the staff report) – the Applicant requests deletion of the following conditions:  #A.1.iv., A.2.iii. & #3.vi. which requires 10’ wide detached sidewalks to be provided along all collector streets for public safety in lieu of on-street bicycle lanes;  #A.2.xi. & #3.ix, which requires a north/south public street to be provided between the residential and commercial lots in Block 23.  #A.2.xii, which requires revision of the lot layout in Block 2 to comply with ACHD’s requirements for public alleys so that the lots only have frontage on (1) named street.  #A.2.xiii & #3.viii, which requires a sidewalk on the north side of W. Precipice Dr. per the UDC; and  Modification to #A.3 to clarify the landscape plan shall be revised at the time of final plat – Staff agrees with this clarification.  Modification to #A.9 to include language requiring the alternative compliance for the common driveway in Block 12 if requested, to be submitted concurrently with the final plat application. Staff Recommendation: Approval w/conditions Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- 2024-0014, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of September 5, 2024, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2024- 0014, as presented during the hearing on September 5, 2024, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2024-0014 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #7: Raising Cane CUP (H-2024-0021) Application(s):  Conditional Use Permit Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 1.46 acres of land, zoned C-G, located at 2700 N. Eagle Road. History: AZ-03-021; AZ-15-012; MDA-15-011; DA Inst. #2022-065403; A-2020-0115 (PBA ROS #12423); H-2022-0046 (MDA, PP), Development Agreement Inst. #2023-033831, FP-2023-0002; and H-2023-0030 MDA DA Inst. # 2023-069381. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MU-R Summary of Request: A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to construct a drive-through restaurant with food and drink services including an indoor/outdoor seating area. The drive-through restaurant will be approximately 2,862 gross square feet overall and is one-story in height with landscaping along two perimeter property lines located on 1.46 acres of land in the C-G zoning district. A conditional use permit is required as the proposed drive-through is within 300 feet of an existing drive-through. The proposed hours of operation being requested through this conditional use permit are Sunday-Thursday with a closing time at 1:30 AM. Friday and Saturday with a closing time of 3:30 AM or as restricted through this CUP process. As proposed, the use complies with the zoning for the site and is subject to specific use standards as listed in 11-4-3-11. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed restaurant as shown in Section VIII.E. The proposed building design includes the following material: composite lumber, brick veneer, metal and aluminum panels. Final design is required to comply with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual (ASM). The Applicant shall obtain a Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) and Administrative Design Review (DES) approvals before submitting for any building permit within this development. The Idaho Transportation Department requested trip generation information to determine what mitigation if any the applicant may be required to complete. Written Testimony: None Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the proposed conditional use permit with the conditions in Section IV per the Findings in Section V of the staff report Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2024-0021, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of September 5, 2024, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2024-0021, as presented during the hearing on September 5, 2024, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2024-0021 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #8: Centrepoint ALT, CUP, MDA (H-2024-0019) Application(s):  Alternative Compliance (ALT), Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Modification of Development Agreement (MDA) Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 1.46 acres of land, zoned C-G, located at 2700 N. Eagle Road. History: H-2018-0121 (Villasport CUP, MDA); H-2022-0035 (MDA, DA Inst. #2022-079000) A-2023-0064 (CZC, DES) Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MU-R Summary of Request: Modifications to the existing Development Agreement (DA) H-2022-0035 and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) H- 2022-0072 to facilitate the construction of a 279-unit multifamily affordable apartment project. This proposal strictly pertains to the residential component of the approved development plan. The applicant is also requesting alternative compliance to the open space and parking lot landscaping. The applicant is requesting alternative compliance for the following:  Reduction in qualified open space as the applicant is deficient by 8,940 square feet.  Removal of the parking lot islands under the covered parking internal to the parking lots. The applicant is requesting the following modification to the Development Agreement and CUP:  Modify the CUP to increase the building height to forty-five (45) feet instead of three (3) stories.  Increase the number of units from two hundred fifteen (215) to two hundred seventy-nine (279), an increase of sixty-four (64) additional units. History: The subject application encompasses one (1) parcel located south of E. Ustick Road. The parcel was part of a Development Agreement Modification and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) application in 2019 that removed the subject parcel from an existing Development Agreement (DA) for the purpose of entering into a new DA with a new conceptual plan and building elevations (H-2018- 0121, DA Inst. # 2019-060877) and a request for a new athletic club and spa (indoor recreation facility), Villasport. The CUP approval for the indoor recreation facility has since expired and the property was sold. The current CUP and DA (H-2022-0035 DA Inst# 2022- 079000) was approved to construct a mixed-use development consisting of commercial space and a 215-unit multi-family development in lieu of an athletic club/spa and commercial building. The proposed CUP and DA modification proposes a deed restricted affordable multi-family development with 279 units. The submitted conceptual site plan (Exhibit VII.D) depicts five (5) multi-family buildings with internal access. The multi-family is split into three (3) 4-story buildings on the larger area of the site east of Centrepoint Way, one (1) 4-story building west of Centrepoint Way and one (1) 4-story building on the east side of Cajun Lane. The submitted landscape plan shows a 25-foot landscape buffer along the west and southern perimeter of the property. According to the specific use standards for multi-family development (UDC 11-4-3-27), common open space may not be counted towards the required minimum when it is adjacent to arterials unless approved through the CUP process. Therefore, the proposed open space shown may not all be qualified open space if Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council do not approve it in its current location. This is concerning because if the Commission does not approve it, the proposed site plan and open space will be further diminished from complying with the minimum open space standards and revisions would likely be needed. The previously approved CUP and MDA:  Maximum of two hundred fifty-one (215) units  Limited building height limited to three (3) stories  Met the intent of the open space requirements  Provided the following qualifying amenities: a clubhouse with a business lounge, plaza areas, a swimming pool, a fitness facility, an outdoor kitchen, a dog run, a micro-path system, sports courts, and a bicycle repair room. All of the proposed amenities except the proposed dog run are located within the central open space area or part of the three (3) central buildings. The proposed amendment to the CUP and MDA:  Two hundred seventy-nine (279) units  Requesting four (4) stories and an increase in building height to 45 feet.  Does not meet the open space requirement (deficient by 8,940 sf). The applicant is asking for alternative compliance for qualified open space requirement stating the site is irregular, has a unique targeted demographic of an affordable housing community, has significant indoor and outdoor passive and active amenities and excellent connectivity to public parks within walking distance. Although the project is located less than one-mile from the Charles F. McDevitt Youth Sports Complex, Julius M. Kleiner Memorial Park and Champion Park; the residents would have to cross either Ustick Road, a residential arterial or Eagle Road, a State highway to access them.  Proposing the following qualifying amenities: a clubhouse with a fitness facility; children’s play structure; dog park with a waste station; shaded picnic area with BBQ grills, tables, benches and landscaping; shaded plaza/courtyard with activity lawn; a micro-path system, sports courts and a bicycle repair area. The sports courts and dog park are located near N. Cajun Lane. Based on the analysis, staff feels the applicant is proposing too many units for development to be compliant with the Comprehensive Plan and UDC requirements. Staff feels if the proposal loses the parallel parking stalls along the north property line and relocate the open space away from Ustick Road, an arterial, it would be a nice addition to the community. Landscape Buffer Along Streets: The applicant is proposing a reduction of the 35’ wide landscape buffer along Ustick Road – up to a 50% reduction (17.5’), as allowed with the implementation of Water Conserving Design principles (UDC 11-3B-5.O). Staff has no objection to the applicant’s request to provide a water conserving design for the street buffer along Ustick Road. Parking Lot Landscaping: The applicant is proposing Alternative Compliance under UDC 11-3B-7.C.1.c to remove the parking lot islands beneath the covered parking areas within the development. Instead, the applicant plans to install solar carports, which will serve as a green infrastructure amenity by providing an alternative power source for the development and its residents. The solar carports will also fulfill the requirement for covered parking and help reduce the heat impact of the surface parking lot. According to the applicant, the removal of parking islands under the solar carports will enhance solar panel efficiency by improving daylight capture and reducing maintenance tasks such as clearing leaf debris and replacing plants or trees. Additionally, the solar carports are expected to offset utility costs for residents. The applicant also notes that despite the removal of these islands, the overall landscape buffer percentage will not decrease, as the buffer areas along the east side of Centrepoint Way exceed the city's code requirements. All uncovered parking areas will continue to comply with the requirements for parking lot islands. Landscape Buffer to Adjoining Uses: The single-family residential neighborhood to the south is screened with a twenty-five (25) foot landscape buffer. The single-family residential neighborhood to the west is likewise screened with a twenty-five (25) foot landscape buffer and further will be screened by an eight (8) foot masonry wall. Staff finds the proposed landscape buffer adjacent to the residential neighborhoods meets the requirements of the UDC and requires a detail of the masonry wall to be submitted for review with the CZC application. Open Space: The proposed project will include 104,345 square feet of qualified open space which is 8,940 square feet less than required. The applicant is asking for alternative compliance for qualified open space requirement stating the site is irregular, has a unique targeted demographic of an affordable housing community, has significant indoor and outdoor passive and active amenities and Building Elevations: Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed multi-family buildings as shown in Section VII.G. The applicant is requesting a design exception for the reduced articulation of the building façade and the omission of the masonry along the base of the building. This an administrative decision to be determined by the director. Final design will be required to comply with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual (ASM) and the recorded agreement unless otherwise waived by the Community Development Director through a design exception request. Building Height: The applicant is requesting a modification to the existing DA to increase the building height from three (3) stories to forty-five (45) feet in height instead of stories. Staff feels in order to maintain cohesiveness with the surrounding area, the building height should remain as shown on the proposed concept plan. Modification to the Development Agreement: The Applicant is requesting a modification to the existing Development Agreement to include the following changes:  Updating language and proposed concept plans  Increasing the building height to 45 feet and removing the limitation of 3 stories.  Increase the number of units from two hundred fifteen (215) to two hundred seventy-nine (279), an increase of sixty-four (64) additional units. Written Testimony:  Bruce and Kathy Dickinson – Oppose this development  Callie Meyet – Oppose the request for additional units beyond the approved 215 units and oppose the additional height request.  Jackson Square HOA – Oppose the current proposal  Joseph Lemay – Reject the proposed application  Kathleen Medley – Oppose the current proposal  Michelle Hodges – Oppose the current proposal  Randy Adams – Supports the comments made by his HOA to oppose the current proposal Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the proposed development Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- 2024-0019, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of September 5, 2024, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2024- 0019, as presented during the hearing on September 5, 2024, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2024-0019 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) excellent connectivity to public parks within walking distance. The project also includes an extensive network of pedestrian oriented pathways including an outer loop around the entire project with internal connections to the various amenities for the project allowing for free movement of pedestrians throughout the site. The Comprehensive Plan goal is for developments to plan for safe, attractive, and well-maintained neighborhoods that have ample open space, and generous amenities that provide varied lifestyle choices. The Comprehensive Plan's goal emphasizes the importance of safe, attractive, and well-maintained neighborhoods with ample open space and amenities. Reducing these elements, regardless of the parcel’s shape or target demographic, contradicts the Plan’s standards. Furthermore, the applicant is increasing the density of the site beyond what was previously approved, understanding they are also reducing open space. Adequate open space and amenities are fundamental to maintaining the vibrancy and functionality of a neighborhood. Adhering to the Comprehensive Plan ensures that developments contribute positively to the community and uphold the quality of life for its residents. It's important to recognize that proximity to parks and sports complexes doesn't fully address the need for accessible and usable open space within a neighborhood. Even though the project is less than a mile from Charles F. McDevitt Youth Sports Complex, Julius M. Kleiner Memorial Park, and Champion Park, residents would still face the challenge of crossing major arterial roads to reach these amenities. Pedestrian and bicycle crossing of these major roadways adversely affect signal performance and signal timing, and is one of the stated reasons for mixed use area analysis to not include areas bisected by major roadways. This can be a significant barrier, particularly for families with young children, elderly residents, or those without convenient transportation options. Common Open Space: The applicant is proposing to add 8,00 square feet of open space adjacent to Ustick Road. Per UDC 11-4-3- 27-C8, unless otherwise approved through the conditional use process, common open space areas shall not be adjacent to collector or arterial street buffers unless separated from the street by a berm or constructed barrier at least four (4) feet in height, with breaks in the berm or barrier to allow for pedestrian access. The applicant has agreed to work with staff to revise this area in order to meet code and provide a revise plan for review 15 days prior to the City Council meeting or keep some parking in this area and install the 35-foot buffer as suggested to try and provide more qualified open space closer/behind the westerly building. This might be a good location for one of the proposed amenities. Ideally staff would love to see the following:  A larger open space area for the building to the east that is not near the road.  The dog park near the buildings and the sports court put on the end of the drive aisle in the larger area. Staff suggest removing the covered parallel parking stalls to the north of the property and maybe placing them in the parking lot to the west. Add a 35-foot wide landscape buffers in these areas and along the northwest, count 50% of those areas towards the qualified open space requirement if its landscaped to meet the entryway corridor standards in UDC 11/3B-7C. This will get the applicant closer to their qualified open space requirement square footage. Amenities: The applicant is proposing the following amenities: a clubhouse with a fitness facility; children’s play structure; dog park with a waste station; shaded picnic area with BBQ grills, tables, benches and landscaping; shaded plaza/courtyard with activity lawn; a micro-path system, sports courts and a bicycle repair area. The sports courts and dog park are located near N. Cajun Lane. Based on the analysis, staff feels the applicant is proposing too many units for development to be compliant with the Comprehensive Plan and UDC requirements. Staff feels if the proposal loses the parallel parking stalls along the north property line and relocate the open space away from Ustick Road, an arterial, it would be a nice addition to the community. The applicant is required to show the bike repair station, shade structure for the plaza and picnic areas, BBQ grills and lawn games on the open space exhibit as well as provide exhibits of these items 15 days prior to the City Council public hearing. Parking: Off-street parking for multi-family developments is required to be provided per the table in UDC 11-3C-6 based on the number of bedrooms per unit. The Applicant is proposing 279 units consisting of 139 1-bedroom units, 105 2-bedroom units and 35 3-bedroom units. In addition, one (1) guest space for every 10 units is required. Based on the total number of units proposed and their bedroom count distribution, a minimum of 552 parking spaces, with a minimum of 279 of these spaces to be covered in a garage or by a carport. In addition to meeting the minimum off-street parking amount, the current Development Agreement City Council was not comfortable with the parking area west of Centrepoint Way and expressed a desire for all buildings to be self-parked within their respective areas of the site. The previous applicant provided documentation showing the buildings to be self-parked within their respective areas of the site. Although the buildings within the proposed development are not self-parked within their respective areas of the site, as shown in the table below, the proposal meets the parking requirement as outlined in UDC 11-3C. The applicant will need to enter into a shared parking agreement with the property to the east of Building C or do a property boundary adjustment to have all the parking stalls on their property. Staff is requesting to add this as a condition to the Conditional Use Permit. h2 Planning & 09/05/2024 MeetingCommission Zoning Zoning MapAerial MapFuture Land Use Map W IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Treasure Valley Law Enforcement Childcare Center (H- 2024-0030) by Ball Ventures Ahlquist, located at 1085 Ten Mile Rd. Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2024-0030 A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a daycare center providing care for up to 75 children in the M-E zoning district. 55 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : September 5 , 2024 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 5 PROJECT NAME : Treasure Valley Law Enforcement Childcare Center ( W2024 - 0030 ) Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify ( Please Print ) HOA ? ( mark X if yes ) If yes , please provide HOA name 1 33 Z N 3Ra� DwwR 2 3 4 5 6 7 ' 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C��fEPIDIAN*,,--, DEPARTMENT REPORT HEARING 9/5/2024 Legend DATE: Project Location TO: Planning&Zoning Commission Area of Impact } City Limits �. 7 FROM: Nick Napoli, Associate Planner O Analysis 208-884-5533 - - nnapoli@meridiancity.org APPLICANT: Elizabeth Allen - SUBJECT: H-2024-0030 - - - Treasure Valley Law Enforcement , Childcare v LOCATION: 1085 S. Ten Mile Rd., in the SW 1/4 of `_--_-- Section 15, T.3N.,R.1W. I. PROJECT OVERVIEW A. Summary Conditional Use Permit to construct and operate a 7,504 square foot daycare center in the M-E zoning district,by Ball Ventures Ahlquist. B. Recommendation Staff.Approval with conditions. C. Decision To be determined 11. COMMUNITY METRICS Table 1:Land Use Description Details Map Ref. Existing Land Use(s)/Proposed Use Vacant/undeveloped/daycare - Existing Zoning Mixed Employment(M-E) V11.A.2 Future Land Use Designation High Density Employment(HE)in the Ten Mile VII.A.3 Interchange Specific Area Plan(TMISAP) Table 2: Process Facts Description Details Preapplication Meeting date 4/19/2024 Neighborhood Meeting 5/l/2024 Site posting date 8/21/2024 City of Meridian I Department Report 1. Project Overview ■ Table 3: Community Metrics Agency/Element Description/Issue Reference Ada County Highway District - • Comments Received Yes - • Commission Action Required No - • Access W. Grand Mogul Drive/S.La Vista Drive(private) - • ITD Comments Received No(NA) - Meridian Fire Distance to Station#6: 2.4 miles - Response Time: 3 minutes Meridian Public Works Wastewater Distance to Mainline: Will be available at site when Grand IV.A.12 Mogul is extended along north boundary. Impacts or Concerns:No Meridian Public Works Water Distance to Mainline: Will be available at site when Grand IV.A.12 Mogul is extended along north boundary. Impacts or Concerns:No See City/Agency Comments and Conditions in Section IV and in the public record,for all comments received. III. STAFF ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code (UDC) A. General Overview The subject site is currently designated High Density Employment on the future land use map (FLUM). This designation is part of the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan(TMISAP) which promotes a variety of employment in the area. The existing development agreement anticipates this property developing with a mix of commercial and light manufacturing uses. The proposed development plan is generally consistent with the conceptual development plan included in the DA, as required. Land Use Types in High Density Employment: - Corporate,business and professional offices - Research facilities and laboratories - Complementary uses primarily serving district employees and users, such as business services, conference centers, child care, restaurants, convenience retail, and hotels and motels. The current zoning is M-E(Mixed Employment)was established with the Vanguard Village Rezone(H-2021-0081). The proposed daycare use contributes to the mix of land use types desired in the High Density Employment designation in the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan(TMISAP),which include commercial uses. Table 4: Proiect Overview Description Details History AZ-09-008 Meridian Crossing [Ord.#10-1467,Development Agreement (DA)Inst.#110115738];H-2021-0081 Vanguard Village(MDA,RZ,PP, CUP—DA Inst.#2022-0497799);H-2023-0072 Vanguard Village(MDA —DA is not yet recorded);A-2024-0088 PS;FP-2024-0012 Vanguard Village No. 1 —FP(not yet approved or recorded);H-2023-0071 District at Ten Mile(CPAM,MDA,PP,RZ) Physical Features Williams Pipeline Acreage 1.12 Acres 57 B. History and Process There is a development agreement in effect for this property that governs future development (Vanguard Village Inst. #2022-0497799). An amendment to the agreement was recently approved but has not yet been recorded. A preliminary plat was previously approved that includes the subject property; a final plat application has been submitted but has not yet been approved. The final plat shall be recorded prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. A rezone, comprehensive plan map amendment, and amendment to the development agreement(H-2023- 0071)was recently approved by Commission and is awaiting City Council action. C. Site Development and Use Analysis 1. Proposed Use Analysis (UDC 11-2): Goal 2.04.01A of the Comp Plan emphasizes the importance of supporting a network of public resources, schools, community centers and other public facilities that address the city's educational and training needs. The 7,504 square foot daycare facility will provide valuable childcare for our law enforcement officers across the valley. The UDC (Table 11-213-2) lists daycare uses as an allowed use with a conditional use permit in the M-E zoning district; compliance with the specific use standards for such in UDC 11-4- 3-9 is required. 2. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): Future development is required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2B-3 for the M-E zoning district. 3. Specific Use Standards (UDC 11-4-3): 11-4-3-9.—Daycare Facility. a. General standards for all child daycare and adult care uses, including the classifications of daycare center; daycare, family; and daycare, group. i. In determining the type of daycare facility, the total number of children at the facility at one time, including the operator's children, is the determining factor. The applicant is proposing a daycare with 84 children as the scope of work. This designates the use as a daycare facility. ii. On-site vehicle pick-up,parking, and turnaround areas shall be provided to ensure safe discharge and pick up of clients. The applicant is proposing a pick- up area for children that meets this requirement. However, staff has found that many daycares require parents to check in/out their children. As a result, the applicant shall Stripe the loading zone as parallel parking(9'x 23) and install a planter island with a bulb out to match the southern portion of the loading zone. iii. The decision-making body shall specify the maximum number of allowable clients and hours of operation as conditions of approval. The applicant is proposing 84 children being watched at any one time by 18 staff members. City staff recommends the Commission allow up to 125 children to provide flexibility for the user as the Treasure Valley continues to grow (in case of a future expansion). Additionally, the proposed hours of operation are 5:00 am and 10:00 pm. iv. The applicant or owner shall provide proof of criminal background checks and fire inspection certificates as required by Title 39, Chapter 11, Idaho Code. Said proof shall be provided prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy. The 58 applicant or owner shall comply with all State of Idaho and Department of Health and Welfare requirements for daycare facilities. b. The applicant shall not exceed the maximum number of clients as stated in the approved permit or as stated in this title, whichever is more restrictive. c. Additional standards for daycare facilities that serve children. i. All outdoor play areas shall be completely enclosed by minimum six-foot nonscalable fences to secure against exit/entry by small children and to screen abutting properties. The applicant shall submit a fencing detail with the submittal for a Certificate of Zoning Compliance. ii. Outdoor play equipment over six(6) feet high shall not be located in a front yard or within any required yard. N/A iii. Outdoor play areas in residential districts adjacent to an existing residence shall not be used after dusk. N/A D. Design Standards Analysis 1. Structure and Site Design Standards (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-19): Goal 5.01.02D of the Comp Plan emphasizes the importance of building design, and landscaping elements to buffer, screen,beautify, and integrate commercial,multifamily, and parking lots into existing neighborhoods. Buildings are required to be designed in accord with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual and TMISAP. See Section III.D.4 See below for more information on design requirements. The proposed development plan complies with the parking lot design standards. However, due to this development being the first in the subdivision staff has concerns about the future parking to the west not being installed. The applicant has indicated there may be a building in the proposed future parking but nothing has been solidified. Given that offsite improvements are already being made, staff recommends the entirety of the western parking area is installed. Additionally, staff is increasing the capacity for children from the applicant's proposed 75 to 125 to provide flexibility for the user as the Treasure Valley continues to grow(in case of a future expansion). By paving the additional parking, it will prevent overflow parking on unimproved surfaces and will provide better integration when the surrounding properties develop. Staff recommends the site and landscape plan be revised to include the future parking to the west with this application. Per UDC 11-3A-19B.4, a minimum 5-foot wide pedestrian walkway is required to be provided from the perimeter sidewalk to the main building entrances per UDC 11-3A-1913.4a. The walkway is required to be distinguished from the vehicular driving surfaces through the use of pavers, colored or scored concrete, or bricks. 2. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): i. Landscape buffers along streets The landscaping within the street buffers along I-84,W. Grand Mogul Drive and LaVista Lane should be installed with the subdivision improvements associated with Vanguard Village Subdivision No. 1. However,if they're not completed prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy within this development,this developer should be responsible for these improvements as required with the final plat(FP-2024-0012). Review of the street buffer landscaping for consistency with UDC standards will take place with FP-2024-0012. Note: Although this site doesn't abut the future extension of W. Grand Mogul Drive,the larger(soon to be) lot does; therefore, street buffers are required on the larger(future) lot. 59 ii. Parking lot landscaping Parking lot landscaping is required in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C. The applicant is required to add extra shrubs to all planter islands and plant one additional tree in the planter island with the fire hydrant(with a minimum of one tree per planter island). Requests for alternative compliance to this standard can be made as permitted under UDC 11-5B-5. Additionally,the applicant must remove two parking stalls from the southeast parking area adjacent to the trash enclosure to ensure sufficient ingress and egress. Lastly, the applicant should widen the planter island south of the trash enclosure to 5 feet(measured from inside of the curb)and meet the minimum requirement of 50 square feet. The site/landscape plans submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance should be revised to comply with these standards. iii. Landscape buffers to adjoining uses No residential uses exist or are planned adjoining this site to the west or east;therefore, no buffers are required. iv. Tree preservation There are no existing trees on this site. Tree mitigation will not be required. v. Pathway landscaping Landscaping is required along the multi-use pathway running along the Williams pipeline in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C. A mix of trees, shrubs,lawn and/or vegetative groundcover should be provided; the landscape plan should be revised to include shrubs as required. This is being reviewed with the Vanguard Village No. 1 final plat application. 3. Parking (UDC 11-3Q: Off-street vehicle parking is required in accord with the standards for commercial districts in UDC 11-3C-6B.1. Bicycle parking is required in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11- 3C-6G and should comply with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. i. Nonresidential parking analysis A minimum of one(1) space is required for every 500 s.f. of gross floor area. Based on the total square footage of the structures (i.e. 7,504 s.f.), a minimum of 15 spaces are required; 40 spaces are proposed. While this exceeds the required number of parking spaces, staff has concerns regarding about the future parking to the west not being installed. With off site improvements already being made, staff recommends the entirety of the western parking area is installed. Additionally, staff is increasing the capacity for children from the applicant's proposed 75 to 125 to provide flexibility for the user as the Treasure Valley continues to grow(in case of a future expansion). By paving the additional parking, it will prevent overflow parking on unimproved surfaces and will provide better integration when the surrounding properties develop. Staff recommends the site and landscape plan be revised to include the future parking to the west with this application. A loading zone is currently proposed along the front of the building without any stripping. The applicant shall stripe the loading zone as parallel parking(9' x 23')and install a planter island with a bulb out on the north portion of the loading zone to match the southern portion. ii. Bicycle parking analysis 60 A minimum of one(1)bicycle parking space is required to be provided for every 25 proposed vehicle parking spaces or portion thereof,bicycle parking should be depicted on the plans in accord with this standard along with a detail of the rack that demonstrates compliance with the design standards. 4. Building Elevations (Comp Plan,Architectural Standards Manual): Goal 5.01.02D of the Comprehensive Plan underscores the significance of building design and landscaping in buffering, screening,beautifying, and integrating commercial, multifamily, and parking areas into existing neighborhoods. The elevations and renderings for the proposed structure, detailed in Section VILE below, are designed to facilitate a smooth transition from the I-84 corridor to the multi-family development to the north and from the industrial area to the west to the commercial users to the east. The neighboring buildings are expected to generally align with the proposed elevations for the daycare facility. However, the District has proposed their own design standards and if approved by Council these would govern the site. Standards: The architectural design of the proposed structures must adhere to the following standards: 1. Architectural Standards Manual: All designs must comply with the specifications outlined in the Architectural Standards Manual. 2. UDC 11-3A-19: Structures and site designs must meet the criteria listed in this section of the Unified Development Code. 3. Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan (TMISAP): The design guidelines for the Mixed Employment(ME)designation, as detailed in the Application of the Design Elements table on page 3-49, must be followed. TMISAP Design Elements for HE Designated Areas Include: • Architecture and Heritage (pg.3-32):New buildings should incorporate architectural features and details that reflect the area's historical farming and dairy activities from around 1900. • Building Form and Character(pg.3-37): The primary fagades of the buildings must include entries. Trash dumpsters should be located away from the primary fagades, ideally at the rear, and enclosed within screened structures with at least 6-foot-tall walls. Although the proposed structures are single-story,they achieve a taller form of 22 feet in height(note: the ME designation permits buildings of 1-4 stories). The base,body, and top of the buildings are defined through variations in color, step-backs, fenestration patterns, and parapet heights. Roof-mounted mechanical equipment must be screened from view by parapets, and flat roofs with varying parapet heights are proposed. • Signs (pg.3-46): Signage should contribute to the overall character, identity, and wayfinding system. A separate sign permit is required. • Public Art(pg. 3-47): High-quality public art is encouraged in streetscapes,public buildings,parks,transit areas, and other public projects in the Ten Mile area. Given the industrial nature of this project, which lacks public spaces,public art is not recommended. The proposed elevations align with the Architectural Standards Manual and TMISAP guidelines. The applicant must apply for an administrative design review following the completion of the Conditional Use Permit(CUP)process. However,the District has 61 proposed their own design standards and if approved by Council these would govern the site. 5. Fencing (UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): The applicant is proposing a 6-foot fence on the perimeter of the outdoor playground. This satisfies the height requirement from the daycare facility specific use standards in UDC 11-4- 3-9. However,the fence is required to be non-scalable. Fencing details shall be provided with the certificate of zoning compliance submittal. 6. Parkways (UDC 11-3A-17): Parkways are required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17E. E. Transportation Analysis 1. Access (UDC 11-3A-3): Goal 6.01.0213 highlights the need to minimize the number of access points onto arterial streets by implementing strategies such as cross-access agreements, access management, and the development of frontage and backage roads,while also enhancing connectivity between local and collector streets. Access to the site is proposed via La Vista Lane, a private street still pending approval, connecting to the future extension of W. Grand Mogul Way, a collector street, along the northern boundary. To support future connectivity and comply with UDC 11-3A-3A.2, a cross-access easement should be established along the southeast boundary of the site for access to and from the parcel to the south. Additionally, an access easement should be granted to the future lot to the north to facilitate use of the private street and interconnectivity between lots. These easements may be accomplished through a note on the final plat or a separately recorded easement. 2. Pathways and Multiuse Pathways (UDC 11-3A-8 and UDC 11-3A-5): Goals 4.04.01 and 4.04.02 of the Comprehensive Plan emphasize the importance of linking local pathways from neighborhoods to regional pathways in commercial and community areas. In line with these goals and the Pathways Master Plan,a 10-foot wide multi-use pathway is required along the Williams pipeline and must be constructed as part of the subdivision improvements for Vanguard Village. To facilitate this, a 14-foot wide public use easement(comprising a 10-foot pathway plus 2 feet on each side)must be submitted. Additionally,pathways must be constructed in accordance with the standards outlined in UDC 11-3A-8.A pathway connection should be established to the adjacent property to the north via the driveway stub to enhance interconnectivity. Sidewalks are also proposed along the private street adjacent to the east boundary to ensure comprehensive pedestrian access. 3. Sidewalks (UDC I1-3A-17): Sidewalks are required along all streets as set forth in UDC 11-3A-17. Sidewalks are proposed in accord with UDC standards. 4. Private Streets (UDC 11-3F-4): A private street(La Vista Lane)is proposed along the east boundary of the site. A private street application has been submitted(a-2024-0088)with the final plat application that's currently in process. F. Services Analysis 1. Waterways (UDC 11-3A-6): All waterways, except natural waterways, are required to be piped unless used as a water amenity or linear open space, in which case they may be left open as set forth in UDC 11-3A- ■ 6. The Marvin Lateral lies along the south and west boundaries of this site within a 50-foot wide Nampa&Meridian Irrigation District(NMID)easement(20-feet left and 30-feet right) and should be piped. See comments from NMID in Section IV below. 2. Pressurized Irrigation (UDC 11-3A-15): Underground pressurized irrigation water is required to be provided in each development as set forth in UDC 11-3A-15. 3. Storm Drainage (UDC 11-3A-18): An adequate storm drainage system is required in accord with the adopted standards, specifications and ordinances; design and construction shall follow Best Management Practice as adopted by the City per UDC 11-3A-18. 4. Utilities (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-21): Both the Plan and the UDC establish policy and regulations for extending and connecting to City utilities. Goal 3.03.03G of the Plan mandates urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments, including curb and gutter, sidewalks,water and sewer utilities. All utilities for the proposed development are required to be installed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-21. IV. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Meridian Planning Division 1. The Applicant shall comply with all previous conditions of approval associated with this development [H-2021-0081 Vanguard Village (MDA,RZ, PP, CUP—DA Inst. #2022- 0497799);H-2023-0072 Vanguard Village(MDA); A-2024-0088 PS; FP-2024-0012 Vanguard Village No. 1 —(FP); H-2023-0071 District at Ten Mile(CPAM,RZ, PP,MDA); LDIR-2024-0026 and LDIR-2024-0018]. 2. The proposed use shall comply with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-9. Daycare Facility. The applicant or owner shall provide proof of criminal background checks and fire inspection certificates as required by Title 39,Chapter 11, Idaho Code. Said proof shall be provided prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy. The applicant or owner shall comply with all State of Idaho and Department of Health and Welfare requirements for daycare facilities. 3. The site plan and/or landscape plan, as applicable, shall be revised with the certificate of zoning compliance application as follows: i. Depict a minimum 5-foot wide pedestrian walkways from the perimeter sidewalk(along La Vista Lane and Williams Pipeline pathway)as shown on the concept plan;the walkways shall be distinguished from the vehicular driving surfaces through the use of pavers, colored or scored concrete, or bricks as set forth in UDC 11-3A-19B.4. ii. Additional shrubs and an additional tree are required in the planter island with the fire- hydrant(a minimum of 1 tree is required per planter island); alternative compliance to this standard may be requested as allowed in UDC 11-5B-5. Planter islands shall be a minimum of 50 square feet and dimensioned with future submittals. iii. Include shrubs and lawn or vegetative groundcover along with the trees within the landscape strips along the multi-use pathway within the street buffer along the eastern boundary of the site adjacent to the William pipeline in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C. ■ iv. Provide a fencing detail in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-9. v. Stripe the loading zone as parallel parking(9' by 23') and install a planter island with a bulb out to match the southern portion of the loading zone. vi. Remove the two parking stalls to the north of the trash enclosure to provide an adequate ingress/egress. vii. Widen the planter island south of the trash enclosure to 5 feet in accord with UDC 11-3B- 8. viii.Provide additional parking further west designated as future parking on the concept plan to provide for adequate ingress and egress for employees, customers, and republic service. 4. The design of the proposed structures shall comply with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual and the design elements in the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan(TMISAP)as noted in the Application of the Design Elements table on pg. 3-49 for the Mixed Employment(ME)designation,unless otherwise modified in the Development Agreement(DA). 5. The landscaping within the street buffers along 1-84, Grand Mogul Drive and LaVista Lane should be installed with the subdivision improvements associated with Vanguard Village Subdivision No. 1. However, if it's not completed prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy within this development,this developer shall be responsible for those improvements as required with the final plat(FP-2024-0012). 6. The recent modification to the development agreement(H-2023-0074) shall be approved by City Council and recorded prior to submittal of the first Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application for this site. 7. The applicant shall provide cross access in accordance with 11-3A-3 prior to occupancy of the building. 8. A 14-foot wide public use easement(10' pathway+2' each side) shall be submitted for the proposed multi-use pathway within the street buffer within the Williams pipeline easement prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. Alternatively,this easement may be provided earlier prior to recordation of final plat application for Vanguard Village Subdivision No. 1. 9. All development within the Williams pipeline easement shall comply with the Williams Developers' Handbook. 10. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application(s) shall be submitted and approved prior to submittal of building permit applications for this site. Building permits may be issued prior to recordation of the final plat;however,no Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued prior to recordation of the final plat for the lot on which the building(s)is located,per requirement of the most recent amendment to the DA(H-2023-0074). 11. The maximum of children allowed to be watched at any one time shall be 125,unless further restricted by the building department. 12. The Applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground within two (2)years from the date of approval of the subject conditional use permit; or apply for a 64 time extension prior to that date as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6F in order for the conditional use permit to remain valid. B. Meridian Public Works NON-PL.A7'CONDYFIONS Pt mjcVI`(mw%ftF.r.%RTw..NY Skc Specific Conditions of Approval I. Watcr and Scw+cr is m t availabLeto NEW and wilI not he available unlit othcrdvedopmaM extends it IQ thissitc. 2. Water nxkrs arc required hx be kxatai i n landscaping area and sot in drive or walkway. 3. Wake main cannot go through socepage hod_Sgkaration of25'is required unless mitigation efiixts are nsade. d. All Scwcr mains must he bested within am 1'.ammad if they arc outside ofthc right of wa}.Watet and Sewer In parallel regrlre s 3V F.awmem_ 26'ews&mersl upLo and !0'3eyw#d rive Ait'fa'f or a�f eiitl.Qe�u!�'oa�nxribie_ Fire fJydrn&N j-L-gz w a 20P emeh w&l rro Lu rend M'bey49nd die JiyAPANt 5. Ensure no pcmmancnt stmrotumX(ire3N,hsEmlrn huildingq carpiwts,hash reaepade wally,fences, infiltration trrnches,light polo.ek.)are built within the utility casorrnL 6. Insure no Scwar yervkx line;parr:thnaugh undargmunds)mpage hods m ywalers_ 7. A Sawdight PLam wiL1 he required for the Development of this praperty. t cnr all CondHioosof Approval I. Applicamtshall ooNmdinatcwataand gowa main RD=and routing with the Public Works Departrwnt 2. Per Meridian City Code(MCC},the applicant shall ho Feapansihieto irrtstall sewarmnd water Malay to sold dTotO this dcvdapmcrtL Applicant maybe cbp)hic ftir a rrirnburycmcsrt agrecrncni for LnfraarnkcftL -enharboenwni per MCC 8-&S. 3. The appLicartt shall.previdc c&wmwg5:)for a1L public wat xfwwcr mains outside ofpuhlic right of way(i ncludc all water serviic s and hydra). Sawcrhwata ea;erneni varies depending on sewn depth.Sewn 0-20 ft deep require a 30 ft ca.%=ent,20-25 fi a 10 it cawmort,and 25-M ft a 45 It tsycmart. Fn urr sec permweml.4rwrures(treese,bwNN s,huildings,ca`FAt,trash re.PHacle waLls,femcci,infiltrad m Urmch"light pole-q.etc.)arc buLLt within the uul ity cawnxmL Submit an axecuU ca;cnwnl(on the form availabLe firm Public Worbs,a leyA dcscriptien prcTmedby an ldalso Licensed Pmfmsional land Surveyor,which wwd imclude the area ofthe camwont {mwked FXHIRIT A)aid an S 1t2"x I I"map wish hearings and dio meuq(omarked hXHIRrr B) far review.Bosh exhibits nxm be sealed,signed and dated by a Pmfcs innal Tend Surucyce.FX) NOT RECORD_ d. 71c City of Meridian rcquirm than premurimd irrigation systcrs be supplied Iry ayear-found spume of water(kW. 1 l-3B-6).71rc applicant.hMuLd he rcquirod to LLwc any existing surface ce weLL waRtx far the primary uwuce. Tfassuface or well.source IN notavailable,a single-NInt connrtctionto the culinary water systera shall be required_Ifasinglelmintcrewaction iy utili[Kd, the dcveLopar will be res w<sible for the payment of amxmmCnl;fie the eommon area:price to prior la meeiving dcveLop=rt plan approval- S. Any.rtnrrf� A that are allowed to mniain shall.be subjacitocvaLualwn and fmssihle rcas=signnwn1 of 4xad addrming to he in eomplia iw with MCC. 6. All irrigation ditches,canak,laleraLst or drains,exclusive of ra=B1 w44rways%Jmter.gwing, ,xeyying ce laying Aaccnt and coMigumLc to the area heing subdivided shall he addr-f-a per iJT)('11-3A-6. In performing such work,the appLioamlshdL oomply with Idaho Code 412-1207 and any irihcrapplbeablelaw or n3gulatiim. 7. Any wells UW wi Il not continue to be axed must be pmperly ahardoncd acomding to kiaho Well. {'omstmalkn Standards Rubm adminiAcred by the kkho Department of Water Reamucax. 7be F65 f)cvclnper's f ngineicr shall provide a slalcmem addreNsing whdhcr there arc any existing wells in the developmcnk and if so,how they will continue to be wx4 nr provide moord of their aharrdarnmurt- R. Anycxi-&ng septic systems within this:project shall be removed fmm service per City(kdinanee Scctinn9-1-4 and 94 S. Contact Central District Health for abandonment pni xdmcfl and inspections{2(d1)375-52 I- 9. All impravcrncius related to public life,safety and health shall be campletod prior In occupancy ofthe stMAkLM- 10. AppOioant;hall be required to play Public Works dcvclnpmau plan review,and ocim4mcdon inspection kes,m determined during the plan review priioes,prior lathe issuanrec Ma plan approval letter. 11. It shall he the ranpciambilityofthe applieaMto ensure that all develrnprrreru featmes comply with the Americans with biv*NLitics Aot and the Fair Housing AcL 12. Applie wl shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Soo ion 404 Pemiiuing that may he req uircd by the Army Cnrpx of FiWnxrti_ 13. f7cvdnper shall awrdinate rrta.ilhm Locativai with the-Meridian Pow Gffwc- 14.Contparfiioatcdt r,xadts shall be suhmivad tothc Meridian Building Department far all building pads roeeiving cnginarcd backfill,when-,fosiling would Al atop fill ruaterial. 15.71c design cnginar 4uL1 be roquired to ceftify Mat the street ornlcrli rre elevation are set a minimum of3-foetahovc Ilse highmt wlablishod peak grarirudw2lef dcvatimL This ie to ensue that the hou m elevation of the crawl spaom of homer iti at lum L-k m ahrn+c. 16.7TK applicar %dcmign engineer xhall b¢reg►;wLsihle far inspodlork of all irrigation andlnr drainage facility within this pmjloet that do net fall underthc jurisidictimi fm irrigaticwi&mict or ACHD.7bedcsign engineer shall pmuidccertiffcatien that the facilitics have beta installed in accordance with the aippraml design plarm Thisculifwation will he rcquimdbdowaceriif mW ofomupaney is issued fix any utnictm>i within the project 17. At the eomplction of the projoM the applicant shall he rcrrpriaaibLe to suhmit rased drawings per the City of Meridian AuWCAD A u dards- 7hcae mo and drawings must he raxived and apprcwod prior to tits issuxwc of a acrtification of accuFuncy far arty yuu ftu-cs within the project 1 S. A stm4 light plan will m d to he incl udcd in Ore civil aorrswciim plans-Street light plan roquirermnts arc listed in sa ion fry afthe Impmvemcm%umluds for 5troAIjghting,A1N l ofthe standards cootie Pound at hitp:rrwww.nicridianelly-ot&puhlic_work�?id 272. 19.71hc City of Meridian requires that the awmr post lathe City a perfomranoc surety in the arnMrtt of 125%afthe total wager etirm enst for all incomplete sewer,water and rcutic infm4moture prior to final plat signature-rda surety will.he verified by a line hom coil estinuW provided by the oumcr ur the Cits-The surety,can he pQQM in the form of an irrcr+crcahlc k'tter oferodit,cash depositor band.Applicant must file an application fix surety,which can bo found on the Community f]cvclopriwa f]gnaunNm1 wcbsiic. Plc&ac contact land Devclopnxw Scrviee for nwm infcrmtalion at"7-2211- 20.71s City of Meridian requimn that the owner post lathe City a warranty surety in the amnurrt of 20%of Osc total oonAnLelim chit for all sample scum,water and menu infra rueaze for duration of two years-This surety will be verified by a lint item ccm eAtimate provided by the owner to the City-The surely can he pnstod in the form ofan irmcvocabLe letter ofcmdit,cash deposit or isond.Applieaw Fum file an application fix surety,which can bo found cn the Community f]cvclopraml f]gmdnxni websiie. Plane e[mtact[and Developmcrrt Service for nwrc infemsation at"7-2211- F66 C. Nampa &Meridian Irrigation District 15MMTSTREEFSOM 44AMPA.IDA)JO83651-395 FAX P7X.$-d[.}ppy2 nrk-Wg QFFIM Narpo A9 466 71W 910E Norrpra 7C6-id6-0d63 August 12,2024 City Clcrk's 01Trcc City of Meridian 33 l;.Broadway Avenue,Suite 102 Meridian,ID 93 642-26 1 9 RE: H-2024-MOITrcasure Valley Law Enfurrcmcnt Childcare Center; 1085 S Ten Mile Rd Ta Whom it May CnncGtrr: Nampa&Meridian Irrigation Disirict(NMID)inquires a filed Land Use Change Application to review prior to Fnat platting. Ail privs1w laterals and wmic wpys must he pry w". The Dislricis Marvin Lateral courses along tho saarh and west boamdUi S of this property, Tho DislFicts easemenl for the Marvin Lateral at this location is a ininimunl of fifty feet(SU')total,twenty feet(M left and thirty feet(30')right. 'rhis casement mast he protected. Any encroschment without a signed license Agm irnerat and approved plan Winvecansaractian 611nacceptable. All municipal surface drainage must be retained on site. Ifauy municipal surface drainage leaves the site,NMID must review drainage plans.Developer must codnply with Idaho Code 31-3905.Please feel free to conlma me for Curtber infonnalw. ."nccrciy, t� David T.Duvall Assi.Water Superintendent Nampa&Meridian Irrigation Disirict U71)leol Cc: DMIC&file _ _ S.Pendewr. A.Wolfe A,pplirjnr ■ D. Ada County Highway District(ACHD) .Frrw Gin.YK..rviru..n VA";lOWW"4ACJW Dr,i wKlnrre.Gr�Nw+x+ jrly 9,2024 To. Eluab lfl Amn,9r Vw4aw Amqurm 1144 S SiCerst"Yam,Suitt 510 Mend an,I f}WB42 Subject MPP21-0003J 14-W24tW 10M S Ten Mile Road ireMUM 1+Mey Law Enforcement CNIdeere C,enler On K4WLP6.2022,PeAda Cwrvy 49IT V NOW epprovad MPP2+-0003lH-a2021-191,PaYarowd Wage SupolVWDn,rCW wnSVWtllx'I.The sm-54Wlle wnd Wns 01 aWr"OW SMIl W MERN-OD$n J H-2024-=o,rreawre Valley Law Enfarcement Childcare Center 11 ym nave enY gtxMrona.ple.eae leel Iree to contact ma al 120E1 387-&W. &nD rely, Sam Stamal Assiu1anl Traft Endear devoopment Servlres f1c: Sonya Allen and Bill Parecna,Cry of Meridian mn neaing you to mom Ada F HW"Pr Iei.37M/Wm Sd•1w-frr*nPT#%Ip.117%-PhPAOW—§=-Fk34S76W-fin+ -7 V. FINDINGS A. Conditional Use(UDC 11-513-6E) The commission shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request upon the following: 1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. Staff finds the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all dimensional and development regulations of the ME zoning district. 68 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan and in accord with the requirements of this title. Stafffinds the proposed daycare use will be harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with applicable UDC standards with the conditions noted in Section IV of this report. 3. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. Stafffinds the design, construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed use should be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood, with the existing and intended character of the vicinity and will not adversely change the essential character of the area. 4. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Stafffinds the proposed use will not adversely affect other properties in the vicinity if it complies with the conditions in Section IV of this report. 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools,parks,police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal,water, and sewer. Stafffinds the proposed use will be served by essential public facilities and services as required. 6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Stafffinds the proposed use will not create additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes,materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic,noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. Stafffinds the proposed use will not be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by the reasons noted above. 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. Stafffinds the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any such features. 9. Additional findings for the alteration or extension of a nonconforming use: This finding is not applicable. 10. That the proposed nonconforming use does not encourage or set a precedent for additional nonconforming uses within the area; and, This finding is not applicable. 11. That the proposed nonconforming use is developed to a similar or greater level of conformity with the development standards as set forth in this title as compared to the level of development of the surrounding properties. This finding is not applicable. 69 VI. ACTION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed CUP application and finds it in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan,UDC with the conditions included in Section IV and Findings in V. B. Commission: Pending ■ VII. EXHIBITS A. Project Area Maps o Project Overview) Legend Project Locati "I Area of Impa 1. Aerial 0 Analysis 2. Zoning Map Legend R-2 Project Location L- '10 Area of impact PINE F�tANKL=IN �J ' ce' F o R L8 _I= N• M11 o U � •=I�1� � FRA�NKL-INN a ¢ -:� CC k/� � • m �84 � J ���1`�� WE RUT • RA F 71 3. Future Land Use �f :; Legend Medium ® ® CIVIC Project Location Densityffl Area of Impact Residential MIJ ® ff O Analysis Aff MU-C Low •• g MU-Res General Density` Med-Hi h =c, Industrial Employment f Density Residential MII =Mixed Employment Commercial Low Ern Densitq si�- Hi h-Den to me.nt Residential7 i) 9 tY R -y L High / Density MU-N Residential 4. Planned Development Map Legend Project Location0 Area of Impact _ ;` �i M1, City Limits e — Planned Parcels OAnalysis r e. EC 72 B. Service Accessibility Report PARCEL S1215427850 SERVICE ACCESSIBILITY Overall Scare: 25 17th Percentile Location In City Limits GREEN Extension Sewer Trunkshed mains < 500 ft.from parcel GREEN Floodplain Either not within the 1DO yrfloodplain or > 2 acres GREEN Emergency Services Fire Response time > g min. RED Emergency Services Police Meets response time goals most of the time GREEN Pathways V ithin 1/4 mile of current pathways GREEN Transit Within 1/4 mile of future transit route ='E--a'.', Arterial Road Buildout Status Ultimate configuration(#of lanes in master streets GREEN plan) matches existing (#of lanes) School Walking Proximity From 1/2 to 1 mile walking ='E--OV School Drivability Nat within 2 miles driving of existing or future school RED Park Walkability No park within walking distance by park type RED Repart gererA?d on U-2&EM4 by M.iERID1A%T-&31& F73 C. Site Plan (date: 6/14/2024) .RDMA 1 I N r I mg tz nirmurn. 1 r 1 ` .. .. �!Ili•+ :I�. .. 1 %• , .._�_...:.,._...-...�_ ..._._..._.- m� � �i - !' I 0 74 A Landscape Plan (date: 6/14/2024) AROIRRA Soo 21 ..,. �rFIR- -<< For I ILL W p ei I ` 9g i i T..�u .lANosLAPEAur1 75 E. Building Elevations (date: 6/14/2024) ezrexwx FI161 wr �Ym L"� �. FREUYrvRY AMPI . e�vtiroN u�a. .-. aiwcar.�•r W "- r. < _3s < c � - :ems, �J&_ 'mom V UVRTM . - < w� X cu., aoil ! HEVFTgrr HEL_ATIIINI _.�. F76] E IDIAN;--- Applicant Presentation Conditional Use Permit Daycare Center at The District at Ten Mile THE DISTRICT Presented by: Elizabeth Allen, Ahlquist AT TEN MILE Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing September 5, 2024 O I--I - w , - - _ iTen Mile Crssi o z e Road - 'r��rf,�..r� � .•�-03. "�'_' y.�- - � - " -'fir - - - l_. gillgillg gill ill THE DISTRICT Daycare site--.. - AT TEN MILE Cn CnLaw enforcement Women are not promoting. 40 APPLICATIONS RETIREMENTS RESIGNATIONS I � FULL-TIME MOTHERS OF IN TOP CHILD UNDER 6 COMMAND Customized childcare for law enforcement. AFFORDABILITY �V,pGSt 0 Secured funding 0 Half of the market rate tuition L � l OPERATING HOURS � ! LSeven - - . . . - . hours 40 __ BUILDING AND SITE DETAILS Building Square Footage: 7504 Building Height: 30 feet Playground Square Footage: 6544 Building Capacity: 102 Room Breakdown: Childcare Rooms Number of Children Square Footage 1 8 412 • I nfa nt 2 8 411 3 8 407 1 12 444 Toddler 2 12 446 1 16 563 Preschool 2 8 356 M u Iti-Age 1 12 464 5tAN SCAPIEEUFFER ` e PRESCHC L21,870 SF nW ,, 1� S n r Uf4w� Q ,. ..,` r II •ram^ � ELEVATION �a •o SCALE: ❑ ❑ e ILLUMINATED TL- EF-1 EF-2 CO-1 C-1 SIGNAGE CP-1 TO.UPPER CANOPY CONTROL JOINT i 1 ELEV:+2t'•0'AFF W'MAX,TYP. i ELEV}18 W AFF .'. 0 T.O.ENTRY CANOPY L V:r11'$AFF 7i T.O.LOW CANOPY ELEV:+145 tSFF . ..... .,...... .. ti HDR.HT. 'k Ilk ELF:{9.9'AFF ❑ iL ❑ C-1 ........ . ............... .... ....... ................................ - FIN FiR. REV:V o' BR-1 BR-2 AL 1 CH 1 AL-1 FRONT ST-1 SYSTEM O EF-1 EF-2 e4m. SIM. EF 4 EF-2 CU-1 WIN CANOPY BEYOND TO WALL ELEV.•lir-U AFF Q 0 T_O.CANOPY ELEV++i7•ii"AFF ELEV:vOl AFF ELEV:o-'� DRI.y'tlhO - •KEY PAD SEE UaCq Ai-1 AL-i 9R-1 gR-g FOLKTAAN, HARMARE SCHEDULE ..a CsR 1 9R2 Alternative Condition 3.viii : Parking, driving, and similar activities will be prevented on the unimproved property between the drive aisles to the site through the use of curbing, barricades or similar method until such time that • the area develops for a future user. I r \ \� _ k . 1 I I I I �. yr_ Thank you W IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Apex Farr Subdivision (H-2024-0014) by Brighton Corporation, located at west side of S. Locust Grove Rd., north of E. Lake Hazel Rd. and east of S. Meridian Rd. Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2024-0014 A. Request: Modified Development Agreement to remove the property annexed with South Meridian Arbor Ridge (H-2015-0019), Inst.#2016-007071 and portions of the property annexed with Shafer View Terrace (H-2020-0117), Inst.#2021-102396 and Apex (H-2020-0066), Inst.#2020-178120 from the existing development agreements to include in a new agreement and update the overall conceptual development plan for the site and other provisions as applicable. B. Request: Rezone of 38.69 acres of land from the R-2 to the R-8 (0.76 acre), R-15 to C-C (6.66 acres), and R-4 to R-8 (31.27 acres) zoning districts. C. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 381 single family residential building lots, 6 commercial building lots and 60 common lots on 131.89 acres of land in the R-8, R-15 and C-C zoning districts. 77 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : September 5 , 2024 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 6 PROJECT NAME : Apex Farr Subdivision ( H = 2024 - 0014 ) Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify ( Please Print ) HOA ? ( mark X if yes ) If yes, please provide HOA name Cal a�e . ro, S+- kQrsd n �'-�ev ; x k 2 � orda� 5411 � Gncswde,n PN N � Mcnd ' cu`� � D q3 41 Svc OwJZO�A Alp � 4 JF� Sl--t o3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C��fEPIDIAN*,­, DEPARTMENT REPORT HEARING 9/5/2024 Legend DATE: Project Location 0 TO: Planning&Zoning Commission -: Area or impact ® @� ' += City Limits FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner 0 Analysis t 208-884-5533 sallen@meridiancity.org ---- APPLICANT: Brighton Corporation - SUBJECT: H-2024-0014 Apex Farr—MDA,PP,RZ (aka Pinnacle) - LOCATION: West side of S. Locust Grove Rd.,north of E. Lake Hazel Rd. and east of S. @@ Meridian Rd.,in the NW 1/4 and the east 1/2 of Section 31, T.3N.,R.1E. I. PROJECT OVERVIEW A. Summary The Applicant has submitted applications for the following: • Development Agreement modification(MDA)to remove the property annexed with South Meridian-Arbor Ridge (H-2015-0019, Inst. #2016-007071)and portions of the property annexed with Shafer View Terrace(H-2020-0117, Inst. #2021-102396)and Apex(H-2020- 0066 Inst. #2020-178120)from the existing agreements to include in a new agreement and update the overall conceptual development plan for the site and other provisions as applicable; • Rezone(RZ) of 38.69-acres of land from R-2 to R-8 (0.76-acre),R-15 to C-C(6.66-acres)and R-4 to R-8 (31.27-acres); and • Preliminary Plat(PP) consisting of 381 single-family residential building lots, 6 commercial building lots and 60 common lots on 131.89-acres of land in the R-8,R-15 and C-C zoning districts. B. Issues • Block 12 exceeds the maximum block face length allowed in UDC 11-6C-3F for residential districts along W. Precipice Dr. and along W.Vertex Dr. The Applicant requests a Council waiver to the block face standard for both of these block faces due to the block design being constrained by site conditions that include a large waterway/irrigation facility(i.e.the Farr Lateral)along the northern boundary and steep slopes ranging from 7-12%within a portion of the area. Traffic calming is proposed in the form of a 29-foot wide street section for W. Precipice Dr. along the Farr Lateral and bulb outs and choke points. (See Section III.E.6for more information) City of Meridian I Department Report 1. Project Overview ■ • A 25-foot wide buffer is required in the C-C zoning district on Lots 1, 5 and 6,Block 23 to the abutting residential uses along the west boundary as set forth in UDC Table 11-2B-3. Landscaping and fencing(if the use can't be adequately buffered by landscaping)is required within the buffer in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-9C. The Applicant requests City Council approval of no buffer in this area on the commercial property with the provision of a 15-foot wide common area mew on the residential property, which will include landscaping and a sidewalk. The Applicant asserts the mew will act as a buffer that still provides connectivity to the adjoining uses and walkability to the adjoining commercial uses to the east in accord with the MU-C FLUM designation. Staff recommends if Council is amendable to the Applicant's request that the common area mew is increased to a minimum of 20-feet wide consistent with the linear open space standards in UDC H- 3G-3B.le and includes landscaping in accord with the standards for landscape buffers to adjoining uses listed in UDC 11-3B-9C.If Council grants the request,a reduction to the buffer width does not affect building setbacks; all commercial structures shall be set back from the property line a minimum of the buffer width(i.e. 25-feet)required in the C-C zoning district. (See Section III.D.3.iii for more information) As an alternative to the Applicant's request,which would require no buffer on the C-C zoned property,Staff recommends a public street is provided between the residential and commercial portions of Block 23 and an alley is provided for access to the residential units rather than a private street.The addition of a public street will provide a named street for addressing the east-facing units,provide for on-street parking for guests of the residential units and provide a transition/separation between land uses(see concept plan in Section III.E.1). C. Recommendation Staff. Staff recommends approval of the proposed MDA,RZ and PP requests with the provisions included below in Section W. D. Decision Pending 11. COMMUNITY METRICS Table 1:Land Use Description Details Map Ref. Existing Land Use(s) Rural residential/agricultural - Proposed Land Use(s) Single-family residential detached dwellings - Existing/Proposed Zoning Existing:R-2(Low-density Residential),R-4(Medium- VII.A.2 low Density Residential),R-8(Medium-density Residential)and R-15 (Medium-high Density Residential). Proposed:R-8 (Medium-density Residential),R-15 (Medium-high Density Residential),C-C(Community Business) Existing Future Land Use LDR(Low Density Residential),MDR(Medium Density VII.A.3 Designations Residential)and MU-C(Mixed Use—Community)with a school designation Table 2: Process Facts Description Details Preapplication Meeting date 4/9/2024 PREAPP-2023-0164 Neighborhood Meeting 2/15/2024 Site posting date 8/23/2024 City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics ■ Table 3: Community Metrics Agency/Element Description/Issue Reference Ada County Highway District • Comments Received Yes • Commission Action Required No • Access Various access points • Traffic Level of Service Better than"E" Traffic Impact Study(Y/N) No ITD Comments Received No Meridian Fire Distance to Station:I+/-mile to Station#7;Response Time: see comments Meridian Police No comments received Meridian Public Works Wastewater Distance to Mainline: Sewer is available at site;Impacts or Concerns: Flow is committed—see site specific conditions Meridian Public Works Water Distance to Mainline: Water is available at site in pressure zone 5—project is consistent with water master plan; Impacts or Concerns: See Public Works comments See City/Agency Comments and Conditions Section for all department/agency and the public record for comments received on this application. Figure 1: One-Mile Radius Existing Condition Metrics Reference Parcel:S1131427850 Date Retrieved:2024/8/29 Parcel Count Parcel Acreage Infill Indicator: $ 815 Surrounding Area 7% N-t at, ® City Limits 1,09U Not City Y All Household Change Household&Population GrovAt • Households [3 ZOZO Population Change:45.7% Population ■Growth (Household and Population Change since 2010 Decennial) 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 Use Types Residential Addresses All Addresses Single-family 0% % ® Multi-family 0% ® Commercial 0 City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics ■ Preliminary Plats (last.-years) Conditional Use Permit{last 5-years) Proposed Pro posed Pending Rending Approved (y +}}��yy(y/y �/�/�� �(yy� p�Jy- Approved (y y/� ]� J� 0 2 V 00 4000 LAME 8002 Q 1 V •�r 30 44 ■ Single-farnily ® Multi-family 2-00 1,000 Single-family A Residential 1-50 PO 7 Parcel Diversity 1-00 500 G a p Parcel Count c7� 0-50 � a •Average Acres '"es 0 .17.00 0 R-2 r.- R-B R-15 Average Single-family Density by Zoning Average 15.00 aResidential Not Densky 0 9.70 � p 5-00 �:I 6.62 4.50 ■50 3.176 0.00 ---go-go Dwelling Units I Acre R-2 P-1 q 3 F-1s Figure 2: Service Impact Summary Ready Marginal Caution IPA I , Nr III. STAFF ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code(UDC) A. History The subject property, except for the R-2 zoned portion,was annexed in 2015 with an R-4 zoning district as part of the South Meridian Category A annexation,which included multiple properties and property owners(H-2015-0019). A"placeholder"R-4 zoning district was approved with individual Development Agreements(DA's) for each property owner [i.e.Arbor Ridge(Inst. #2016-007071),Brighton Investments LLC(Inst. #2016-007072), SCS Brighton LLC(Inst. #2016-007073), Murgoitio Limited Partnership(Inst. #Inst. #2016-007074)],which require modification of the agreements prior to development of the property to approve any proposed development plan. In 2020, a modification to the existing DA's for Brighton Investments LLC(Inst.#2016-007072), SCS Brighton LLC(Inst. #2016-007073)and Murgoitio Limited Partnership(Inst. #Inst. #2016-007074 was approved,which replaced those agreements with one(1)new agreement(Apex H-2020-0066,DA Inst. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 81 #2020-178120). A rezone(Apex H-2020-00M)was approved for much of the subject property from the R-4 to the R-8 and R-15 districts. The Arbor Ridge R-4 zoned property along the northern boundary was under different ownership at that time and was not included in the rezone but is part of the subject rezone application. A preliminary plat(H-2020-0056)was also approved for Apex Northwest Subdivision,which included the R-15 zoned portion of the subject property at the southeast corner. The conceptual Master Plan included in the DA depicts"future development"with no specific development plan for the areas not included in the preliminary plat with a general street layout on the land southwest of the Williams gas pipeline and a future school at the northwest corner of Locust Grove and Crescendo. In 2021,the R-2 zoned portion of the property was annexed with a DA(Inst. #2021-10239 and included in Shafer View Terrace Subdivision as Lot 1,Block 5 (H-2020-0117,FP-2021-0056). This lot was depicted as a future phase with no specific development plan. A preliminary plat(H-2021-0087)was approved in 2021 for Apex West Subdivision,which included Lot 1, Block 5, Shafer View Terrace Subdivision and a portion of the subject property.A portion of this property is included in the subject preliminary plat; the remainder will be part of Apex West. Table 4: Proiect Overview Description Details History H-2015-0019(AZ South Meridian:Arbor Ridge DA Inst.#2016-007071, Brighton Investments LLC DA Inst.#2016-007072,SCS Brighton LLC DA Inst.#2016-007073, Murgoitio Limited Partnership DA Inst.#Inst. #2016-007074);H-2020-0056(Apex Northwest—PP),H-2020-0066 [Apex MDA,RZ(replaced all earlier DA's)—Inst.#2020-1781201; Shafer View Terrace(H-2020-0117,DA Inst.#2021-102396);Apex West(H— 2021-0087);Apex NW Pool PBA-2024-0006—ROS#14520). Phasing Plan 7 Physical Features The McBirney Lateral runs east/west through this site,the Watkins Drain runs north/south through the northwest portion of this site,the Carlson Lateral runs along the northern boundary of the site and the Farr Lateral runs along the northern boundary of the site.The Williams Northwest gas pipeline also bisects this site. There is a significant grade on the northern portion of the site south of the Farr Lateral(it's higher in that area and slopes to the south). Acreage 131.89-acres Lots 381 single-family residential building lots,6 commercial building lots and 60 common lots B. General Overview Development Agreement Modification: The subject property is currently subject to three(3) different DA's (i.e. South Meridian-Arbor Ridge (H-2015-0019, Inst. #2016-007071); Shafer View Terrace(H-2020-0117, Inst. #2021-102396); and Apex(H-2020-0066 Inst. #2020-178120). A Development Agreement modification is proposed to include these properties in one(1)new agreement;these properties will no longer be subject to the previous DA's. (See legal description and exhibit map ofproperty subject to the new DA in Section VIT C below) An updated conceptual master plan, shown in Section VII.K below, is proposed to be included in the DA for the overall area subject to the DA.Note: The future school previously planned at the northwest corner of Locust Grove and Crescendo was shifted to the south side of Lake Hazel, east of Locust Grove; a public school is planned on the east side of Locust Grove Rd. in the future. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ Rezone: A rezone of 38.69-acres of land is proposed from R-2 to R-8 (0.76-acre),R-15 to C-C(6.66-acres)and R-4 to R-8 (31.27-acres). (See legal descriptions and exhibit maps for property proposed to be rezoned in Section VII.D below) The area proposed to be rezoned to R-8 is designated Medium Density Residential(MDR) on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map (FLUM), except for a 0.76-acre portion which is designated Low Density Residential(LDR). The area proposed to be zoned C-C is designated Mixed Use— Community(MU-C). The proposed development plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan FLUM designations. Preliminary Plat: The Preliminary Plat consists of 381 single-family residential building lots, 6 commercial building lots and 60 common lots on 131.89-acres of land in the proposed R-8,R-15 and C-C zoning districts and is a re-subdivision of a portion of Lot 1,Block 5, Shafer View Terrace Subdivision. The plat is proposed to develop in seven(7)final plat phases as shown on the phasing plan. (See preliminary plat and phasing plan in Section VILE below.)Note: The remainder of Lot 1, Block 5 of Shafer View Terrace Subdivision that's not part of the subject plat will be included in the Apex West final plat(H-2021- 0087). The minimum lot size proposed is 4,180 square feet(s.£)with an average lot size of 8,021 s.f. A gross density of 2.84 units per acre with a net density of 5.43 units per acre is proposed,which is consistent with the density desired in the MDR FLUM designation. A mix of front-loaded and alley-loaded units in a variety of different lot sizes are proposed with larger lots along the northern boundary to provide a transition between the rural lots to the north of the Farr Lateral. C. Site Development and Use Analysis 1. Existing Structures/Site Improvements (UDC 11-1): There are some existing structures on the site that are required to be removed prior to City Engineer signature on the final plat phase in which they are located. There are several site constraints that effect the design and layout of this project, as follows(see map below for reference): • The Carlson Lateral runs along the northern boundary of the site • The Farr Lateral runs along the northeastern boundary of the site at the highest elevation of the project. • The McBimey Lateral will be piped and is located in the southeast portion of the project. • The Watkins Drain runs through the northwest quadrant. • The Williams Northwest Gas Pipeline bisects this site within a 75-foot wide easement. • There is an existing sewer trunk line on the northwest corner of the property in a 25-foot wide easement. • There are slopes between 7 and 12%within the area shown in red on the map below. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ IN ti I � 1'1 s SIffrHlrant grads + Farr s,d MrE*4i r'Laterals OM Watkins I kpin � � � _ - 'Nlliunu Pipeline a y * ' 4 0 MP rt } • e r I Proposed Use Analysis (UDC 11-2): Single-family residential detached dwellings are principally permitted in the R-8 and R-15 zoning districts,per UDC Table 11-2A-2. Commercial uses are allowed in the C-C zoning district as listed in UDC Table 11-2B-2. 3. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): See UDC Table 11-2A-6 and 11-2A-7 for the dimensional standards of the R-8 and R-15 zoning districts,respectively; and, UDC Table 11-2B-3 for the dimensional standards of the C-C zoning district. 4. Specific Use Standards (UDC 11-4-3): There are no specific use standards that apply for single-family detached dwellings. UDC Table 11-2B-2 notes if specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3 are applicable to certain uses in the C-C zoning district. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ D. Design Standards Analysis 1. Existing structure and Site Design Standards (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-19): Future development of the C-C zoned area should comply with the structure and site design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19;review for compliance with these standards will take place with future development applications. The proposed development should create a site design compatible with surrounding uses through buffering, screening,transitional densities, and other best site design practices in accord with Comprehensive Plan Policy#3.07.01A. 2. Qualified Open Space &Amenities (Comp Plan, UDC 11-4-3-27): The residential portion of the development is required to comply with the open space and site amenity standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3 and 11-3G-4. A minimum of 15% (or 18.93-acres based on 126.2-acres of residential area) qualified open space is required to be provided in the R-8 and R-15 zoning districts; a total of 36.1-acres (or 29.1%)is proposed that meets the quality standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3A.2. Qualified open space consists of open grassy areas exceeding 5,000 square feet in area,an education garden,linear open space, street buffers along arterial and collector streets,parkways and stormwater detention facilities. When counting street buffers along arterial and collector streets,the buffers need to comply with the enhanced buffer requirements in UDC 11-3G-3B.3.Parkways along local residential streets are required to meet the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3B.4 when counted toward open space. Stormwater detention facilities are required to meet the standards in UDC 11-3G-3B.5 when counted toward open space. Amenities totaling a minimum of 26 points from each category are required to be provided based on the area of the development(i.e. 131.89-acres). An open space exhibit was submitted as shown in Section VII.I. Site amenities totaling 30 points (pts.)are proposed from each category as follows: • Quality of Life: two(2) fitness courses(2 pts. each=4 pts.), a dog park(2 pts.),two(2) education gardens(1 pt. each=2 pts.). Per UDC 11-3G-3C,the fitness course is required to have a minimum of six(6) stations permanently installed; and the dog park is required to have bags for dog waste disposal,a double entrance gate,bench(es) and fencing to enclose a minimum of 5,000 square feet and secured open space for an off-leash dog park. • Recreation Activity Area: swimming pool with changing facilities&restrooms (6 pts.), (2) tot lots/natural play areas (1 pt. each=2 pts.). Per UDC 11-3G-3D,the swimming pool is required to be constructed in ground and meet all Building Code requirements; the tot lots are required to have commercial grade play equipment scaled and designed for the use and safety of younger children and benches for seating shall be nearby. • Pedestrian or Bicycle Circulation System: 0.37-mile of pathway aligned with linear open space(1 pt.)and 1.61-miles of multi-use pathway(12 pts.). The proposed pathways are not required sidewalk adjacent to public right-of-way. The multi-use pathway will connect to planned pedestrian or bicycle routes outside the development in accord with the Pathways Master Plan.All pathways will be designed and constructed in accord with adopted City standards. • Multi-modal: bicycle repair station(1 pt.) City of Meridian Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ The bicycle repair station is required to be a fixed installation with tools and an air pump per UDC 11-3G-4F.2. The proposed common open space and site amenities meet and exceed UDC standards for such. i. Landscaping is required to be provided in common open space areas in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-5B. The proposed development is consistent with Comprehensive Plan Policy#2.02.00,which states, Plan for safe, attractive, and well-maintained neighborhoods that have ample open space, and generous amenities that provide varied lifestyle choices. 3. Landscaping (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3B): Attractive landscaping and pedestrian friendly design is required within new developments in accord with Comprehensive Plan Policy#5.01.02G. Landscaping is required to be provided within the development in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B. i. Landscape buffers along streets A 25-foot wide street buffer is required along S. Locust Grove Rd., an arterial street;20-foot wide street buffers are required along all collector streets (i.e. E. Crescendo St., S. Sublimity Ave.,E. Quartz Creek St.,Apex Way and Elevated Way); and a 10-foot wide street buffer is required along local streets(i.e. E. Phenomenal St.) in the C-C district. Landscaping is required within the street buffers in accord with the standards listed in UDC II- 3B-7C. All street buffers are required to be in a common lot or on a permanent dedicated buffer easement,maintained by the property owner,homeowner's association or business owner's association per UDC 11-313-7C.2a and should be depicted on the plat. A 4-foot tall berm is proposed within the street buffer along S. Locust Grove Rd. ii. Parking lot landscaping Internal parking lot landscaping is required with future development of the C-C zoned lots in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C. iii. Landscape buffers to adjoining uses A 25-foot wide buffer is required in the C-C zoning district on Lots 1, 5 and 6,Block 23 to the abutting residential uses along the west boundary as set forth in UDC Table 11-2B-3. Landscaping and fencing(if the use can't be adequately buffered by landscaping)is required within the buffer in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-9C. The Applicant requests City Council approval of no buffer in this area with the provision of a 15-foot wide common area mew on the residential portion,which will include landscaping and a sidewalk as shown in the exhibit below. The Applicant asserts the mew will act as a buffer that still provides connectivity to the adjoining uses and walkability to the adjoining commercial uses to the east in accord with the MU-C FLUM designation. Staff recommends if Council is amendable to the Applicant's request that the common area mew is increased to a minimum of 20-feet wide consistent with the linear open space standards in UDC 11-3G-3B.le and includes landscaping in accord with the standards for landscape buffers to adjoining uses listed in UDC 11-3B-9C.If Council grants the request, a reduction to the buffer width shall not affect building setbacks; all structures shall be set back from the property line a minimum of the buffer width(i.e.25-feet) required in the C-C zoning district. As an alternative to the Applicant's request,which would require no buffer on the C-C zoned property, Staff recommends a public street is provided between the residential and City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 86 commercial portions of Block 23 and an alley is provided for access to the residential units rather than a private street.The addition of a public street will provide a named street for addressing the east-facing units,provide for on-street parking for guests of the residential units and provide a transition/separation between land uses.See concept layout below in Section III E.1. I� "P�qm M"�` Z®'. op ® 4�(El O i - -- -- ---------- iv. Tree preservation Existing trees 4-inch caliper or greater that are removed from the site during development may require mitigation(see UDC 11-3B-10 for more information). Include mitigation information on the landscape plan that demonstrates compliance with the standards in UDC 11-3B- 10.C.5. v. Storm integration Stormwater integration is required in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-11 C. A Geotechnical Investi a� tion report was submitted with this application. vi. Pathway landscaping Landscaping is required along all pathways in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B- 12C. 4. Parking (UDC 11-3Q: Off-street parking is required to be provided with all development in accord with UDC standards. i. Residential parking analysis Off-street parking is required to be provided for all single-family residential units in accord with the standards for such listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6. ii. Nonresidential parking analysis Off-street parking is required to be provided for non-residential uses in the commercial district in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-6B. iii. Bicycle parking analysis City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ A minimum of one(1)bicycle parking is required to be provided for every 25 proposed vehicle parking spaces or portion thereof, except for single-family residences,per UDC 11-3C-6G. Bicycle parking facilities should comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. 5. Building Elevations (Comp Plan,Architectural Standards Manual): Several conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed residential development, included in Section VII.L below.A mix of single-story and 2-story homes are proposed that include a variety of siding styles with masonry accents in a variety of colors and design elements/features with varying roof profiles and wall modulation that demonstrate the high quality of development proposed. Design review is not required for single-family detached structures.However,because the rear and/or sides of homes facing S.Locust Grove Rd. and internal collector streets will be highly visible, Staff recommends a DA provision requiring those elevations incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the following: modulation(e.g.projections, recesses, step-backs,pop-outs),bays,banding,porches,balconies,material types,or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines that are visible from adjacent public streets. Single-story homes are exempt from this requirement. Conceptual elevations weren't submitted for the commercial portion of the development. Administrative design review is required for those structures as well as the swimming pool and associated structure in the residential portion of the development in accord with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual. Staff is of the opinion the proposed conceptual building elevations are in accord with Comprehensive Plan Policy#5.01.02L: "Support beautiful and high-quality development that reinforces neighborhood character and sustainability. 6. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): All/any fencing proposed on the site should comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-6 for fencing along waterways and 11-3A-7. 7. Parkways (UDC 11-3A-17): All parkways should comply with the standards for such listed in UDC 11-3A-17. E. Transportation Analysis A Traffic Impact Study(TIS)was not submitted for this development as ACHD did not require one. Capital Improvements Plan(CIP)/Integrated Five Year Work Plan(IFYWP): • Amity Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to be widened to 5-lanes from SH-69(Meridian Road) to Locust Grove Road with a design year of 2023-2024,a right-of-way year of 2027-2028,and construction year yet to be determined. • Amity Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to be widened to 5-lanes from Locust Grove Road to Eagle Road with a design year of 2025-2026, a right-of-way year of 2027, and a construction year yet to be determined. • Locust Grove Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to be widened to 3-lanes from Amity Road to Victory Road with a design year of 2028-2029 and a construction year yet to be determined. • The intersection of Amity Road and Locust Grove Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to be constructed as a multi-lane roundabout with 2-lanes on the north leg, 2-lanes on the south,4- lanes east, and 4-lanes on the west leg with a design year of 2023-2024, a right-of-way year of 2027-2928, and a construction year yet to be determined. • Locust Grove Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 3-lanes from Lake Hazel Road to Amity Road between 2036 and 2040. Condition of Area Roadways (Traffic Count is based on Vehicles per Hour(VPH): City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ Roadway Frontage Functional PM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Classification Traffic Count Level of Service Locust Grove Road 2,006-feet Minor Arterial 181 Better than"E" Lake Hazel 0-feet Minor Arterial 351 Better than"E" .Acceptable level of service for a three-lane minor arterial is"E"(720 VPH). "Acceptable level of service for a five-lane minor arterial is"E"(1,540 VPH). Collector streets are required to be constructed with development in accord with ACHD's Master Street Map(MSM) and/or as required by ACHD. The following streets are required to be constructed as collector streets: E. Crescendo St.,E. Quartz Creek St.,Apex Way and Elevated Way. Access (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-3, UDC 11-3H-4): 1. Access is proposed via the extension of E. Quartz Creek St., E. Tranton St. and E. Liberator Ct. at the project's west boundary; and from S. Locust Grove Rd. via S. Apex Way and E. Crescendo St. An emergency access is proposed at the north boundary via S. Margaret Ave. Stub streets are proposed for future extension and interconnectivity with adjacent development and future development in Apex/Pinnacle. An east/west and north/south collector street is required to be provided through the development per ACHD's Master Street Map(MSM). A collector street is stubbed to the north,which will extend to E. Amity Rd. with future development;and S. Apex Way will extend to S. Locust Grove Rd. as a collector street in accord with the MSM. Cross-access/ingress-egress easements should be provided between all of the commercial lots(i.e. Lots 1-6,Block 23) either by recorded easement or as a note on the final plat in accord with UDC 11-3A-3A.2. The north/south drive depicted on the plat that provides access to the residential lots in Block 23 should be realigned to reflect the updated design shown on the landscape plan. Staff is not in favor of the proposed layout of this block with the residential units abutting the parking lot for the commercial area with only 15-feet in between consisting of landscaping and a pathway.Accordingly, Staff recommends the access drive for the residential units is constructed as an alley and a north/south public street is provided between the residential and the commercial lots for addressing purposes for the east-facing residential units,for on-street parking for the residential units and as a transition/separation between land uses. The following is the existing layout and a concept layout showing Staffs recommended changes: Existing Layout: Recommended layout: 1 1 L �••�R-1�5� C-C F-{R-1�5� C-C 1 1 1 1 1 I�llr % City of Meridian Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ Local and collector street connectivity is proposed within the development in accord with Comprehensive Plan Policy#6.01.02B, "Reduce the number of existing access points onto arterial streets by using methods such as cross-access agreements, access management, and frontage/backage roads, and promoting local and collector street connectivity." 2. Multiuse Pathways (UDC 11-3A-5): Multi-use pathways are required to be provided with development in accord with the Pathways Master Plan as required by the Park's Department. Per the plan, a 10-foot wide multi-use pathway is required within the Williams gas pipeline easement and should extend as a detached pathway along the north side of E.Crescendo St.to the detached pathway along S. Locust Grove Rd.A 10-foot wide detached multi-use pathway is also required along the west side of S.Elevated Way to create a pedestrian connection between the proposed park amenity and the existing pathway to the south in Apex West subdivision. A pathways plan is included in Section VII.J that depicts all pathways proposed within the development. A 14-foot wide public use easement is required for the multi-use pathways required by the Pathways Master Plan where they lie outside of public right-of-way and should be submitted to the Planning Division and recorded prior to City Engineer signature on the final plat. The easement and recorded instrument number should be depicted on the plat. 3. Pathways (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-8): All pathways should be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-8. A pathways plan is included in Section VII.J that depicts all pathways proposed within the development. 4. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): All sidewalks should be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17. A sidewalk is not proposed along the northern boundary of the site adjacent to the Farr Lateral on the northeast side of W. Precipice Dr. due to the grade difference between the waterway and the street(the lateral is higher). The UDC requires sidewalks to be provided on both sides of public streets and does not include a provision for a waiver; therefore, Staff recommends changes to the development plan to provide a sidewalk along the northeast side of W.Precipice Dr. Staff recommends a DA provision requiring 10-foot wide detached sidewalks/pathways to be provided along S.Locust Grove Rd., an arterial street, all internal collector streets and those abutting this site in lieu of on-street bike lanes for public safety. 5. Private Streets (UDC 11-3F-4): All private streets constructed within the subdivision should comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3F-4. Private streets are proposed for access and addressing for the residential lots in Blocks 2 and 23. A separate application is required to be submitted for approval of the private streets and should be submitted concurrently with the final plat application. Because the proposed private streets will result in several building lots having frontage on both public and private named streets in Blocks 2 and 23,which will likely create confusion for emergency responders, Staff is not in favor of the proposed layout of these blocks. Staff has recommended changes to the layout of Block 23,which will alleviate this issue, as discussed in Section III.E.1 above. Staff recommends the Applicant make changes to the layout of lots in Block 2 to comply with ACHD's requirements for public alleys so that these lots only have frontage on one(1)named street. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ 6. Subdivision Regulations (UDC 11-6): Compliance with the subdivision design and improvements standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3 is required. Alleys are required to comply with the standards in UDC 11-6C-3B.5. The proposed alleys appear to comply with these standards. Common driveways are required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3D. • Common driveways should serve a maximum of four(4)units; in no case should more than three (3)dwelling units be located on one(1)side of the driveway. The common driveway in Block 12 serving Lots 72-75 exceeds the maximum number of dwelling units that may be served on one(1)side of the driveway. The plat should be revised to remove one(1) of these lots to comply with the standard; or, an alternative compliance request/application may be submitted to UDC 11-6C-3D.1 to be allowed four(4) driveways on one(1) side of the common driveway in accord with UDC 11-6C-3D.9. • Solid fencing adjacent to common driveways is prohibited, unless separated by a minimum five-foot wide landscaped buffer planted with shrubs,lawn or other vegetative groundcover—construction of this buffer is the responsibility of the developer and not the adjacent homeowner. • Perpetual ingress/egress is required either by a recorded easement or as a note on a recorded final plat.The easement or plat note shall include a requirement for maintenance of a paved surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment. In residential districts,block faces should not be more than 750-feet in length without an intersecting street or alley,except where a pedestrian connection is provided,then the maximum block face may be extended up to 1,000-feet in length. The City Council may approve a block face up to 1,200-feet in length where the block design is constrained by site conditions which include steep slopes in excess of 10%or a large waterway/irrigation facility. In no case shall a block face exceed 1,200-feet,unless waived by City Council. Where appropriate,traffic calming may be required for blocks in excess of 1,000 feet. • The face of Block 12 along W. Precipice Dr. is approximately 2,500-feet. Two (2) pedestrian connections are proposed within the block that provides pedestrian access between streets. The Farr Lateral runs along the north side of W. Precipice Dr. at the highest point of the development. • The face of Block 12 along W. Vertex Dr. is approximately 1,500-feet. One(1)pedestrian connection is proposed within the block that provides pedestrian access between streets. The Applicant requests a Council waiver to the block face standard for both of these block faces based on the above-noted site constraints in addition to those noted in Section III.C1 above. Traffic calming is proposed in the form of a 29-foot wide street section for W.Precipice Dr. along the Farr Lateral and bulb outs and choke points at pedestrian crossings as shown below. Note: The proposed reduced street section will only allow parking on one side of the street. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ F. Services Analysis See Service Accessibility Report in Section VII.B below. 1. Waterways (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-6): All waterways, except natural waterways,are required to be piped unless used as a water amenity or linear open space, in which case they may be left open as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6. The McBirney Lateral runs east/west through this site within a 25-foot wide easement from centerline both directions and the Farr Lateral runs mostly off-site along the northeast boundary of the site within a 30-foot wide easement from centerline both directions. Both of these facilities are under the jurisdiction of the Boise Project Board of Control(BPBC). The Board does not allow landscaping, including trees and/or shrubs(other than gravel)within their easements—all fences, gates,pathways, and pressurized irrigation lines are required to be located just off the edge of the easements and the easements must be left a flat drivable surface. The Watkins Drain runs north/south through the northwest portion of this site and the Carlson Lateral runs along the northern boundary of the site. 2. Pressurized Irrigation (UDC 11-3A-15): Underground pressurized irrigation water is required to be provided in each development as set forth in UDC 11-3A-15. 3. Storm Drainage (UDC I1-3A-18): An adequate storm drainage system is required in accord with the adopted standards, specifications and ordinances; design and construction shall follow Best Management Practice as adopted by the City per UDC 11-3A-18. 4. Utilities (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-21): All utilities for the proposed development are required to be installed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-21. Water service is available at the site. Main lines are required to be extended to and through the subject property with development. The developer should coordinate main size and routing with the Public Works Dept. and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service. City of Meridian I Department Report 111. Staff Analysis ■ Sanitary sewer service is available at the site. Main lines are required to be extended to and through the subject property with development. The developer should coordinate main size and routing with the Public Works Dept. and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service. 5. Topography There is a significant grade on the northeastern portion of the site south of the Farr Lateral(it's higher in that area and slopes to the southwest). 6. Hazards The Williams Northwest gas pipeline bisects this site and lies within a 75-foot wide easement. Future development is required to comply with the Williams Pipeline Developer's Handbook. IV. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Meridian Planning Division 1. A new Development Agreement(DA) shall be required as a provision of the MDA and RZ applications. The previous DA's [i.e. South Meridian-Arbor Ridge(H-2015-0019,Inst. #2016- 007071); Shafer View Terrace (H-2020-0117, Inst. #2021-102396); and Apex(H-2020-0066 Inst. #2020-178120)] shall no longer be in effect for the subject property. Prior to approval of the rezone ordinance,a new DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian,the property owner at the time of rezone ordinance adoption, and the developer. A final plat application shall not be submitted until the rezone is finalized. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six(6)months of the date of City Council approval of the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision&Order for the Rezone and MDA request. The new DA shall incorporate the following provisions: i. Future development of the subject property shall be generally consistent with the conceptual development plan,preliminary plat, landscape plan, open space and site amenity exhibit included below in Section VII,the conditions contained herein and the standards in the Unified Development Code(UDC). ii. The subject property shall be subdivided prior to submittal of any building permit applications for the residential portion of the development and prior to issuance of any Certificates of Occupancies within the commercial portion of the development. iii. A 10-foot wide multi-use pathway shall be constructed within the Williams Northwest gas pipeline easement in accord with the Pathways Master Plan. iv. Depict 10-foot wide detached sidewalks/pathways along both sides of all collector streets (i.e. E. Crescendo St., S. Sublimity Ave.,E. Quartz Creek St.,Apex Way and Elevated Way) and within the street buffer along S. Locust Grove Rd.,an arterial street in lieu of on-street bicycle lanes. v. Future development shall comply with the Williams Pipeline Developer's Handbook. vi. The rear and/or sides of 2-story homes facing S. Locust Grove Rd. and the collector streets (i.e. E. Crescendo St., S. Sublimity Ave.,E. Quartz Creek St.,Apex Way and Elevated Way) shall incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the following: modulation(e.g. projections,recesses, step-backs,pop-outs),bays,banding,porches,balconies,material types, or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines that are visible from the subject public streets. Single-story homes are exempt from this requirement. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments & Conditions ■ 2. The final plat shall include the following revisions: i. Depict a 25-foot wide street buffer along S. Locust Grove Rd., an arterial street; 20-foot wide street buffers along all collector streets(i.e. E. Crescendo St., S. Sublimity Ave., E. Quartz Creek St.,Apex Way and Elevated Way); and a 10-foot wide street buffer is required along the local street(i.e. E. Phenomenal St.)in the C-C district. ii. All street buffers shall be depicted in a common lot or on a permanent dedicated buffer easement in accord with UDC 11-3B-7C.2a. iii. Depict 10-foot wide detached sidewalks/pathways along both sides of all collector streets(i.e. E. Crescendo St., S. Sublimity Ave.,E. Quartz Creek St.,Apex Way and Elevated Way) and within the street buffer along S. Locust Grove Rd., an arterial street, in lieu of on-street bicycle lanes. iv. A 14-foot wide public use easement shall be depicted on the final plat for the multi-use pathways required by the Park's Dept.per the Pathways Master Plan where they lie outside of public right-of-way. The easement shall be submitted to the Planning Division and recorded prior to City Engineer signature on the final plat and the recorded instrument number shall be included on the plat. v. Solid fencing adjacent to common driveways is prohibited,unless separated by a minimum five-foot wide landscaped buffer planted with shrubs, lawn or other vegetative groundcover as set forth in UDC 11-6C-3D.5; include a buffer if fencing is proposed. vi. For all common driveways, a perpetual ingress/egress easement shall be depicted on the plat and a note shall be included for requirement of maintenance of a paved surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment in accord with UDC 11-6C-3 CD.8. vii. Depict cross-access/ingress-egress easements between all of the commercial lots(i.e. Lots 1-6, Block 23)in accord with UDC 11-3A-3A.2. viii.Reconfigure Block 12 to comply with the block face standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3F,unless otherwise waived by City Council. The Applicant requests City Council waive the block face standards on both sides of Block 12 that face W. Precipice Dr. and W. Vertex Dr. ix. Revise the alignment of the north/south drive that provides access to the residential lots in Block 23 to reflect the updated layout shown on the landscape plan. x. Remove Lot 24,Block 2 to enlarge the mew area and to reflect the updated layout shown on the landscape plan. xi. Depict a north/south public street between the residential lots and the commercial lots in Block 23 with parking on at least one(1) side of the street. xii. Revise the layout of the lots in Block 2 to comply with ACHD's requirements for public alleys so that these lots only have frontage on one(1)named street. xiii.Depict a sidewalk along the northeast side of W. Precipice Dr. as set forth in UDC 11-3A-17D. xiv.Depict traffic calming(i.e. a reduced 29-foot wide street section for W. Precipice Dr.,bulb-outs and choke points)within the development as shown on the exhibit in Section VII.E as allowed by ACHD. 3. The landscape plan shall include the following revisions: i. Depict a 25-foot wide street buffer along S. Locust Grove Rd., an arterial street; 20-foot wide street buffers along all collector streets(i.e. E. Crescendo St., S. Sublimity Ave.,E. Quartz City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments & Conditions ■ Creek St.,Apex Way and Elevated Way); and a 10-foot wide street buffer along E. Phenomenal St., a local street,in the C-C district,in accord with UDC Tables 11-2A-6, 11-2A-7 and 11-213- 3. ii. All required street buffers shall be landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11- 3B-7C. The arterial and collector street buffers shall comply with the enhanced buffer requirements listed in UDC 11-3G-3B.3 because they were counted toward open space requirements. iii. Parkways along local residential streets shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3G- 3B.4 when counted toward open space requirements as proposed. iv. Stormwater detention facilities shall comply with the standards in UDC 11-3G-3B.5 when counted toward open space requirements as proposed. v. Include mitigation information on the landscape plan that demonstrates compliance with the standards in UDC 11-3B-10.C.5. vi. Depict 10-foot wide detached sidewalks/pathways along both sides of all collector streets (i.e. E. Crescendo St., S. Sublimity Ave.,E. Quartz Creek St.,Apex Way and Elevated Way) and within the street buffer along S. Locust Grove Rd.,an arterial street, in lieu of on-street bicycle lanes. vii. Solid fencing adjacent to common driveways is prohibited,unless separated by a minimum five-foot wide landscaped buffer planted with shrubs, lawn or other vegetative groundcover as set forth in UDC 11-6C-3D.5; if fencing is proposed,depict a buffer. Construction of this buffer is the responsibility of the developer and not the adjacent homeowner. viii.Depict a sidewalk along the northeast side of W. Precipice Dr. as set forth in UDC 11-3A-17D. ix. Depict a north/south public street between the residential lots and the commercial lots in Block 23 with parking on at least one(1) side of the street. x. Depict landscaping in common open space areas in accord with the standards listed in UDC 1I- 3G-5B. xi. Depict landscaping along all pathways in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C. 4. The fitness course shall to have a minimum of six(6) stations permanently installed in accord with UDC 11-3G-3C.6. 5. The dog park shall have bags for dog waste disposal,a double entrance gate,bench(es)and fencing to enclose a minimum of 5,000 square feet and secured open space for an off-leash dog park in accord with UDC 11-3G-3C.9. 6. The swimming pool shall be constructed in ground and meet all Building Code requirements in accord with UDC 11-3G-3D.1. 7. The tot lots shall have commercial grade play equipment scaled and designed for the use and safety of younger children and benches for seating shall be nearby in accord with UDC 11-3G-3D.3. 8. The bicycle repair station is required to be a fixed installation with tools and an air pump per UDC 11-3G-4F.2. 9. Either apply for alternative compliance to UDC 11-6C-3D.1 to be allowed four(4)driveways on one(1) side of the common driveway for Lots 72-75,Block 12; or,remove one (1)lot in this location to comply with the standard. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments & Conditions ■ 10. Prior to submittal of the final plat for City Engineer signature, a 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement shall be submitted to the Planning Division, approved by City Council and recorded for the multi-use pathway along the Williams Northwest gas pipeline and any other pathways required by the Park's Department in accord with the Pathways Master Plan that are outside of public right- of-way. Include the recorded instrument number of the easement(s)along with a depiction of the easement(s) on the final plat. 11. All private streets constructed within the subdivision shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3F-4.A separate application is required to be submitted for approval of private street(s) and shall be submitted concurrently with the final plat application. 12. All waterways, except natural waterways,are required to be piped unless used as a water amenity or linear open space, in which case they may be left open as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6. 13. Off-street parking is required to be provided for all single-family residential units in accord with the standards for such listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6; and for non-residential uses in the commercial district in accord with UDC 11-3C-6B. Bicycle parking is required for non-residential uses as set forth in UDC 11-3C-6G;bicycle parking facilities shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. 14. A 25-foot wide buffer to residential uses shall be provided with development of the commercial lots (i.e. Lots 1, 5 and 6,Block 23). The Applicant requests City Council approval of no buffer in this area on the C-C zoned property with the provision of a 15 foot wide common mew on the residential portion, which will include landscaping and a sidewalk. If Council grants the request, a reduction to the buffer width shall not affect building setbacks; all structures shall be set back from the property line a minimum of the buffer width required in the applicable zoning district. 15. The existing structures on the site shall be removed prior to City Engineer signature on the final plat phase in which they are located. 16. Administrative design review shall be required for future commercial structures on Lots 1-6, Block 23 and the swimming pool and associated structure in accord with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual. 17. All waterways, except natural waterways, intersecting,crossing or lying within the area being development are required to be piped unless used as a water amenity or linear open space, in which case they may be left open as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6. If left open, fencing may be required in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-6C. 18. Permanent addresses cannot be assigned until Ada County has approved the proposed street names. Other Agency comments may be accessed in the project ale included in the public record. V. FINDINGS A. Rezone(UDC 11-511-3E) 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 proposed map amendment and development plan complies with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. City of Meridian I Department Report 0. Other Agency comments may be accessed in the project file,included in the public record. ■ 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Stafffinds the proposed amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed districts, including the purpose statement. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Stafffinds the proposed map amendment should not be materially 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 Stafffinds the proposed map amendment should not result in an adverse impact on the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the City including, but not limited to, school districts. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. This finding is not applicable as the proposed request is for a rezone, not annexation. B. Preliminary Plat(UDC-613-6) In consideration of a preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat,the decision- making body shall make the following findings: 1. The plat is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and is consistent with this unified development code; Stafffinds the proposed plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and will be consistent with the UDC if the Applicant complies with the above-noted conditions. 2. Public services are available or can be made available ad are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Stafffinds public services are available to the site 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; Stafffinds there are no scheduled public improvements adjacent to or on this site. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Stafffinds 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 Stafffinds the proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. Staff is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that need to be preserved with this development. City of Meridian I Department Report V. Findings ■ VI. ACTION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed MDA,RZ and PP requests with the provisions included above in Section IV. Council should consider and take action on the waivers requested by the Applicant pertaining to block face and buffer to residential uses. B. Commission: Pending C. City Council: Pending City of Meridian I Department Report VI. Action ■ � 1 AMITY IN I' No pill I � L-AKE HAZEL I 1_ /�IIf11P moll 11 1111111E-IIIIE min �I� �_Inlptn► i1 nnlia� '�:�Iilnllllllll Im II 11111111 ,ii�ii'�i1` .�t' �� ��I�1,►�:IIIIunv:u1Ery6i MEN IN I �rrrti�ar II�I� ati� nnn► Q ���►♦ � �� I�, �w�w► Illur f♦ _.�1��i��"� �nulE �� :;�lilll,i'-i7_on 1�11 IIIIIIII lilt mnurnr, h ,�_C 111 � �111 IIII�zsrpfrrp uui`- '=�— w L--AKE ,IIII Illlli�I _���,~�!�� 0 S1111= 11111'„-. "� 1 -•- • ■ illlllll.nn--i11" dill ♦��I ■��1„� nuunR�.'G���IEluriri��I _ '`AMITY _Ind 1 • • I. ■' "7=111111 HOW ►ri tom,--�Inuai III �IIWEIii1111riii �� !!1"I ter•I/1//////lrrlpTr/� -• r - ♦�a111111��gaili� �► llllll\� + � , NINON Il • a �III 1��rltp.O�., �� • � i�h 11 W �1111 •' f�y�ill i� � �■■ r■M�%1ir��.:i '111111111 - IIIPl111111�� �n�ry�yf n/� � u,tl•_ �Io-a—'=��11.!Ill��lllin��1.— wL1�JH—L1'.�](C2!'� N11�1==n��11— 111111111111 =�� rrlr 'llllllll1111' �`r 'FYI 11111,n+ennr�lrr!nr� tltl : �� _ _ �, 1i1111111�Lilt�' �L-ArK'E�ZEL ` u _ innML G�IIIIAA-r11r�•i1111�11���i I� ��III • . - - AMITY � 61111 IN --- -- ;,� 5nnnm � -.I.mnuuull►�'y. r:���O.0 llAllnn ":::�IIIIIl1A1111 hill' l:G rnr/j gg1111 - rr r'r Ik==-� -��n• IIr� ��� illllllr►+�tttra Aimmn!� ! ♦ t11111�+.+airy nnlmm�l►! a♦ i � 1 +.� -- nul'= -_e'.' nnunnm 4+ i�rlgy� ♦�� 11111\!'r`j�' u0000nail lm luul� "r•ra•� ii1 mminuu n� �1� 1♦♦I ■ ff ♦ 11111 �- rl _iiii000iom'nnlnull=a.'••.. „ nuuunm i==-:p � � ♦�, 7j������ ,�\�+ hnulrlum unh. � �� mum Iuii p Q►1 �� _ Z— • ���� e= � ���� �t��a�ill =Illllluw ni r�Q,a�l u��itui ela'�� � � �y iullr• � rt�� II =ywnnn =____1=i.il ��1��1E♦f �j� 0�� �a a111� � ♦ 11 rinuu-^ —`FIl� �� ~,��� � �ylaln 1111- �_ , �� ♦�1� Il =IBIII!mum Ilgmnno � ♦ � murti oun/uin = t = ____ �.� � ���� �,4�\_— � ♦1* �w All llllllll=_ =i 11f1 rn —= II •ar ii ail �" 1111111111-__' i� h.i101i�i4 '�Inili IIIII�'� '!_■■ r■ 1///Irk— E ,::;u:ar::. ••'roar,:_- _ -.I c,c,c.Fi�■p�oua - nulunln - _� Iz,��noon u_ a iuwin ninml�ova:_:-��! !11 nnn-- �- �u•Ilyr =1 IIAII==�nulllnllnl`'I. =lnnnnnu Ilanlu I _ ._•, lunn�nn Ilnlllnnl = �a rim�inT - _ S. m = �■ _ZI Il�lll�r'rPri7riiTu���rr�=_-_ I`\�� ,,. nnlnnrinnn�llull��nlllin lmnnn lolimimun� � '`�r�=r,�7lrranmurl.f(/�1�' ��' . L-AKE=HAZEL`:ntRI111�j - np .w•tir:`�Sri L`Illrl! nnn 7 C�►�t1��� W IIIIIf IIAr11� aa��a�"�,� 11 B. Service Accessibility Report PARCEL S 11314 7 50 SERVICE ACCESSIBILITY fOverall -score: 18 17th Percentile Location In City Limits Extension Sewer Trunkshed mains < 500 ft.from parcel GREEN Floodplain Either not within the 100 yrfloodplain or > 2 acres � GREEN Emergency Services Fire Response time > 9 min. ho Emergency Services Police Meets response time goals some of the time YELLOW Pathwa;s Within 114 mile of current pathways Transit Not within 114 of current or future transit route Arterial Road Buildout Status Ultimate configuration(#of lanes in master streets YELLOWY plan) > existing (4 of lanes) &road IS in 5 yr work plan School Walking Proximity From 112 to 1 mile walking MLOW School Drivability Not within 2 miles driving of existing or future school I RED Eithera Regional Park within 1 mile OR a Community Park Walkability Park within 1/2 mile OR a Neighborhood Park within GREEN 114 mile walking Report gerereffid on CB-2!�-2024 by 1J_:RID1AK%,s311r City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 1 01 C. Legal Description&Exhibit Map for Boundary of Proposed New Development Agreement Im June 24,2024 Apex 5ubdIvision Project No-21.249 WibitA Legal Description for Deve I apme nt Agreement Modification(Apex Farr 5ubdiwWm) A parcel of land situated in a portion of Section 31,Township 3 North, Range 1 East,15-M-,City of Meridianr Ada County, Idaho,and being more particularly described as follows'. Cornmencingat an aJurninum cap marking the southeast corner of said Section 31,which bears =0 2'22"E a distance of 2,700_07 feet from a brass cap marking the ea5l 1/4 comer of said Section 31, thence fallowing the easterly line of the Southeast 1/4 Df Section 31,NOO'32'22"W a distance of593.57 feet; Thence leaving said easterly line, N89`42'21 rW a distance of 67.25 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar❑n the subdivision boundary of Apex Northwest Subdivision No.1(Rook 124, Pages 19693-19693,records of Ada County,Idaho)and being the POINT OF BEG INNIW Thence foil❑wing the subdivision boundary of said Apex Northwest SuhdiviSion No-1 the fallowing three (3)courses: I. N89042'2I"W a distance of 563,32 feet to a 5f8-inch rebar; 2. N39'31'DD"W a distanoe of 11.71 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; 3. N39'43'08"W a distance of 1.50 fleet to a 5f 8-inch rebar on the subdivision boundary of Apex Northwest Subdivision No_2(Book 124,Pages 19$44-19$47,records of Ada County,Idaho); Thence leaving said subdivision boundary of Apex Northwest suhdivision Na. 1 and following Said subdivision boundary of Apex Northwest Subdivision No.2 the following seven(7)courses: 1, N00'16'52"F a distance of 528.00 feet to a 5/8-Inch rebar; 2. 14.14 feet along the arc of a circular curve to the right,said curve having a radius of 9M feet,a delta angle of 90 '47",a chord bearing of N45'27'15"E and a chord distance of 17.73 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; 3. 589'42'21"E a distance of 146.58 feet toa 5/8-inch rebar; 4_ NOU1739"E a distance of 87.50 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; 5- N89'42'21"W a distance of 130.00 feet to a 5/8-Inch rebar; 6. S70'21'17'W a distance of 24.92 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; 7_ N89"42'21"W a distance of 47.64 feet; Thence leaving said subdivision boundary of Apex Northwest Subdivision No.2,N47°56'33"W a distatice of 251,11 feet; Thence N48'54'WW a distance of 47.18 feet; Thence N47'51'19"W a distance of 1,1538.44 feet; Thence 542'UB'410W a distance of 461.91 feet; T#ience 50.41 feet along the arc of a circular curve to the right, 5ald curve#laving a radius of 60.00 feet,a delta angle of 49'08'12",a chord hearing of 56-6'1 2'47"W and a Chord distance of 48,94 feet; Thence N83'4VOW'W a distance of 40,82 feet; Thence N44'07'12"W a distance of 21.37 feed; 7henre 19852 feet along the arc of a rirrular curve to the left,said ounce having a radius of 311.50 feet, a delta angle of 36'30'56",a chard bearing of N22'15'05"w and a chard distanre of 195.19feet; Thence N40"31'33"W a distance of 241.33 feet; 5725 North Discovery Way•Boise,Idahv 8371 •208A5 9.6939 kmengllp.com City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 102 Thence 226.01 feet along the arc of a circular curve to the left,said curve having a radius of 263,50 feet, a delta angle of49"31'13",a chord bearing of P465`17'09'W and a chord distance of 219.04 feet; Thence 589`57'15"W a distance of 450.61 feet; Thence_5W02'450E a distance of 31.50 feet to the southerly Ilne of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 114 of Section 13; Thence following said southerly line, 589"5715"W a distance of 529.87 feet to a 5/$-inch rebar marking -Center-West if 16 corner of said Section 31 also being the southeast corner of Prevail Subdivision No. 1, Back 120,Pages 18715-18719, records of Ada County, Idaho); Thence leavirig said southerly line and following the westerly line of said Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 114, N00"31'1VE a distance of 1,326.96 feet to a 5/9-inch mbar marking the Northwest 1/16 corner of said Secticn 31 (also being the northeast corner of Prevail Subdivision ale_2,Book 121,Pages 19054- 19057, records of Ada County, Idaho and being the southeast corner of Prevail Subdivision No.3,9e0k 126,Pages 20182-20184,records of Ada County, Idaho); Thence leaving said westerly line of the Southeast 1J4 of the Northwest 114 and fallawingthe westerly IIn-e of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 31, NWZO'�6"E a distance of 2 06.99 feet to the northeast corner of said Prevail Subdivision No_3; Thence fallowing said westerly line, NDY2V36"E a distance of 24.96 feet; Thence leaving said westerly line, N81°55'55"E a distance of 531.16 feet to a 5J8-inch rebar; Thence S25'53'15M a distance of 7.65 feet to a 5/8-i nch rebar; Thence$82'35'12"W a distance of 8,19 feet to a 5I8-inch rebar on the northeasterly bank of the Farr Lateral; Thence Following said northeasterly bank the following five(5)courses: 1. 48.99 feet along the arc of a curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 58.E feet, a delta angle of48'23'56",a chord bearing of 522°4616"E and a chord distance of 47.55 feet to a 518- inch rebar; 2. SW58'07"E a distance of 45,40 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; 3. SW23'34"E a distance of 180.18 feet to a 5/8-inch mbar; 4. 161,54 feet along the arc of a curve to the left,said curve having a fadius of 588.00 fact,a delta angle of 15044'2V, a chord bearing-Gf 562"15'470E and a chord distance of 151,03 feet to a 5/8- inch rebar; 5. Thence S70"14'4WE a distance of 112.44 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar on the northerly llne of said So utheast 1/4 of the No rthwest 114 of 5ectio n 31; Thence leaving said northeasterly bark and said northerly line,519°57'31" a distance of 12.12 feet to the centerline of said Farr Lateral, Thence following said centerline the foilowing three(3)courses= 1_ S70°(17'29"E a distance of 9-75 feet; 2, 562°02'58"E a distance of 207.13 feet 3. S65°37'43"E a distance of 186.17 feet to the 4�,�sterly line of said Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1f4; Thence leaving said centeHine and following said easterly line,500'38'17mW a distance of 30.20 feet to a point on a line being parallel to and 25-ft southwesterly of the centerline of said Farr Lateral, Thence following said link the fallowing fourteen �14)courses: 1. 553455'51"E a distance of 237,97 feet; 2. S67`14'14"E a distance of 113,95 feet to a 1/2-Inch rebar; 3. 572"17'39"f a distance inf S7„22 feet to a 1/2-inch rebar; 4. S78°5Y$8"E a distance of 439.81 feet to a 1/2-inch rebar; 5. 57545510''E a distance of 99.84 feet; PAGE 12 City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 103 6- 5451*21'l1"E a distance of 24.44 feet; 7. 546"09"47"E a distance of 188.67 feet; 8. 555"48'16"E a distance of45.29 feet to a 1/2-inch rebar, 9. S62'37'05"E a distance of 33 1,4 1 feet to a 1/2-inch rebari 10. S49'07'Oi1"E a distance of 149.42 feet to a 1/2-inch re har; 12, 547"33'25''E a distance of223,36 feet; 12. SW34'10"E a distance of 104.95 feet; 13. S59`52'47JrE a distance of 94,86 feet; 14. 555*32'370E a distance of 460.70 feet to a point on the northerly line of the southeast 114 of said Section 31; Thence leaving said line and following said northerly line, N89'57'WE a distance of 390.76 feet to a brass cap marking the east 1/4 corner of said Section 31; Them-e leaving said northerly line and following the easterly line of said Southeast 1J4,S0W33'224E a distance of le372.93 Feet; Thence leaving Bald easterly line, M99' 42'21"W a distance of 63.22 feet to a point on the westerly right- of-way lirEe of S_ Locust Groin Rd.; Thence following said westerly right-of--way line the following nine (9)courses' 1. 500'17'39"W a distance of 97M feet; 2. S89'42'21"E a distance-of 18.14 feet; 3. S21'07'21"E a distance of 18,06 feet; 4_ _5W32'22"E a distance of 3 17.11 feet; 5. 50VW4.rW a distance of 94.42 feet; 6. S00"32'22"E a distance of 91.20 feet; 7. 524`46'04'W a distance of 28.23 feet; 8. N89'42'21"W a distance of 3.19 feet; 1_ 500*17'39"W a distance of 1.50 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said descrlption contains a total of 131.89 ac,res,more or less, Attached hereto is Exhibit B and by this reference is made a part hereof, , 1 1f.5 or ILL_ 10 . 'f - of PAGF City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 104 I Q�Q C7� �f7 I o � I z r M WCD w - m I I MTF � I III I I ro RHE ° Q Emn z zo I—z + W" � f4 Locust Grove Rd. r � z 0 0 E N G I N E E R I N G 5725 N.71H UINCRTRY WAY 00:115E,�Mb UR3M PHONE 4748I fi54E%39 Exhibit 9- Apex Farr-Subdivision An4n�llp cool DA Modification � CAiE: lure Yd2� PBNeCT: 7L-7aa SHEET: Situated in a portion of Section 31,T,3N,,RIE,,XM-, 1 OF 4 City of Meridian,Ada County, ID City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits Fl 05 ,f,3 L1 S4009'47'E 1 B9,67' D� S55'41'16'E ,q�, 45.29, I GONE 25—FT MUTRWE5TERLY 54-747'4d"E OF CENTERLINE OF THE 149.42, I'll- FAM LATERAL 94733'25"E 94,86' 554'34"1 CIE 5 5J , 4' NB9'57'56'E MUNO 9E'ASS GAP E. 1f4 CORNER SECTION 31 tf Ira lei � L ! N a.+ N48's4'M-W u�r N4758'33)N 251.11'N ' 0 400 goo 1200 La � L3 N99'42'2114 La Plan Stile- V=400' 13G.4D' Lib nc> N0417'3+2'E G� 67.30' L1q FApoxorthwest _ ` 42'21"E sion No.2 t - L LM 118742'21'W L25 "a N(~ rJ��'.�• YS ifs I III { POINT OF BEGINNING Apex Northwest N89.42'21'W i SubdiviElon No. 1 87•25' (TEE POINT OF COMMENCEMENT E. Lake Hazel Rd,T.3w. R IF-3i 3a km ENGINEERING T.2rd., .1E. 6 5 5725 NWH 015COYERYWAY UME,iP#HP p}7L� PHONE Ito)op- " Exhibit B-Apex Farr Subdivision W°''fk{"" L)A Modification 6n7E� lu8r]PYi ' PBQIECf: 73-7�,6 SHEET: Situate+ in a portion of Section 31,T-3N.,R.1E.,B.M., 2 OF 4 City of Merid1ano Ada County,ID City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 106 % % E < ? \ \ $ 6 ; < 3 < 8 § w ' L-7 =� 7 �z Kj L , P a § 2 T § G § / § }) | / \ _ £ _0 � �22 � � §@ � § d � §§z e d rn � �§ h�2 a . $§ /§ N. eke - — §- � - - — � �a � _� — — — — ) _ z& KR§ § _ o fqP *' \\ �& � �Ln t / 2 � ( § §� ? S | _ _ TP §k 2 � } , © k j % ƒ | � � � , S wi Z ENa1NEERINa _ n._RYWAY 713 CI� � Exhibit B - Ap@x Fa t Subdivision kme® DA VodMt%n ! DATE: a__. | .RC*"CT, mm § Sites Gd » a �mo,G mon ] �3 , %lErBm, 3 OF 4 City of M@Hd§m County, g City of Mell*pI Department Re o4 V11. Exhibits Fl 07 LINE TAKE LINE TABLE LINE BEARING DFSfANCE LINE BEARING DISTANCE L1 N3T31'OG-H 11.71' L14 500'3$'1?V 30.20' L2 NB4'43'06'W 1.54' 05 S61'21'11'E 24.44' L3 57721'17-R 24.92' L18 N89'42'21"W 63.22' L4 Ne8'42'21V 47_154' L17 500'17'34JW 87.59' f.5 N139 4'3-c6-W 44,82' L10 599'42'21% 113.14' L6 N44'07'12'W 21,37' Li4 521'0721-E 18.06' L7 SOR'02'451 31,50' L21 S0545'44"W 94.42' LB N00'20'36E 24.96' L22 SW3212�E SIM' L9 S25'53'WW 7.65' L23 S24'4E'04"W 28.13' Lip 592'35'12-W 8.1W L24 NB9'4212N 3.19' L11 S475e'07% L5.40' L25 SW17'3911' L12 519'52'31'W 12,12' L13 M'07'29'E 9.75' CURVE TABLE CURVE FLADIUS LENGTH DELTA CHORD ERG CRORD r el 9_00' 14.14' 90'064-7- $44517'1651 12,73' C2 90.00' 50,41' 48MB'12" S66'12'47"N 48.94' C3 311.50' 198.52' SY20'56" N22'16'05'* MAR' k C4 261_56' 226_D1' 44'31'13" N65'17'09-H 219.04' CS 58.00' 48.99' dw23'S6" S22'46'16"E* 47SS' i CB 58a-00' t61.54' 15-44'26" S62-1547-E I al.03' : km i r Y t i 1 f L h 4 r F E N G I W E E R I N G L s}2S WIRTH OISCIWIFLY WILY BLd4-IDAHO SP13 s PHONE I209)M-C 3B Exhibit B-Apex Farr Subdivision DA Modification k Plue: !inr 2a2A r PRQlEC1: 21t�B SHEET: Situated in a portion of Section 31,T.3N., P.1E.,S.M., 4 OF 4 City of Meridian, Ada County, ID City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits Fl 08 D. Rezone Legal Descriptions &Exhibit Maps im. 9233 WEST STATE STREET I BOLSE,ID 83714 I 2O8.639.6939 I FAx 208,639.6930 April 30,2024 Project No.21-248 Exhibit A Legal Description for Rezone to R-8 Apex Farr Subdivision A Parcel of land being a portion of Lot 1,BIOck 5 of Shafer View Terrace Subdivision(Book 128r Pages 20722-20730,records of Ada County,Idaho)and further situated in the Northeast 114 of the Southwest 114 of Section 31,Township 3 North,Range 1 East,B-M-,City of Meridian,Ada County,Idaho and being more partfcularly described as follows; BEGINNING-at a 5/$-inch re bar marking the Center 1f4 corner of said Section 31,which bears H89'57'15"E a distance of 2,507.62 feet frorn an aIurninum cap marking the West 1/4 rorner of said Section 31,thence fallowing the easterly line of said Southwest 1f4,540'17'55"W a distance of 270.83 feet; Thence leaving said easterly line,8,54 feet along the aTrofa cWularcurve to the left,said curve having a radius of 2I30.0D feed,a delta angle of 01'44'51",a chard hearing of N39°39'o7"W and a chord distance of 8.54 feet; Thence N40•31'33"W a distance of 241.33 feet; Thence 198.79 feet along the arc of a circular curve to the left,said curve having a radius of 230.00 feet a delta angle of 49'31'13,a chord bearing of N65'17'09"W and;a chord distance of 192.66 feet to a point on the northerly line of said Southwest 114; Thence fallowing Bald northerly line,N891715"E a distance of 338.68 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, Said parcel contains a total of 0.758 aCreS,more of Iess- Attached hereto 6 Exhibit R and by this reference Is hereby made a part of. ,.. 124 59 D OF L. ENGINEERS SURVEYOR$ PLANNERS City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 1 09 PefNT OF BEGINNING CENTER 1/4 CORNIER SECTION 31 Iw FOUND 5f8" REBAR Proposed Apex Farr I r Subdivision BA515 OF BEARING 36 31 NI99'S7'1 25d7.fi2' 2168-94'� N89-57'16-E 339.68' tit Rezone Area:0.758}AC. Portion of R7824251260 I WEST 1/4 CORNER SECTION 3E Current Zoning; R v FOUND ALUU114UM CAP Propmed Zoning: Proposed Apex Farr Subdivision Proposed Apex West Subdivision � I Shafer View Terrace Subdivision CURVE:TABLE CURVE RADIUS LENGTH DfLTA OHORDBRG CHORD C1 280-00' 6.54' 1'4-4'51" N39'39'07"W 13,54' C2 230.04' 199.79' 49'31'13" 1465'17'09"W 192.66' 0 100 204 300 Plan Scale 1"=100' ENGI NEE FLING 029 r4OKFH DiSO0,Mr WAY MSS-MAKIB9713 P"E4208.% .;9-ae3s Exhibit B - Rezone to R-8 kn--wilp,coot ,apex Farr Subdivision DATE April toes vWAU: 21-249 F HEEr: A portion of the Lot 1, Block 5 of hafer View Terrance in the NE 1/4 1 OF 1 of the SW 1/4 of Sec_ 31,T3N, R1E, BM, City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho HEET: City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 1 10 km 9233 WEST STATE STREET I BOISE,ID 83714 1 203.639,45939 FAX 208.639.6930 April 29,2024 Project No.21-249 Exhibit A Legal Descripdon for Rezone to C-C Apex Suhdnrision A parcel of land situated in a portion of the Southeast 114 of the southeast 1/4 of Section 31,Township 3 North, Range 1 East,B.M.,City of Meridian,Ada County, Idaho and being mare particularly destrlbed as follows; Commencing at an aluminum cap marking the southeast corner of said Section 31,which bears S00.32'22"E a distance of 2,700.07 feet from a brass cap marking the east 1/4 corner of said Sectlon 31, thence following the easterly Iine of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 31, N00'32'22" a distance of 6130.07 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. 'thence leaving said easterly line,N89'42'21"W a distance of 470.05 feet; Thence NNY16'52"E a distance of 623.25 feet; Thence S6942'21"E a distance of 461.12 feet to said easterly line of the Southeast 1/4; Thence fallowing said easterly Iine,SW32'22"E a distance of 62 3.3 2 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said parcel contains a total of 6.662 acres,more or less. Attached hereto is Exhibit 8 and by this reference is hereby made a part of. Cx� JC 129 ENGINEERS I SURVEYORS I PLANNERS City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ a! 32 U7 $ m SECTION @ ! | [ | FOUND Bm2 GP Pro d & x r - s u i,,A k n Ln ) 7 E. Crescendo 7. 29 «17 461.12- Proposed Apex Fa rr % subdiv>on 2 2 (% § new»: E AC- f m _ L Portion 51131449000&CA q§ La d ƒ � 51131449910 §) ƒ 2 _ r2m ni : %!s R 0 o y § § <k / o ! m�: CC / ® ZE 7 -0 ¥�E n z b 2 C CLk0 2 « Ln 2 @ QU L § Q V3 \ � ITN OF ( E. Phenomenal S! BEGINNING | 42»9 & ' § G� Apex § Northwest ©| SubdjViSlion N$ 1 | % § POINT OF COMMENCEMENT $ SOmHEALST CORNER gUIIA( 2 FOUND ALUM& »R - E �k�dl . I3N, RAE!! A N § — — — 211E § 5 $ O ! D 4km q / ■ NGINEE ■ , NG n le: a 15§ \ m,__mom._ QWS� � ExhibitB . Rezone C kmerolpcom | DATE- Apex Fa R Su bd ivsbn [ET—A po R±n of the SE1 4 of the5E �4 ton 3 SH } 1 OF 1 T3N, RIE, BV, Qty of V@Adam Ada County, Idaho City of Mell*pI Department Re o4 V11. Exhibits 1 12 km 4233 WEST STATE STREET I B015E,ID83714 � 208,539.5939 � ��+7{208,639.6930 April 29,2024 Project No_21-248 Exhibit A Legal Description for Rezone to R-8 Apex Farr SubdTvTsTon A parcel of land situated in a portion of the South 112 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 31L,Township 3 North, Range 1 East,B.M., City of Me rid iartr Ada County,Idaho and being more particularly described as follows; BEGINNING at a 518-inch rebar marking the Center 114 corner of said Section 31,which bears S89'57eWW a distance of�,501.37 feet from a buss rap marking the East 1/4 corner of said Section 31" thence following the westerly line of said Northeast 1/4, NOW1817"E a distance of 1,11236 feet to a point un a line being parallel to and 25-ft southwesterly of the centerline of said Farr Lateral; Thence leiWng said westerly line and fallowing said lire parallel to the Farr I,ateraI the following fourteen (14)courses: 1. S63"55'51"E a distance of 137.97 feet; 2. S57'14'14"E a distance of 113.95 Peet to a 1/2-inch rebar; 3. 572'17'39"E a distance of87.22 feet to a 1/2-Inch rebar" 4. S78'53'58"E a distance of439.81 feet to a 1/2-inch rebar; 5. S75"55'10"E a distance of 99.84 feet; G. SG1°21'11"E a distance of 24.44 feet; 7_ 546'09'4rE a distance of 199.67 feet; 8_ 555°48eIVE a distance of 45.29 feet to a 1/2-inch rebar; 9. S62'37eWE a distance of 331 41 feet to a 1/2-inch rebar; 10. S49°07000'"E a distance of 149.42 feet to a 1/2-inch rebar; 11_ S47'33'25"F1 a distance of 228.36 feet; 12, 554'34'1U"E a distance of 104.95 feet; 13, S59°52'47"E a distance of 94.85 feet; 14. 565"32'37"E a distance of460.70 feet to a paint on the southerly IIne of said Northeast 1/4; Thence leaving said line and following said southerly line, 5W57'55"Val a distance of 2,210,b1 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said parcel contains a total of 31.272 acres,more or less. Attached hereto is Exhibit Band by this reference€s[Hereby made a part of. (,J E T 42 0 ow or L. B ENGINEERS C SURVEYORS I PLANNERS City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 113 Proposed Apex Fa rr SubdiQsi nn mr38'17% 11196' — � � §\\ m2 10/ =n = = q_q / q \ t L m /§ - /k c � Ul §§\\ rq mg & � 2 = tMQ / 7 7/ Vt rb I Ul / # Ln 0. \ 9 6 J « & aj �g § 22 / o s n ch -4 z \ / / e Mid 4Lm 0 b f A / — { 0 � Jt@ � « hy \>1 q \ / �jj I �$ § )A — c w } \ P\ kt �2 7 _ cube § E § �0 r4 c e, _ « knoe [ F m 3 �£Rt F � / / m§ f t )Z ® 4 \ \ 62 k\ NZ LE) §w �km § G y Locust Grove Rd. £ N01NEE ■ IN0 _PA)Fk»m=m._ b bit B-Rezone 8 ©pc— Apex R Subdivision � _,_ m: r_ SHED A portion of the South 2 of the North 4 of Sewon 31, 1 OF 1 T N. R1E, Bm. Ot Df Meridian,Adams unty, Idaho City of Meridian Report VI! Exhibits Fl 14 E. Preliminary Plat(date: 5/1/2024)&Phasing Plan e� I x h= 3 �S om 4d� W� a I ;z a ' H�ca o o m 0 I a s mo Z) -Z_ Zu-2 E-- ------ cCWoc� x � a ° 2i F a Rol hg �aa e F, s �� ��! III as �_. stl 3g iia�i. e- � '; iss� - R••' a � � j a g� IN � ..� o a a K I � OtH t i R t. 1 t � City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 115 Ir @F r gig - Ilk /I -- �p - _ ea � City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 116 It iii BBB g4 9 Sv�e lA •' `:. 4: ` - v . -- B �� �- - wig w--�—_�_�'. ._'•'Y;;,^ .X( ''''•' k � �e�=�.., � ,$'�'d!GCS�04:�9�Og_Cg QO �pq�• �� : ' •�``��: � "' ne a O n9 9 s al �_�'--- - u: �f--- ag � fir• _ �! w Cg�o�tl�4gog cg o�tl�4 &11@110 go�4� e s� �. h M W 8 8 4 T4 x�N ol L"ll Aemse� i �: � � R o�� City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ 9® aP 9 x ❑ x ya3} ,% � 3 C�i� t a ■ e 41 Y .y A ai CD 4 01 A g a Cg w �1 d (0 �� _ " Oct z al a = ----- as _ ®j ®p C� 9 -�,' �8- '4w, All - RC: _ lltl[[-J�: .. Cie 51 y�.9p ss AS a;: ell. ol6, Y l A ' - i a C7 City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits Fl 18 If � sF e � S x x m—� �o ! � y • S rg Cj LU di U NIg OS S 8:: a �C I•$ G�j � '� �«. ,� � ice, � �R. � W 1 ®a Ocs I t ®� cal 1 aS w v 1 C ° 's y w Im.. n� m.. inn �e •• x- m+. m.. m�. ?.. x� I 8 cl $ A 1 " v - 1 City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 119 1 N =6.NIv.lI5e» IP aF l 5 O g o. S•9 �� � g , r I 1 �•_�_----�"� ... � IDS"' '�n ^$ CgPo a� A �lb 'elf, : X. y.. -- -----� —r�--- . . . . . — --- — __ Ldd 133H5 335-3NIl HJ1tlW F _� I City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits Fl 20 9 � Ia ys a6 :P 12 vF a 2 O Nil m yx w Q I 1 _ — fr' R al __J PR •' L•♦ I 1 -.� [rc�- rw�[ µw xr< ,ao� n[[ ma po[: wr��: rir .wn ss`[ .retie , —o— _�•: -x'�3 °�� ��'9 ��9 ��e H�'� °�+'� a®g �c9��.��® � spI� ��e B a mr lo—,t—1 o •I � yH I I I -TT---T----T---T—T- - - - I I I I I I I City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits Fl 21 Phasing Plan: a°a � c c I 5 0° 4 ux c a „mow ki o o v I ° I e # --- ice--=--- Traffic Calming—Bulb Outs and Choke Points: �' MM 4 u + -- } }• P uu�Y d # b } b # G \ # Q F b # p � 6 O-0 O ¢� + # 4+ I City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 122 F. Common Driveway Exhibits 9-zS.L71,309 zE 2gu,WQNO"w0 \} n ml�ra� ,w % )) {2 N�wem,a x¥ / §§ � _ « � §m� .eel ®���■ _ �--/\- -----\ \ - --« /§[ . � I >m. } .� ` I 3 0 / e k \_ � � R 12 of `��\ /\ K3ff � � • « �\« + : - : _ � � —51� G\r __. § m.i � §■ / » , § — — - �` u 2& PRESSURE __> ` . K§:! M$§ m_m�BE §mN®|! \ s B� f!§K a= fed!§ _ ,\ ) � -� ^k § S City of Meridian Department Rep o4 V t Exhibits Fl 23 OZ-SG SiOl L)U019 21 p * K S1191HXI 31Hl1❑140INI140? W€ pr w a oMd01"NviaN31A �g � CL ! o� No1SIld09f s,d,dvA x3dv �� 7a z 0 Fmq • �FY ZZ�JQ W W 2 I 97 ,cam 4 .6�- , �I I I m� = �� J. p4 z4m COMMON» 2d I v .. DWE IT S.TRA NSCEN6 AVE, � zo l SIDE O 3 _ I .-i MOM- �1 -:d i� � wI 11 ,Zt I J 4 ao 20, � a�3 m 10, o �oHo� rr w o •' I I i 10, PRESSURE ASEMENT ToBE DETERMINE6 T� RNAL PLAT City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits Fl 24 G. Private Street Areas 1 and 2 - I LL x • oa� A� G �� 9 a, 44 W� g B 49 i: . +X. '/'�..�,. � ' '!f �• .- A, ,'Pfl�•' ,:,:�a= '���5 .'R „�1} �� �Ci � x �1 s;;,'. ±\cam ;'��A� '�'y�' f a e' �;,,:• �a•� -a �„ ,,� R � ':• mti�• --- - - r-- h'Zdd133H5335-3NllH317W ' City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits Fl 25 ar a S z `�,y - s v 3 x o r, o o_g m q ' y5� LLSf z I I- 1 I_• 1 ll �- '- 1 I I � I I x 1 A 2) (4 a®A ®A lei, e ' a® i o 'J �A M wA e tA ®A AA a a� ' A g a I I ell _ � s q�7 I Y� -T—T"��-TT- ---- I I I I I I I I I I 1iy �— City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits Fl 26 e®®®A©o®0®0®®®®©ease®0a©aa00000oo©00a pOpp901100101® : 00000ao - OBBA000®G®0@AA®oOAAooA9o9AA©00000A09®= - �11111100000000900011111111111111011 � - • = �000000000000000000000000000000Igloo m00000 01111111 ©0099110111� � ��: :: - -������������������I�������� ����- .®111111111 ������- •- �11191111A11 _ ®©mm®�mmmmmmmmm■ommmmam®■moommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmammm© oame©�meeeeeeem0oemmmoe®�eoommmmeveeeeeemmemammm® - ."®®©oOOCOCOC000000A9AG00©00®■OBAGI�0�C99oC9�o000o ®0000000000�000■■0���®0®■■■■0�0000000000omoo0mmm= . d _ MEE ma LEA SIR i H min T . =p gar �N_ G � � � � e� a ®i a���a3g � s#4#,���@ ��a= � �s y � � � � ❑ @Cgp 6 44 @ii M� s � i•� @eA�' b§ ��. 3- �`s�e ii5-§#� ���'' � S� 5 ; �5 3 � F 1 gaa GCXDO _ 0 � Hi i il � �BFg gp�Y�o agFg�tl� a 9 ����� p��� �-' •• O m 1� yr o'Ilk t l I. o W ° I ... = - 8 w E a o w'♦ City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits Fl 28 � '� �$� ���fi� � �� �a �� �S �'� L � 9�§����y pe�� �EUCi�i^3 gE�a:�x��y��a� dY�a�S•�4�$ ��$2��G ! C � �• k b H v�0a Opo 22 S 101 (DOOO i N Oz a / t I od i bk • I . ® p _ ar �• I 4 Q iao n ° a LU ® ry a� City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits Fl 29 � � gg pp§u� ggug gg 3 � s y 3 $s"�� 9g§ € � � 1' a 3� r� �&� ¢��€" � S`d g�Y cgs gs;.g a. f y 9 y ka g e; 65'=_i 11 0 O� 1 €ie 9r e�a e �as$7," ei 3 11�9. �ganlul I H, ? k p H J o 00 1r'-- f" y 2~ i€ 1 F g g yea o Ily E. .... c-ate•:.-: _ -.tea.. r� D r ® ® m ® ® lb i e D � � f 1 f u O I i f1 1 r J ' I LLJ 1� r City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 130 Fencing Plan: w' a P ¢a y�8 ¢O� aa� y' xga e e G € tl�tl Y -e 5 5 5 9 @ 4 1 0 @ PI HVIIIII '/ x• �V -I� I 1, GOD qP 9 ! m Q9 CL uj :9 z re W W CC 0 — a amomarve� EmomUc•�U City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 131 pp =1 Q Q Quo@ a s h YR !fb G w 7 a Y I F Rs � la #E o L a H a to 00 y A Q 6 q R�� i s gIF � loi E IQ sP a s A i3, ! if ` Qf F --- s a a n efEi F � S + lei � z Lr7 aQQ9 �, ❑ ------- O 0 R3 !Q I 5 J.i 9 11Q 0 0 0 City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 132 ®m0ommememmmemmmmmm000cmom0am0ammam0ommmm�1111 -IN OIIIIII� ® ® music � g=� illllllllllllli iI�11N1111 i� 0 1 � a 'l.11llllllllllli��Illllm t�; [ - a� EIIIIIIIIM oilii �� Sol 21' �7 Q C. B 4 � J. Pathway Exhibit Tg >r x l T 35:11RJir�irrl'; _ r ' jE City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits Fl 34 �IIMMMM1iA�.::�11M11M�#11�1�1 s 111` r� 111111 �+ p�,••�.llllll,i� 1111. �:.IlliE fll�l+ll s� _IIm� Will ,=� �.�! � �IIIIIilllllL lllllll'lll_ °� ]IIIIIlIIFII� =iIYY;III___ �111111111l11,@= =a Y i J I I s iinllii ��r� �� r, 1111111113� r ti �•� i111111t'�11111111 per` ■ +y Ott •� ! f� 4 L. Conceptual Building Elevations for Residential Units no ■No o n ■■ � =. _—-- 31 NO ME y. wommma r A 4■■m~� ••■■ 1 r ,a r City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 136 E IDIAN;--- Applicant Presentation BRIGHTON September 5 , 2024 To : Meridian City Planning & Zoning Commission Sonya Allen , Associate Planner Cc : Meridian City Clerk From : Amanda McNutt Re : H-2024= 0014 Apex Farr - MDA, PP and RZ (aka Pinnacle) In response to the Conditions of Approval for Apex Farr Subdivision ( H - 2024- 0014 ) , we agree with the comments and conditions , unless the item is highlighted in yellow. On the highlighted items , I have noted either a modification or deletion of the Condition , as follows : IV. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Meridian Planning Division 1 . A new Development Agreement (DA) shall be required as a provision of the MDA and RZ applications . The previous DXs [i . e . South Meridian - Arbor Ridge (Hm2015 - 0019 , Inst . #2016 - 007071 ) ; Shafer View Terrace (H-2020 - 0117 , Inst . #2021 - 102396) ; and Apex (H-2020-0066 Inst . #2020 - 178120)] shall no longer be in effect for the subject property. Prior to approval of the rezone ordinance , a new DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian , the property owner at the time of rezone ordinance adoption , and the developer. A final plat application shall not be submitted until the rezone is finalized . The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six (6) months of the date of City Council approval of the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision & Order for the Rezone and MDA request . The new DA shall incorporate the following provisions : i . Future development of the subject property shall be generally consistent with the conceptual development plan , preliminary plat, landscape plan , open space and site amenity exhibit included below in Section V11 , the conditions contained herein and the standards in the Unified Development Code (UDC) . ii . The subject property shall be subdivided prior to submittal of any building permit applications for the residential portion of the development and prior 1 BRIGHTON to issuance of any Certificates of Occupancies within the commercial portion of the development. in . A 10 -foot wide multi -use pathway shall be constructed within the Williams Northwest gas pipeline easement in accord with the Pathways Master Plan . iv . Dept ,t 10 foot wide detae a .. ; dewalks/, ,., *1, .. ays ., lanizboth sides of all eelleetaf streets ( i . e . &-Creseend9-St. , S . . , E n, . i4z Greek St. , Apex W"r and Elevated . ,) and within the street bu ffe f al ,,n C �T st GF a Rd ., 4 l st,• of . l ; o f o st« of bi elo_ln o� s . ... . , . � ... .,,:ice . � �. e., � ... . . ., � ., � .,. . ., .. ., ., � ., .cy., . ., .�...,.. . Delete Condition Uv. Comment: The approved and/or constructed portions of E . Crescendo St . , S . Sublimity Ave . , E . Quartz Creek St. , Apex Way and Elevated Way have on street parking, a 5 foot detached sidewalk, and bike lanes . To create consistency and flow within the neighborhood , we request that this configuration be continued . According to ACHD , collector road standards have not changed , and this design conforms to their requirements . v . Future development shall comply with the Williams Pipeline Developer ' s Handbook . vi . The rear and/or sides of 2 - story homes facing S . Locust Grove Rd . and the collector streets ( i . e . E . Crescendo St . , S . Sublimity Ave . , E . Quartz Creek St . , Apex Way and Elevated Way) shall incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the following : modulation (e . g . projections , recesses, step -backs , pop- outs) , bays , banding, porches , balconies , material types , or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines that are visible from the subject public streets . Single -story homes are exempt from this requirement . 2 . The final plat shall include the following revisions : i . Depict a 2546ot wide street buffer along S . Locust Grove Rd . , an arterial street ; 2046ot wide street buffers along all collector streets (i . e . E . Crescendo St . , S . Sublimity Ave . , E . Quartz Creek St . , Apex Way and Elevated Way) ; and a 10-foot wide street buffer is required along the local street ( i . e . E . Phenomenal St . ) in the C - C district . ii . All street buffers shall be depicted in a common lot or on a permanent dedicated buffer easement in accord with UDC 11 - 3B - 7C . 2a . 0 * 0 rll . Depict ,C 10 feet wide detached sidewalks 7 pathways Riang both of all eel-leetBr-streets (i., . E�eefidezSt S . . , E . Qtiflf4z Greek St . , Apex Way and Elevated Wey) and within the stfeet buffer ale*g�� T ,� t �_«.,. ,e v . l .to«; ., 1 t«oot l ; o„ F .,., street bi 1 1 Lee'tis . , an-c 4ermial s rueet, in lieu or-vrr�crcv�� ivy cic-rcrir�cT. 2 ♦;� BRIGHTON Delete Condition 2 . iii. Comment: See Condition l . iv, above , for justification . iv . A 1446ot wide public use easement shall be depicted on the final plat for the multi -use pathways required by the Park ' s Dept. per the Pathways Master Plan where they lie outside of public right- of--way. The easement shall be submitted to the Planning Division and recorded prior to City Engineer signature on the final plat and the recorded instrument number shall be included on the plat . v . Solid fencing adjacent to common driveways is prohibited , unless separated by a minimum five-foot wide landscaped buffer planted with shrubs , lawn or other vegetative groundcover as set forth in UDC I I - 6C - 3D . 5 ; include a buffer if fencing is proposed . vi . For all common driveways , a perpetual ingress/egress easement shall be depicted on the plat and a note shall be included for requirement of maintenance of a paved surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment in accord with UDC 11 -6C - XD . 8 . vii . Depict cross- access/ingress -egress easements between all of the commercial lots (i . e . Lots 1 - 6 , Block 23 ) in accord with UDC I I -3A - 3A . 2 . viii . Reconfigure Block 12 to comply with the block face standards listed in UDC 11 - 6C -3F, unless otherwise waived by City Council . The Applicant requests City Council waive the block face standards on both sides of Block 12 that face W. Precipice Dr. and W. Vertex Dr. ix . Revise the alignment of the north/south drive that provides access to the residential lots in Block 23 to reflect the updated layout shown on the landscape plan . x . Remove Lot 24 , Block 2 to enlarge the mew area and to reflect the updated layout shown on the landscape plan . xi . eemmefeial lots in Bleek 23 with par-king en a4 least ene ( 1 ) side efthe ` fit. Delete Condition 2 .xi, Comment: An additional street connection is not supported by ACHD due to the proximity of intersections on the collector roadway. It would also add another non-perpendicular street crossing of the Williams gas pipeline . Williams requires that road crossings be limited as much as possible , and when a crossing occurs , it should be perpendicular. Additionally, the requested change by staff would limit the type and variety of commercial users would be limited , because the number of parking stalls in this configuration 3 -;� BRIGHTON would be reduced by about 22% . Finally, an unneeded road would separate the C - C uses from the rest of the neighborhood further impacts pedestrian access . xii . Revise e the 1 ., yetit f the lets T21eek 2 to . ply with A CMD ' , mquirements for- pub.lie alloys so that these lots only have F aritage on one named street.. Delete Condition 2 . xii . Comment: Some homes will have access on two named streets which staff does not favor by citing it will " likely create confusion for emergency responders" . The addressing will be based off the private street in accordance with code, and street/house numbers can be clearly posted to avoid confusion . xlll . T TTI / ` 1 1 Z A 1 '7Tl Delete Condition 2 .xiii. Comment: According to an email received from ACHD on August 81h , 2024 , both ACHD and the City were agreeable to not require a sidewalk on the north side of Precipice Dr. There are no homes on the north side of the street, and a sidewalk is available for pedestrian use on the south side . Only 24 homes front Precipice Dr, and due to the expansive pathway system in the "center" of the neighborhood which connects the major amenities , pedestrians are not likely to use Precipice Dr as a thoroughfare . The steep grade , irrigation lateral , and existing gravel access restrict our ability to provide the sidewalk to the north . i xiv . Depict traffic calming (i . e . a reduced 2946ot wide street section for W. Precipice Dr. , bulb - outs and choke points) within the development as I shown on the exhibit in Section VILE as allowed by ACHD . 3 . At the time of final plat, the landscape plan shall include the following revisions : MODIFY 3 . Comment: Include "At the time of final plat," to the beginningof f this sentence . i . Depict a 2546ot wide street buffer along S . Locust Grove Rd . , an arterial street; 2046ot wide street buffers along all collector streets (i . e . E . Crescendo St . , S . Sublimity Ave . , E . Quartz Creek St . , Apex Way and Elevated Way) ; and a 10 -foot wide street buffer along E . Phenomenal St . , a local street, in the C -C district, in accord with UDC Tables 11 -2A- 6 , 11 - 2A -7 and I I -MB 3 . 4 BRIGHTON ii . All required street buffers shall be landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11 - 313 - 7C . The arterial and collector street buffers shall comply with the enhanced buffer requirements listed in UDC 11 - 3 & 313 . 3 because they were counted toward open space requirements . iii . Parkways along local residential streets shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11 -3 & 313 . 4 when counted toward open space requirements as proposed . IV * Stormwater detention facilities shall comply with the standards in UDC 11 -3 & 3B . 5 when counted toward open space requirements as proposed . v . Include mitigation information on the landscape plan that demonstrates compliance with the standards in UDC 11 - 3B - 10 . C . 5 . vi . Depiet 10 feet wide detaehed sidewalks/pathways aleng both sides of all eelleeter streets (i . e . E -Creseende-S,S ifA Ave., E . n. a4z Greek sto 5 Ape�i W�r and Elevated *My ) and within the street buffer along . Locust Grove Rd . , . a4erial street, i lie„ f on street b. : eyele lane Delete Condition 3 .vi Comment: See Condition 1 . iv for justification . vii . Solid fencing adjacent to common driveways is prohibited , unless separated by a minimum five- foot wide landscaped buffer planted with shrubs, lawn or other vegetative groundcover as set forth in UDC 11 -6C - 3D . 5 ; if fencing is proposed , depict a buffer. Construction of this buffer is the responsibility of the developer and not the adjacent homeowner. viii . Depict ., sidewalk ., 1eng the ,, ., «theast side of`x7 Pfee ; , iee Dr sot fel4 T DG 1 1 3 A 1 '7D in-vvcZT-�rr-zT� Delete Condition 3 .viii Comment: See Condition 2 . xii for justification . ix . Depiet a nei4h/seuth publie street between the residential lets and the eemmereial lots in Bleek 23 with padd.Bg on at least one ( 1 ) side of the stet. Delete Condition 3 . i.x Comment : See Condition 2 . xi for justification . x . Depict landscaping in common open space areas in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11 - 3 & 513 . xi . Depict landscaping along all pathways in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11 -3B - 12C . 4 . The fitness course shall to have a minimum of six (6) stations permanently installed in accord with UDC 11 - 3 &3C . 6 . 5 . The dog park shall have bags for dog waste disposal , a double entrance gate , bench(es) and fencing to enclose a minimum of 5 , 000 square feet and secured open space for an off- leash dog park in accord with UDC 11 - 3 &3C . 9 . 5 BRIGHTON 6 . The swimming pool shall be constructed in ground and meet all Building Code requirements in accord with UDC 11 - 3 & 3D . I 7 . The tot lots shall have commercial grade play equipment scaled and designed for the use and safety of younger children and benches for seating shall be nearby in accord with UDC I I - 3 & 3D . 3 . 8 . The bicycle repair station is required to be a fixed installation with tools and an air pump per UDC 11 - 3 & 4F. 2 . 9 . Either apply for alternative compliance to UDC I I - 6Cm3D . 1 to be allowed four (4) driveways on one ( 1 ) side of the common driveway for Lots 72 - 75 , Block 12 ; or, remove one ( 1 ) lot in this location to comply with the standard, if alternative compliance is requested , the application shall be submitted concurrently with the final plat application . MODIFY 9 . Comment. Include "if alternative compliance is requested , the application shall be submitted concurrently with the final plat application . " at the end of this sentence . 10 . Prior to submittal of the final plat for City Engineer signature , a 14 -foot wide public pedestrian easement shall be submitted to the Planning Division, approved by City Council and recorded for the multi -use pathway along the Williams Northwest gas pipeline and any other pathways required by the Park ' s Department in accord with the Pathways Master Plan that are outside of public right- of-way. Include the recorded instrument number of the easement(s) along with a depiction of the easement(s) on the final plat . 11 . All private streets constructed within the subdivision shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11 - 3F -4 . A separate application is required to be submitted for approval of private street( s) and shall be submitted concurrently with the final plat application . 12 . All waterways , except natural waterways , are required to be piped unless used as a water amenity or linear open space , in which case they may be left open as set forth in UDC 11 m3A-6 . 13 . Off-street parking is required to be provided for all single - family residential units in accord with the standards for such listed in UDC Table I I -XC 6 ; and for non- residential uses in the commercial district in accord with UDC I Im3C - 6B . Bicycle parking is required for non-residential uses as set forth in UDC 11 - 3C - 6G ; bicycle parking facilities shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11 - 3G5C . 14 . A 25 -foot wide buffer to residential uses shall be provided with development of the commercial lots ( i . e . Lots 1 , 5 and 6 , Block 23 ) . The Applicant requests City Council approval of no buffer in this area on the GC zoned property with the provision of a 15 -foot wide common mew on the residential portion , which will 6 BRIGHTON include landscaping and a sidewalk . If Council grants the request, a reduction to the buffer width shall not affect building setbacks ; all structures shall be set back from the property line a minimum of the buffer width required in the applicable zoning district . 15 . The existing structures on the site shall be removed prior to City Engineer signature on the final plat phase in which they are located . 16 . Administrative design review shall be required for future commercial structures on Lots 1 - 6 , Block 23 and the swimming pool and associated structure in accord with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual . 17 . All waterways , except natural waterways, intersecting , crossing or lying within the area being development are required to be piped unless used as a water amenity or linear open space , in which case they may be left open as set forth in UDC 11 - 3A- 6 . If left open, fencing may be required in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11 -3A- 6C . 18 . Permanent addresses cannot be assigned until Ada County has approved the proposed street names . 7 Apex Farr Preliminary Plat Meridian Planning & Zoning September 5th, 2024 Preliminary Plat Apex Farr is the latest development in the Pinnacle community at the intersection of Lake Hazel and Locust Grove. 3 Preliminary Plat 131.8 acres 381 residential units 6 commercial lots 60 common lots Preliminary Plat Details 4 Zoning and Future Land Use 0.8 acres from R-2 to R-8 29.9 acres from R-4 to R-8 5.3 acres from R-15 to C-C Request to Rezone 5 Site Specific Constraints Williams Pipeline and Easement Farr Lateral McBirney Lateral Watkins Drain Steep Slopes Along Farr Lateral Existing Sewer Main and Easement Site Specific Constraints 6 Variance Request West Precipice Drive, situated along the Farr Lateral exceeds the maximum distance allowed by code due to the steep terrain and abutting waterway. With the addition of traffic choke points, a narrowed road section, and additional pathway connections to calm traffic, both ACHD and City staff were supportive of the road design when considering the site constraints.7 Variance Request West Vertex Drive, situated below the Farr Lateral exceeds the maximum distance allowed by code due to the steep terrain which makes additional northward roadway connections difficult. Two pedestrian connections and choke points are provided to calm traffic. ACHD and city staff were agreeable to the roadway design considering site constraints and added safety measures.8 Variance Request The common drive shown as lot 76 exceeds the maximum of 3 homes allowed on a single side of a shared drive. Lot 75 cannot take access directly from S. Elevated Way because it is a collector road. The common drive connects to both S. Elevated Way and S. Exalted Way, providing residents with “through” access to either street. As per code, access to the common drive will be limited to 4 lots. 9 Variance Request Code requires a 25-foot buffer between residential and commercial zones. The commercial zone in Apex Farr is intended to integrate into and serve the neighborhood. Removing the buffer will enhance the interface between uses and create flow within the community. A 15-foot-wide common area mew is directly adjacent to the C-C zone, plus 10 feet of set back between from the front of homes to the mew, equaling 25 feet of separation between the front of homes and the parking lot. This layout creates a more natural transition and allows the two uses to seamlessly blend. 10 Community Features 28.7% Qualified Open Space *Amenity locations subject to change All amenities within Pinnacle are accessible to all residents. 11 Community Features Intertwined Natural and Concrete Pathways with Adjoining Amenities Education Gardens Natural Play Areas New Amenities 12 Community Features Community Pool and Clubhouse Outdoor Gym Dog Park Bike Repair Station New Amenities (cont.) 13 Phasing *Subject to Change 14 Conventional Single-Family Homes Living Choices 15 Living Choices 16 Single-Family Paired Homes Carriage Lane Homes Living Choices 17 Summary 18 Pre-Plat Rezone Length of West Precipice Drive Length of West Vertex Drive 4 lots on a single side of the common drive, lot 75 (an alternative compliance application to be submitted with the final plat) Removal of the buffer between the C-C and R-15 zone. Update conditions to include the deletes and modifications in the memo dated September 4, 2024. Request a Recommendation of “Approval” to City Council for: Discussion W IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Raising Cane's (H-2024-0006) by Michael O'Reilly, Kimley Horn, located at 2700 N. Eagle Rd. Application Materials: https://bit.ly/CUPH-2024-0006 A. Request: Conditional Use Permit to construct a drive-through restaurant with food and drink services including an indoor/outdoor seating area. The drive-through restaurant will be approximately 2,862 gross square feet overall and is one-story in height with landscaping along two perimeter property lines. 137 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : September 5 , 2024 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 7 PROJECT NAME : Raising Cane ' s ( W2024 - 0006 ) Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify ( Please Print ) HOA ? ( mark X if yes ) If yes, please provide HOA name 1 PeXAwF!fto( C we S a S g o N • ice �t u .� d Imo✓ ► 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 I COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C��fEPIDIAN*,­, DEPARTMENT REPORT HEARING 9/5/2024 Legend I. DATE: Project Location TO: Planning&Zoning Commission Area of Impact r__ City Limits _ FROM: Linda Ritter,Associate Planner C Analysis 208-884-5533 lritter@meridiancity.orgdi APPLICANT: Michael O'Reilly,Kimley Horn@ c=. f{�.p��yy 'J SUBJECT: H-2024-0021 J Raising Cane's CUP Al LOCATION: 2700 N. Eagle Road, located in a portion of the SW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 4, - �.. �' { Township 3N, Range 1 E 9 I. PROJECT OVERVIEW A. Summary A Conditional Use Permit (CUP)to construct a drive-through restaurant with food and drink services including an indoor/outdoor seating area. The drive-through restaurant will be approximately 2,862 gross square feet overall and is one-story in height with landscaping along two perimeter property lines located on 1.46 acres of land in the C-G zoning district. B. Issues/Waivers None C. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the proposed conditional use permit with the conditions in Section IV per the Findings in Section V. D. Decision Select: Pending. City of Meridian I Department Report 1. Project Overview 138 IL COMMUNITY METRICS Table 1: Land Use Description Details Map Ref. Existing Land Use(s) Vacant - Proposed Land Use(s) Commercial - Existing/Proposed Zoning General Retail and Service Commercial District(C-G) VI.A.2 Future Land Use Designation Mixed-Use Regional(MU-R) VI.A.3 Table 2: Process Facts Description Details Preapplication Meeting date Tuesday,April 30,2024 Neighborhood Meeting 5/16/2024; Describe meetin attendance Site posting date 8/23/2024 Table 3: Community Metrics Agency/Element Description/Issue Reference Ada County Highway District IV.E • Comments Received Yes/Staff Report - • Commission Action Required No - • Access Eagle Road/Existing - • Traffic Level of Service N/A - ITD Comments Received Yes,letter uploaded to the public portal IVY Meridian Fire No comments provided Error! Reference source not found. Meridian Police No Comments provided Error! Reference source not found. Meridian Public Works Wastewater Distance to Mainline: On site;Impacts or Concerns:No 1V.B Meridian Public Works Water Distance to Mainline: Onsite; Impacts or Concerns:No IV.B See City/Agency Comments and Conditions Section and public record for all department/agency comments received. City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics 139 Figure 1: One-Mile Radius Existing Condition Metrics Reference Parcel:S1104233650 Date Retrieved:2024,E 8/16 Parcel Count Parcel Acreage Infill Indicator: 848 Surrounding Area 210 0 'l 4 to Not city Q 0 ® City Limits 2,330 1,244. ■ Not City A Household Household& Population Growth Households 02020 Population Change:1 1.6°I° Population ■Growth (Household and Population Change since 2010 Decennial) 10,000 20,000 30,000 Use Types Residential Addresses All Addresses ■ Single-family 36% 32% 10% Multi-family 58 ® Commercial Preliminary Plats (last 5-years) Conditional Use Permit(last 5-years) Proposed Proposed Pending Pending Approved Approved 0 200000 400000 600000 0 200000 400000 600000 800000 ■ Single-family ❑ multi-family Figure 2:ACHD Summary Metrics 10 Eagle Existing Lanes © Planned Lanes Existing Level of Service Notable Q ( Primary roadway impact) Programmed IFYP © Programmed CIP City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics F140] Figure 3: Service Impact Summary ImpactService • • ls Ready a O O O O O O O O Marginal Caution O O °.°a �o Notes: See Error!Reference source not found..Error!Reference source not found.. City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics 141 III. STAFF ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code(UDC) A. General Overview Mixed Use Regional -The purpose of this designation is to provide a mix of employment,retail, residential dwellings, and public uses near major arterial intersections. The intent is to integrate a variety of uses together, including residential, and to avoid predominantly single use developments such as a regional retail center with only restaurants and other commercial uses. Sample zoning includes: R-15,R-40, TN-C, C-G, and M-E The subject site is already zoned General Retail and Service Commercial District(C-G). The proposed use will construct a drive-through restaurant with food and drink services including a drive-through and an indoor/outdoor seating area. The drive-through restaurant will be approximately 2,862 gross square feet overall and is one-story in height with landscaping along two perimeter property lines. The surrounding area was developed with a commercial shopping center that includes two salons, a Five Guys Burgers and Fries Restaurant, and a Firehouse Subs Restaurant with a drive thru as well as residential development. The Village Apartment are to the east of Sessions Parkway Subdivision and the Regency at River Valley Phase I and 2 are to the south. The drive-through restaurant, within the larger commercial complex, is exactly the type of local neighborhood serving use envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan. Pathways connect this complex to the adjacent neighborhood for better integration. The proposed drive-through restaurant establishment is a use determined to be appropriate in this zoning district, subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-11 (discussed in specific use standards below). The hours of operation being requested through this conditional use permit are Sunday-Thursday with a closing time at 1:30 AM. Friday and Saturday with a closing time of 3:30 AM. Per UDC 11-2B-3B, business hours of operation within the C-C and C-G Districts shall be limited from 6:00 a.in. to 11:00 p.m. when the property abuts a residential use or district. Extended hours of operation in the C-C and C-G Districts may be requested through a conditional use permit. These restrictions apply to all business operations occurring outside an enclosed structure, including, but not limited to, customer or client visits, trash compacting, and deliveries. These restrictions do not apply to business operations occurring within an enclosed structure, including, but not limited to, cleaning, bookkeeping, and after hours work by a limited number of employees. Table 4: Proiect Overview Description Details History AZ-03-021;AZ-15-012;MDA-15-011;DA Inst.#2022-065403;A-2020- 0115 (PBA ROS#12423);H-2022-0046(MDA,PP),Development Agreement Inst.#2023-033831,FP-2023-0002;and H-2023-0030 MDA DA Inst.#2023-069381. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 142 Figure 4:Mixed Use Analysis by Land Use Area Land Use Area by Zoning Address Type Split Mixed Districts 0.0% 50.0% 100.0% 100% ■ C-C p C-G Zoning Variety Acres Annexed 0.0% 50.0% 100.0% Address-Zoning Mix O R-15 ❑ Non-residential 0.0% 50.0% 100.0% Notes: See Error!Reference source not found..Error!Reference source not found.. B. History and Process The final plat for Sessions Parkway subdivision consisting of five (5)building lots on 5.32 acres of land in the C-G zoning district was approved on September 5,2023. The final plat was in substantial compliance with the approved preliminary plat(H-2022-0046)approved on January 17,2023. As part of the plat,the Applicant requests City Council approval of an access via N. Eagle Rd./SH-55, located on the abutting property to the south(Parcel#51104233802). Consent was granted from the abutting property owner for this request as part of this application. The proposed restaurant and drive-through establishment design and layout is consistent with the approved concept plan in DA Inst.#2023-033831. AZ-03-021;AZ-15-012; MDA-15-011; DA Inst. #2022-065403;A-2020-0115 (PBA ROS #12423); H-2022-0046; DA Inst.#2023-033831; FP-2023-0002. C. Site Development and Use Analysis 1. Existing Structures/Site Improvements (UDC 11-1): The proposed use will construct a drive-through restaurant with food and drink services including a drive-through and an indoor/outdoor seating area. The drive-through restaurant will be approximately 2,862 gross square feet overall and is one-story in height with landscaping along two perimeter property lines. The applicant is proposing forty-five (45) parking spaces which exceeds the required eleven (11)spaces per UDC 11-2. 2. Proposed Use Analysis (UDC 11-2): The proposed use will be a drive-through and an indoor/outdoor seating area. The drive- through restaurant will be approximately 2,862 gross square feet overall and is one-story in height with landscaping along two perimeter property lines. A drive-through establishment must be approved through a Conditional Use Permit as it is within 300 feet of an existing drive-through. The hours of operation being requested through this conditional use permit are Sunday- Thursday with a closing time at 1:30 AM. Friday and Saturday with a closing time of 3:30 AM. The proposed use complies with the zoning for the site and is subject to specific use standards as listed in 11-4-3-11. 3. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): The proposed drive-through restaurant and an indoor/outdoor seating area will be approximately 2,862 gross square feet overall and is one-story in height with forty-five (45) City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 143 parking spaces which exceeds the required eleven(H)spaces per UDC 11-2. This site complies with the dimensional standards for the C-G zoning district. 4. Specific Use Standards (UDC 11-4-3): A. A drive-through establishment shall be an accessory use where the drive-through facility(including stacking lanes, speaker and/or order area, pick up windows, and exit lanes) is: 1. Not within three hundred three hundred(300) feet of another drive-through facility, a residential district, or an existing residence: or 2. Separated by an arterial street from any other drive-through facility, residential district or existing residence; or 3. Not within the O-T zoning district. Otherwise a conditional use permit is required. B. All establishments providing drive-through service shall identify the stacking lane, menu and speaker location(if applicable), and window location on the certificate of zoning compliance or the conditional use permit. Speakers are prohibited in the O-T zoning district. C. A site plan shall be submitted that demonstrates safe pedestrian and vehicular access and circulation on the site and between adjacent properties. At a minimum the plan shall demonstrate compliance with the following standards: 1. Stacking lanes shall have sufficient capacity to prevent obstruction of driveways, drive aisles, and the public right-of-way by patrons. 2. The stacking lane shall be a separate lane from the circulation lanes needed for access and parking, except stacking lanes may provide access to designated employee parking. 3. The stacking lane shall not be located within ten (10) feet of any residential district or existing residence. 4. Any stacking lane greater than one hundred 100 feet in length shall provide for an escape lane. 5. The site should be designed so that the drive-through is visible from a public street for surveillance purposes. D. The applicant shall provide a six-foot sight obscuring fence where a stacking lane or window location adjoins a residential district or an existing residence. Staff finds the applicant meets the requirements for a drive-through establishment. D. Design Standards Analysis 1. Existing structure and Site Design Standards (Comp Plan 3.07.02A, Comp Plan 5.01.02D, UDC 11-3A-19): Require pedestrian circulation plans to ensure.safety and convenient access across large commercial and mixed-use developments. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 144 Require appropriate building design, and landscaping elements to buffer, screen, beautify, and integrate commercial, multifamily, and parking lots into existing neighborhoods. Therefore, buildings shall be designed in accord with the "City of Meridian Architectural Standards Manual." Per UDC 11-3A-19 pedestrian walkways shall provide a continuous walkway that is a minimum of five (5)feet in width from the perimeter sidewalk to the main building entrance(s)for nonresidential uses. The internal pedestrian walkway shall be distinguished from the vehicular driving surfaces through the use of pavers, colored or scored concrete, or bricks. 2. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): i. Landscape buffers along streets Per UDC 11-2B-3, landscape buffers along arterial shall be thirty-five (35)feet in width. The applicant will be required to install the landscape buffer along N. Eagle Road. The applicant is proposing a twenty (20)foot wide landscape buffer along the internal drive aisle. ii. Parking lot landscaping Per UDC 11-3B-8, the applicant shall provide perimeter and internal parking lot landscaping to soften and mitigate the visual and heat island effect of a large expanse of asphalt in parking lots, and to improve the safety and comfort ofpedestrians.A five-foot wide minimum landscape buffer adjacent to parking, loading, or other paved vehicular use areas. iii. Pathway landscaping Landscaping for pathways shall meet the requirements outlined in UDC 11-3B-12. The applicant is proposing landscaping along the multiuse pathway along Eagle Road that shall complies with UDC 11-3B-12. 3. Parking (UDC 11-3C): i. Nonresidential parking analysis Per UDC 11-3C Restaurants require one (1)parking space for every two hundred and fifty(250)square feet of gross floor area. The total number ofparking spaces required is eleven (11). The applicant is proposing thirty-five (35)parking spaces which exceeds the required number parking spaces for this proposal. ii. Bicycle parking analysis Per UDC 11-3C-6.G One (1) bicycle parking space shall be provided for every twenty- five(25)proposed vehicle parking spaces or portion thereof, except for single-family residences, two-family duplexes, and townhouses. Based on thirty-five (35)parking spaces being proposed, two (2) bicycle parking space is required. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 145 4. Building Elevations (Comp Plan 5.01.02D, Architectural Standards Manual): Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed restaurant as shown in Section VIII.E. The proposed building design includes the following material: composite lumber, brick veneer, metal and aluminum panels. Final design is required to comply with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual(ASM). The Applicant shall obtain a Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) and Administrative Design Review(DES) approvals before submitting for any building permit within this development. The Comprehensive Plan's goal is to require appropriate building design, and landscaping elements to buffer, screen, beautify, and integrate commercial, multifamily, and parking lots into existing neighborhoods. 5. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): No fencing is being proposed with this development. E. Transportation Analysis Ada County Highway District(ACHD)reviewed the submitted application and has determined that there are no improvements required to the adjacent street(s). 1. Access (Comp Plan 6.01.02C, UDC 11-3A-3, UDC 11-3H-4): Access to the property is via a drive aisle off of Eagle Road. A right in and right out was previously approved for this development. The Comprehensive Plan's goal is to require new development to establish street connections to existing local roads and collectors as well as to underdeveloped adjacent properties. 2. Multiuse Pathways (UDC 11-3A-5): Per the Parks Department, the project developer shall design and construct multi-use pathways consistent with the location and specifications set forth in the Meridian Pathways Master Plan Map and Master Pathways Plan Document Chapter 3).Any proposed adjustments to pathway alignment shall be coordinated through the Pathways Project Manager. See pathway comments in III.C. 3. Pathways (Comp Plan 4.04.O1A, UDC 11-3A-8, UDC 11-3H.C3): Ensure that new development and subdivisions connect to the pathway system. The applicant shall adhere to design and construction of the ten (10)foot multiuse pathway along State Highway 55. 4. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): In lieu of a detached sidewalk, a detached multi-use pathway is required to be constructed along N. Eagle Rd.ISH--55 in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-8 and the Pathways Master Plan. 5. Private Streets (UDC 11-3F-4): No new streets are being proposed with this development. F. Services Analysis All utilities shall meet the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan and UDC sections identified below. 1. Waterways (Comp Plan 4.05.01 C, UDC 11-3A-6): N/A. There are no waterways on the existing property. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 146 2. Pressurized Irrigation (UDC 11-3A-15): The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water (UDC 11-3B-6). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 3. Storm Drainage (UDC 11-3A-18): The applicant shall design and construct and adequate storm drainage system in accordance with the city's adopted standards and shall follow Best Management Practice as adopted by the city. 4. Utilities (Comp Plan 3.03.03A, UDC 11-3A-21): 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. All utilities are available to the site. Water main, fire hydrant and water service require a twenty foot(20) wide easement that extends ten (10)feet past the end of main, hydrant, or water meter. No permanent structures, including trees are allowed inside the easement. IV. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Meridian Planning Division 1. This project is subject to all current City of Meridian ordinances and shall comply with the previous conditions of approvals associated with this site(AZ-03-021; AZ-15-012; MDA-15- 011; DA Inst. #2022-065403; A-2020-0115 (PBA ROS#12423); H-2022-0046; DA Inst.#2023-033831; FP-2023-0002,A-2024-0096). 2. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application was submitted and reviewed for the proposed use(A-2024-0096). The site plan and landscape plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application shall be revised as follows: a. All mechanical equipment on the back of the building and outdoor service and equipment areas should be incorporated into the overall design of buildings and landscaping so that the visual and acoustic impacts of these functions are fully contained and out of view from adjacent properties and public streets as set forth in UDC 11-3A-12. b. Provide a pedestrian pathway from Eagle Road to the building. The pathways from the perimeter sidewalks to the main building entrance shall be distinguished from the vehicular driving surface through the use of pavers, colored or scored concrete,or bricks as set forth in UDC 11-3A-19B.4b. c. Show the location of the bicycle parking on the site plan and include a detail for the bicycle rack that complies with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. f. No stacking is allowed in the outside travel lane that serves as an escape lane; depict signage notifying patrons not to block the escape lane. g. Provide landscaping along the internal roadway to the east that meets the requirements of UDC 11-313-8. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments & Conditions 147 h. Provide details for the trash enclosure. 3. Compliance with the standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-11—Drive-Through Establishment and standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-49—Restaurant is required. 4. The conditional use permit is valid for a maximum period of two (2)years unless otherwise approved by the City. During this time,the Applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval,and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6. A time extension may be requested asset forth in UDC 11-5B-6F. B. Meridian Public Works See public record(copy the link into a separate window) https:llweblink.meridiancioy.oiylWebLink/Browse.aspx?id=351909&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCit Y C. Meridian Park's Department See public record(copy the link into a separate window) https:llweblink.meridianciN.orglWebLinkIBrowse.aspx?id=351909&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCit Y D. Idaho Department of Environmental Quality(DEQ) See public record(copy the link into a separate window) https:llweblink.meridiancioy.orkIWebLinkIBrowse.aspx?id=351909&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCit Y E. Ada County Highway District(ACHD) See public record(copy the link into a separate window) https:llweblink.meridianciLy.orglWebLinkIBrowse.aspx?id=351909&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCit Y F. Nampa Meridian Irrigation District(NMID) See public record(copy the link into a separate window) https:llweblink.meridiancioy.o.- lWebLinkIBrowse.aspx?id=351909&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCit Y G. Idaho Transportation Department(ITD) See public record(copy the link into a separate window) https:llweblink.meridiancity.orglWebLinkIBrowse.aspx?id=351909&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCit Y V. FINDINGS A. Conditional Use(UDC 11-513-6E) I. ACTION A. Staff: After reviewing the project for compliance with the city's comprehensive plan and unified development code, staff finds the project complies if the applicant adheres to the conditions outlined in Section IV per the Findings in Section V of the staff report. City of Meridian I Department Report V. Findings 148 Commission:B. ProjectPending VI. EXHIBITS A. to Project 1. Aerial Legend - .. � + Project Location ' 0 -• of •• }M.+.�ic,�'_. .:�� R:;+L. � a —.� r7p�-' �. Amon Analysis i UM CC r� t All City of Meridian � �.�rer�''�'SZ�• ?i'il ?.f F � 3 �r`1; ^-�-� � :j 4 \ ��'��'1 Y 0 j .A Department10 Legend Project Location Area of ImpactunnAnalysis I III - nlval. 'dun IE■n w ■17. USTICK ,Ia._ ... _._ -. - . . �■III III 11 I` E y: W -11111■.■r- `��� , 7n�nunul IIIII � Illlu::a �� ::::�� a.rlum■ n IIIII � .■111.►11111 �■"ir � � w a� �\n �■E!1■Iq■e ■u. �� {p rum :a s'■■■■. _Diu m I ■nl■ u.nm ■ ► V -•••�?IIIIIP .ql G nun rA •• mo � nff IIIII::::- - IIIEII ' n aanr a null _ ;�_� �Inur uuu Rhnnnu.� ■rnnrr►rJull.0 i l`rr� \nn lilt n■ ���`�! Ali Leal l� a�i ■` ■ IN ■ ��= - Gl■i -(11r:■: Inn _ n■■■. _nn■nn allows n mm u- inlltl/r Joe nos f W Il lei■d� nnN.pll.n J - � 1' l`�"J h�raiOrViniin �® 11 W ■11 n Iry � FAI�RYI E W � Legend Project Location �jhR'V wnnnnmmn ��. rrM • 1111 Area of Impact1....1,- un G,■nn mu G\ _ 0 Analysis _ i.■n■. -��nnnnrrG USfiIC=FNIVIIK •• ►c ==n:=_inn a■.nn �■ - mono=-I i. W iirrarllo^�alinun= .��I■r 1 I, 7n�nm E _ r 'r■ n11n11 IIIII � Nor I.. l ■IVA� �I� �*rlulu■n IIIII � 111l1i-=_rrr//�i�_Illk ��� ■ ::: 111�� � iO11n lii'rll'i7i■ii�t� � � r■ G• •��.:■�I , ®� illy iElli►t 4: ..,►.�-•IIIIIINN �• � ��.I` ��i11 11111� - • � - a \llllll llllll��� ■na�� r V -mill -- "•iiiiiiM - • - • �n IIIII m1 •' Idiom =MES rrllr O 1 a1n1 • �11111■■1■u ' nlnnl■■nrlG::■nul r:••■ IIIII._.�l NINE nnnln11111►111 amIng Noel ►ail.. IN IN �fll W FAIRVIEW a W 1 • . /-1. • -1 1 / 4. Planned Development Map Legend Project Location Area of Impact --- T=' City Limits Planned Parcels ®� i OAnalysis ' r. -maim® .� fl ' rORi i City of Meridian Department Report VI. Exhibits 151 5. Map Notes Nearby and recent preliminary plats (within the last 5 years: H-2018-0071 H-2018-0121 H-2019-0121 H-2020-0051 H-2020-0116 H-2021-0004 H-2021-0006 H-2021-0097 H-2022- 0008 H-2022-0069 H-2022-0072 H-2022-0077 H-2022-0082 H-2023-0040 H-2023-0068 Nearby and recent conditional use permits(within the last 5 years: H-2018-0085 H-2018- 0107 H-2019-0027 H-2020-0104 H-2021-0082 H-2017-0058 H-2022-0045 H-2022-0046 H- 2023-0009 B. Subject Site Photos 1n r err i .utl•uu . o n tl � _ E• - .� ,thy � \ � �� �"�' i gyp' � Ti�r.. ��• �'1 q .r f 1•' C� Ilk City of Meridian Department Report VI. Exhibits 152 C. Service Accessibility Report Overall Score: 34 63rd Percentile Description Location In City Limits GREEN Extension Sewer Trunkshed mains e 500 ft. from parcel GREEN Floodplain Either not within the 100 yrflcodplain or > 2 acres GREEN L Emergency Services Fire Response time 5-9 min. YELLOW Emergency Services Police Meets response time goals most of the time GREEN Pathways Within 1/4 mile of current pathways GREEN Transit Within 1/4 mile of future transit route YELLOIV Arterial Road &uildout Status Ultimate configuration (#of lanes in master streets GREEN plan) matches existing (-# of lanes) School Walking Proximity Within 1/2 mile walking GREEN Either a High School or College within 2 miles OR a School Drivability Middle or Elementary School within 1 mile driving GREEN (existing or future) Either a Regional Park within 1 mile OR a Community ParkWalkability Parkwithin 1/2 mile OR Neighborhood Parkwithin GREEN 114 mile walking City of Meridian I Department Report VI. Exhibits 153 A Site Plan (date: 5/28/2024) amg iPROPERTY.....ARV 1 �NTEPNAL AC 4 D e �� p DA� - -- LEGEND ICor"Hor t :8i8 4 4 i � ' PRQPERtt 9Dl1NQART aE FErNR 9Ef III � I -PP 111 �I - '�. T tY c�o City of Meridian Department Report VI. Exhibits 154 E. Landscape Plan(date: 5/28/2024) I �II � LANDGGAPE REMIIIREMENTS \ s#� --arexmua�.wuern I rmnraurmnr[rouvuN m. _ ��•m-•— •Wx•:••�, �- INTERNAL ACCESS ROAD �9lId1lB�/ a T �p01�p{ilD I n.a..l rein ' r` X, rswxr OnleysHor 1 - i �•1°"""" � .m PRELIMINARY _77 O aaw�co.�rrrE lS l� 9n �� L�� LD ® #lee INTER PDA� — ® NALACGE ww wwa Kiml ey*Hor If I z o , I w — n PERMN SET PRELIMINARY �._.M1� •,m. LiNpSCAPE PLAN COLOR City of Meridian Department Report VI. Exhibits 155 F. Building Elevations(date: 5/9/2024) 11 IF ..`.® -aoo it �ISUEF1111flElEVA�q!1 3laxuvAnox 41- w�xRNEWW EM! EM-2 EM-3 BM-0 EWF-1 EWF-2 EWF3 EW 4 EWF-5 EW&2 nw.emo..�ew� mw.wrwnxw c..�w. orww ..merrvro.ceo.�o ••n.ww«cE�u.wn �u�xm ,wain r.u�w.�nv nurv-uvn �aee �.wm..ir�. w.nm wam �CIXORF11 EmFaR HFYA710R7 rr M.21 City of Meridian Department Report VI. Exhibits 156 E IDIAN;--- Applicant Presentation Raising Cane’s Drive-Through Restaurant - CUP September 5, 2024 Applicant Team RV VANN Raising Cane’s MICHAEL O’REILLY, PE Kimley-Horn Boise, Idaho KELLI CHILES, PE Kimley-Horn Boise, Idaho MAURISSA MUHA PM Design Englewood, CO APR 2024– Pre-App Meeting MAY 2024 – Neighborhood Meeting MAY 2024– Application Submitted SEPT 2024– P&Z Hearing Timeline Vicinity Map EAGLE ROADUSTICK ROAD SITE 2700 N Eagle Road •1.46 acres •Sessions Parkway Subdivision SITE EAGLE ROAD Sessions Parkway Subdivision EAGLE ROAD Future Land Use Map – Mixed Use RegionalEAGLE ROADUSTICK ROAD SITE Zoning Map – General Retail & Service Commercial (C-G) SITEEAGLE ROADUSTICK ROAD Site Plan EAGLE ROAD35’ 10’•2,862 sf one-story building •2 entrance drives •2 drive-through lanes •By-pass lane •35’ landscape buffer along Eagle Road •10’ landscape buffer along internal access road Parking Required 7 spaces Parking Provided 35 spaces Conceptual Elevations Staff Report •Will comply with all site plan updates per conditions •Next step is Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) •Coordinating traffic impacts with ITD Requested Action •Approval of the Conditional Use Permit V IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Centrepoint Apartments (H-2024-0019) by Nicolette Womack, Kimley-Horn, located at 3030 N. Cajun Lane and 3100 N. Centrepoint Way, near the southwest corner of N. Eagle Rd. and E. Ustick Rd. Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2024-0019 A. Request Modified Development Agreement to amend the existing Development Agreement (DA) (Inst. # 2022-079000) for the purpose of updating the concept plan, building elevations and certain DA provisions to increase the number of dwelling units from 215 to 295. B. Request: Conditional Use to construct a 295-unit multi-family affordable apartment project consisting of five (5) four-story structures. C. Request: Alternative Compliance(s) to deviate for the parking lot landscaping and multi-family common open space design standards set forth in UDC 11-313-8C and 11-4-3-27C. 157 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : September S . 2024 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 8 PROJECT NAME : Centrepoint Apartments ( W2024 - 0019 ) Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify ( Please Print ) HOA ? ( mark X if yes ) If yes, please provide HOA name /�L et b eA Go M� v�� c� lc� vL �iiit p I rt � �Y b 3 (2 4 2 q901 e Foss 5 CA LA (!� ~ e21J k c 0 j k C, 1 V, Sac �le �? 9 07 � �V 10 2�a0 11 271711 Z4"c 12 iz 13 14 /0� �rl� (�/-�/�,�t-- j 5 � c� R/. !.� sit � tvi�✓ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C��fEPIDIAN*,­, DEPARTMENT REPORT HEARING 9/5/2024 Legend DATE: • Project Location I�.. TO: Planning&Zoning Commission :::Area of Impact += City Limits , FROM: Linda Ritter,Associate Planner 0 Analysis 208-884-5533 lritter@meridiancity.org ; ,- APPLICANT: Nicolette Womack,Kimley-Horn - y}( ' .. I '^S� SUBJECT: H-2024-0019 - - Centrepoint Apartments -ALT, CUP, `- MDA r . LOCATION: Project is located at 3030 N. Cajun Lane and 3100 N. Centrepoint Way,near the southwest corner of N. Eagle Road and E.Ustick Road,in the NE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 5,Township 3N,Range 1 E. I. PROJECT OVERVIEW A. Summary Modifications to the existing Development Agreement(DA)H-2022-0035 and Conditional Use Permit(CUP)H-2022-0072 to facilitate the construction of a 279-unit multifamily affordable apartment project. This proposal strictly pertains to the residential component of the approved development plan. The applicant is also requesting alternative compliance to the open space and parking lot landscaping. B. Issues/Waivers The applicant is requesting alternative compliance for the following: • Reduction in qualified open space as the applicant is deficient by 8,940 square feet. • Removal of the parking lot islands under the covered parking internal to the parking lots. The applicant is requesting the following modification to the Development Agreement and CUP: • Modify the CUP to increase the building height to forty-five(45)feet instead of three(3) stories. • Increase the number of units from two hundred fifteen(215)to two hundred seventy-nine (279), an increase of sixty-four(64)additional units. C. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the proposed development. City of Meridian I Department Report 1. Project Overview 158 D. Decision Select: Pending. City of Meridian I Department Report I. Project Overview Fl-591 IL COMMUNITY METRICS Table 1: Land Use Description Details Map Ref. Existing Land Use(s) Vacant - Proposed Land Use(s) Multi-family - Existing/Proposed Zoning C-G VII.A.2 Future Land Use Designation Mixed-Use Regional VII.A.3 Table 2: Process Facts Description Details Preapplication Meeting date Wednesday,May 8,2024 Neighborhood Meeting 4/22/2024;6 attendees Site posting date 8/23/2024 Table 3: Community Metrics Agency/Element Description/issue Reference Ada County Highway District III.H • Comments Received Yes - • Commission Action Required No - • Access E.Ustick Road/Centerpointe Way - • Traffic Level of Service E.Ustick Road-Better than"E"/Centrepointe Way—N/A — ITD Comments Received (Yes/No, Staff Report or Other IILI Meridian Fire Distance to Station:1.4 miles;Response Time: 3 minutes F 0 Meridian Police Distance to Station: 5 miles;Response Time:4:30 minutes Meridian Public Works Wastewater Distance to Mainline: (Input Distance);Impacts or III.B Concerns: (yes/no) Meridian Public Works Water Distance to Mainline: (Input Distance);Impacts or III.B Concerns: (yes/no) School District(s) West Ada School District WMW III.G • Capacity of Schools River Valley Elementary-600;Lewis and Clark Middle - School- 1,000;Centennial High School- 1,900 • Number of Students Enrolled River Valley Elementary-457;Lewis and Clark Middle - School-901;Centennial High School- 1,793 See City/Agency Comments and Conditions Section and public record for all department/agency comments received. City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics 160 Figure 1: One-Mile Radius Existing Condition Metrics Reference Parcel:51105110111 Date Retrieved:2024/6/21 Parcel Count Parcel Acreage Infill Indicator: 1,078 Surrounding Area r 231 v 'l G to Not City 0 4& ® City Limits 2,701 1,223. ■ Not City Household Household& Population Growth Households 02020 Population Change:9.5°I° Population ■Growth (Household and Population Change since 2010 Decennial) 10,000 20,000 30,000 Use Types Residential Addresses All Addresses ■ Single-family 3196 29% 7% Multi-family 6 ® Commercial Preliminary Plats (last 5-years) Conditional Use Permit(last 5-years) Proposed Proposed Pending Pending Approved Approved 0 200 400 600 0 500 1000 150C 2000 ■ Single-family Multi-family Figure 2:ACHD Summary Metrics E. Ustick Road Existing Lanes © Planned Lanes NotableExisting Level of Service a (Primary roadway impact) Programmed IFYP m Programmed CIP m City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics F161] Figure 3: Service Impact Summary Ready Q O O O O O O O O Marginal Caution O O e c \ooa ¢ o\z �y any \�\o� o\ o\ o�6 0 o h`ro Qa 0 2.00 1,500 Single-family H 01 1.50 41 Residential b 1,000 Parcel Diversity y 1.00 0.9F U 0Parcel Count 0.50 500 L + m `� Ave rage Acres 0.00 a a 0 a R-2 R-15 Average Single-family Density by Zoning Average 15.00 ResidentialDensity 11.30 Q 10.00 p 5.00 �4.15 �5.26 ���� 0.00 ' 1°2 Dwelling Units I Acre R-2 R-4 R-8 R-15 City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics 162 III. STAFF ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code(UDC) A. General Overview The subject site is designated Mixed-Use Regional(MU-R) on the future land use map and is part of a much larger area of MU-R along the Eagle Road corridor that includes The Village, Regency at River Valley apartments, as well as multiple other commercial users and a large undeveloped area. Specifically, within the MU-R area in this southwest corner of Eagle and Ustick, there is the Jackson Square development and commercial buildings to the south and on the hard corner to the northeast. The Comprehensive Plan discusses that projects should not contemplate uses across arterials even if they share the same future land use designation as it is not anticipated for users or residents to readily walk or bike across these transportation facilities. However, Staff finds it prudent to analyze all projects in this area with at least the four corners of development around the Ustick and Eagle intersection because, in reality, the transportation impacts and expected users will come from and go beyond just the southwest corner of this intersection. To the north are a number of big box stores (Kohl's, Dick's, and Hobby Lobby) and the new Brickyard vertically integrated development; to the north east is Lowe's and various other commercial and restaurant buildings; to the east is Trader Joe's, multiple restaurants, and the Verraso townhomes; and to the southeast are traditional garden style apartments, restaurant users, and the Village. In terms of the ratio of commercial to residential within this area, there is currently a healthy mix of commercial and residential uses within walking distance of each other. Staff finds the addition of the proposed multi family development limited to the number of units in the existing development agreement near the existing and proposed commercial development would offer residential to support the mix of commercial uses in this area. Therefore, Staff believes the proposed project as currently approved through the existing CUP is generally consistent with the MU-R designation because the subject MU-R area currently consists of a number of retail, restaurant, office, and residential uses available to the region and the addition of these units should not over saturate this area with residential. Table 4: Proiect Overview Description Details History H-2018-0121 (Villasport CUP,MDA);H-2022-0035 (MDA,DA Inst. #2022-079000);A-2023-0064(CZC,DES) Phasing Plan 1 Residential Units 279 Multi-family units Open Space 2.60 acres(113,266 s.f)required/2.40 acres(104,345 s.f)of qualified open space proposed Amenities A total of 8 amenities has been proposed-See amenity exhibit in Section VII below. Physical Features None Acreage N/A Lots 1 Density 27.9 units per acre City of Meridian Department Report III. Staff Analysis 163 Figure 4:Mixed Use Analysis by Land Use Area Mixed Use Analysis forReport Designation Area: Mixed use Regional Date Retrieved: 20244 26 Lana use Area Dy coning Address Type Split - - - Districts 0.0% 50.0% 100.0% 100% O C-C O C-G Zoning Variety Acres Annexed 0.0% 50.0% 100.0% Residential ■ R-15 Address-Zoning Mix ❑ Non-residential 0.0% 50.0% 100.0% Address Use Types Residential Addresses All Addresses ■ Single-family ® Multi-family 303 216 11 303 119 ® Commercial City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 164 B. History and Process The subject application encompasses one (1)parcel located south of E. Ustick Road. The parcel was part of a Development Agreement Modification and Conditional Use Permit(CUP) application in 2019 that removed the subject parcel from an existing Development Agreement (DA)for the purpose of entering into a new DA with a new conceptual plan and building elevations (H-2018-0121, DA Inst. #2019-060877) and a request for a new athletic club and spa (indoor recreation facility), Villasport. The CUP approval for the indoor recreation facility has since expired and the property was sold. The current CUP and DA (H-2022-0035 DA Inst#2022- 079000) was approved to construct a mixed-use development consisting of commercial space and a 215-unit multi family development in lieu of an athletic club/spa and commercial building. The proposed CUP and DA modification proposes a deed restricted affordable multi family development with 279 units. C. Site Development and Use Analysis The submitted conceptual site plan (Exhibit VII.D)depicts five (5) multi family buildings with internal access. The multi family is split into three(3) 4-story buildings on the larger area of the site east of Centrepoint Way, one (1) 4-story building west of Centrepoint Way and one(1) 4- story building on the east side of Cajun Lane. The submitted landscape plan shows a 25 foot landscape buffer along the west and southern perimeter of the property. According to the specific use standards for multi family development(UDC 11-4-3-27), common open space may not be counted towards the required minimum when it is adjacent to arterials unless approved through the CUP process. Therefore, the proposed open space shown may not all be qualified open space if Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council do not approve it in its current location. This is concerning because if the Commission does not approve it, the proposed site plan and open space will be further diminished from complying with the minimum open space standards and revisions would likely be needed. The previously approved CUP and MDA: • Maximum of two hundred fifty-one(215) units • Limited building height limited to three (3)stories • Met the intent of the open space requirements • Provided the following qualifying amenities: a clubhouse with a business lounge,plaza areas, a swimming pool, a fitness facility, an outdoor kitchen, a dog run, a micro path system, sports courts, and a bicycle repair room. All of the proposed amenities except the proposed dog run are located within the central open space area or part of the three(3) central buildings. The proposed amendment to the CUP and MDA: • Two hundred seventy-nine (279) units • Requesting four(4)stories and an increase in building height to 45 feet. • Does not meet the open space requirement(deficient by 8,940 sJ). The applicant is asking for alternative compliance for qualified open space requirement stating the site is irregular, has a unique targeted demographic of an affordable housing community, has significant indoor and outdoor passive and active amenities and excellent connectivity to public parks within walking distance.Although the project is located less than one-mile from the Charles F. McDevitt Youth Sports Complex, Julius M. Kleiner Memorial Park and Champion Park; the residents would have to cross either Ustick Road, a residential arterial or Eagle Road, a State highway to access them. • Proposing the following qualifying amenities: a clubhouse with a fitness facility; children's play structure; dog park with a waste station; shaded picnic area with BBQ City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 165 grills, tables, benches and landscaping;shaded plaza/courtyard with activity lawn; a micro path system, sports courts and a bicycle repair area. The sports courts and dog park are located near N. Cajun Lane. Based on the analysis, staff feels the applicant is proposing too many units for development to be compliant with the Comprehensive Plan and UDC requirements. Staff feels if the proposal loses the parallel parking stalls along the north property line and relocate the open space away from Ustick Road, an arterial, it would be a nice addition to the community. 1. Existing Structures/Site Improvements (UDC 11-1): There are no existing structures on the site. The applicant will need to submit a Certificate of Zoning Compliance(CZC) and Design Review(DES) application for review and approval prior to building submittal. 2. Proposed Use Analysis (UDC 11-2): Stafffinds the proposed use of multi family to be generally consistent with the MU-R designation because the subject MU-R area currently consists of several retail, restaurant, office, and residential uses available to the region and the addition of these units would not over-saturate this area with residential. City Council approved the existing modification to the current development agreement(MDA DA Inst. #2022-079000) in July 2022 (H-2022- 0035) with a reduction in units from what was originally submitted. The applicant is proposing and additional sixty-four(64) units above the approved 215 units. The main points of discussion through the MDA process were regarding traffic,parking, and the proposed building heights. City Council required each "area"of the project to be self- parked so that residents would not have to cross any drive aisle or Centrepoint Way to get to their assigned parking space. Although buildings A, Bl and B2 within the proposed development are not self-parked within their respective areas of the site, as shown in the table below, the proposal meets the parking requirement as outlined in UDC 11-3C. The applicant is requesting a modification to the existing DA to increase the number of units and increase the building height from three (3)stories to forty-five (45)feet in height instead of stories. Staff feels in order to maintain cohesiveness with the surrounding area, the building height should remain as shown on the proposed concept plan below. 3. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): The proposed development is required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2B-3 for the C-G zoning district and those within the specific use standards for Multi-family Development discussed above(UDC 11-4-3-27). The submitted plans show compliance with all dimensional and specific use standards, including but not limited to, building height, setbacks, accesses, and required parking spaces. 4. Specific Use Standards (UDC 11-4-3): The applicant shall meet the requirements for Multi-Family (UDC 11-4-3-27). See section V. D. Design Standards Analysis 1. Existing structure and Site Design Standards (Comp Plan 3.07.01A, UDC 11-3A-19): There are no existing structures on the site. The Comprehensive Plan require all new development to create a site design compatible with surrounding uses through buffering, screening, transitional densities, and other best site design practices. The proposed multi- family residential development provides an appropriate transition between the retail/commercial/employment uses to the north and west and the single-family residences to the south and west. There will be a twenty-five (25)foot buffers between this project and the City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 166 surrounding developments to the west and south. The sidewalk improvements to Ustick Road, Centrepoint Way and N. Cajun Lane provide much needed access improvements for the single-family residences to walk to the retail and commercial developments in the vicinity to the east. The buildings are set back over 100 feet from the boundaries with single family residential property,providing an even greater buffer between the proposed multi family use and the single-family residences. UDC requires the applicant to submit a Certificate of Zoning Compliance(CZC) and Design Review(DR) applications for review and approval prior to building submittal. 2. Qualified Open Space &Amenities (Comp Plan 2.02.00, Comp Plan 2.02.01B, UDC 11-3G): Per UDC 11-3G-3, qualified open space is defined as active or passive open spaces. Any open space that is active or passive in its intended use, and accessible by all residents of the development, including,but not limited to: Open grassy area of at least five thousand(5,000) square feet in area; Community garden(s); natural waterways, open ditches, and laterals, protective buffers a minimum of ten(10) feet in width dedicated for active access along these natural open spaces count toward meeting the open space minimum requirements;plaza with a minimum dimension of twenty(20)feet in all directions and including hardscape, seating, lighting in conformance with the standards set forth in section 11-3A-I I and landscaping in conformance with the requirements set forth in Article 11-3B,Landscaping Requirements; or linear open space area that is at least twenty(20)feet and up to fifty(50)feet in width,has an access at each end, and is improved and landscaped as set forth in Article 11-3B, Landscaping Requirements. The proposed project will include 104,345 square feet of qualified open space which is 8,940 square feet less than required. The applicant is asking for alternative compliance for qualified open space requirement stating the site is irregular, has a unique targeted demographic of an affordable housing community, has significant indoor and outdoor passive and active amenities and excellent connectivity to public parks within walking distance. The project also includes an extensive network of pedestrian oriented pathways including an outer loop around the entire project with internal connections to the various amenities for the project allowing for free movement of pedestrians throughout the site. The Comprehensive Plan goal is for developments to plan for safe, attractive, and well- maintained neighborhoods that have ample open space, and generous amenities that provide varied lifestyle choices. The Comprehensive Plan's goal emphasizes the importance of safe, attractive, and well-maintained neighborhoods with ample open space and amenities. Reducing these elements, regardless of the parcel's shape or target demographic, contradicts the Plan's standards. Furthermore, the applicant is increasing the density of the site beyond what was previously approved, understanding they are also reducing open space.Adequate open space and amenities are fundamental to maintaining the vibrancy and functionality of a neighborhood. Adhering to the Comprehensive Plan ensures that developments contribute positively to the community and uphold the quality of life for its residents. It's important to recognize that proximity to parks and sports complexes doesn't fully address the need for accessible and usable open space within a neighborhood. Even though the project is less than a mile from Charles F.McDevitt Youth Sports Complex, Julius M. Kleiner Memorial Park, and Champion Park, residents would still face the challenge of crossing major arterial roads to reach these amenities. Pedestrian and bicycle crossing of these major roadways adversely affect signal performance and signal timing, and is one of the stated reasons for mixed use area analysis to not include areas bisected by major roadways. This can be a significant barrier,particularly for families with young children, elderly residents, or those without convenient transportation options. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 167 For the development to truly align with the Comprehensive Plan's goals, it should include sufficient open space and amenities within the project itself. This ensures that all residents have easy, safe access to recreational areas without the need to navigate busy roads, thereby enhancing the overall quality of life and community cohesion. 3. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): i. Landscape buffers along streets The applicant is required to construct street buffers along Ustick Road, an arterial street, and along Centrepoint Way, a local street. In addition,per UDC 11-3B-8, at least 5 feet of landscaping is required along the perimeter of vehicle use areas(i.e. drive aisles) and landscaping is also required along the base of the multi-family building elevations facing any public street. The applicant is proposing a reduction of the 35'wide landscape buffer along Ustick Road—up to a 50%reduction (17.5), as allowed with the implementation of Water Conserving Design principles (UDC 11-3B-5.0). Staff has no objection to the applicant's request to provide a water conserving design for the street buffer along Ustick Road. ii. Parking lot landscaping Per UDC 11-3B-8,the applicant shall provide perimeter and internal parking lot landscaping to soften and mitigate the visual and heat island effect of a large expanse of asphalt in parking lots, and to improve the safety and comfort of pedestrians. A five-foot wide minimum landscape buffer adjacent to parking, loading, or other paved vehicular use areas. The applicant is proposing Alternative Compliance under UDC 11-3B-7.C.Lc to remove the parking lot islands beneath the covered parking areas within the development. Instead, the applicant plans to install solar carports, which will serve as a green infrastructure amenity by providing an alternative power source for the development and its residents. The solar carports will also fulfill the requirement for covered parking and help reduce the heat impact of the surface parking lot. According to the applicant, the removal ofparking islands under the solar carports will enhance solar panel efficiency by improving daylight capture and reducing maintenance tasks such as clearing leaf debris and replacing plants or trees.Additionally, the solar carports are expected to offset utility costs for residents. The applicant also notes that despite the removal of these islands, the overall landscape buffer percentage will not decrease, as the buffer areas along the east side of Centrepoint Way exceed the city's code requirements. All uncovered parking areas will continue to comply with the requirements for parking lot islands. iii. Landscape buffers to adjoining uses Per UDC 11-3B-9, a landscape buffer is required in the C-N, C-C, C-G,L-O,M-E,H-E, and I-L districts on any parcel sharing a contiguous lot line with a residential land use. The landscape buffer is required in the I-H district on any property sharing a contiguous lot line with a nonindustrial use. The single-family residential neighborhood to the south is screened with a twenty-five (25)foot landscape buffer. The single-family residential neighborhood to the west is likewise screened with a twenty-five (25)foot landscape buffer and further will be screened by an eight(8)foot masonry wall. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 168 Staff finds the proposed landscape buffer adjacent to the residential neighborhoods meets the requirements of the UDC and requires a detail of the masonry wall to be submitted for review with the CZC application. iv. Tree preservation N/A—There are no existing trees on the property. v. Storm integration Per UDC 11-3B-11,the applicant shall meet the intent to improve water quality and provide a natural, effective form of flood and water pollution control through the integration of vegetated,well designed stormwater filtration swales and other green stormwater facilities into required landscape areas,where topography and hydrologic features allow if part of the development. Development will be required to meet UDC 11-3B-11 for stormwater integration. vi. Pathway landscaping Landscaping for pathways shall meet the requirements outlined in UDC 11-3B-12. Staff finds the landscape plan shows the applicant meets the requirements of UDC 11-3B- 12 for pathway landscaping. 4. Parking (UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking for multi family developments is required to be provided per the table in UDC 11-3C-6 based on the number of bedrooms per unit. The Applicant is proposing 279 units consisting of 1391-bedroom units, 105 2-bedroom units and 35 3-bedroom units. In addition, one(1)guest space for every 10 units is required. i. Residential parking analysis Based on the total number of units proposed and their bedroom count distribution, a minimum of 552 parking spaces, with a minimum of 279 of these spaces to be covered in a garage or by a carport.In addition to meeting the minimum off-street parking amount, the current Development Agreement City Council was not comfortable with the parking area west of Centrepoint Way and expressed a desire for all buildings to be self-parked within their respective areas of the site. The previous applicant provided documentation showing the buildings to be self-parked within their respective areas of the site. Although the buildings within the proposed development are not self-parked within their respective areas of the site, as shown in the table below, the proposal meets the parking requirement as outlined in UDC 11-3C. Area of Site Building Bedroom Count Required Parking Provided(including Parking Per Unit (including guests) guests) (including guests) West of Cajun Ln&East of A-64 units 1 Bed—17 units 423.5(211 covered) 405(249 covered) 1.92(1.18 covered) Centrepoint Way 2 Bed—27 units 3 Bed—20 units B1-79 units 1 Bed—53 units 2 Bed—19 units 3 Bed—7 units B2—68 units 1 Bed—41 units 2 Bed—19 units 3 Bed—8 un its East of Cajun Lane C-44 units 1 Bed—2D units 83(44 covered) 92(17 covered) 2.11(1 covered) 2 Bed—24 units 3 Bed—0 units West of Centrepoint Way ❑—24 units 1 Bed—8 units 46(24 covered) 54(25 covered) 2.25(1.04 covered) 2 Bed—16 units City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis F169] ii. Bicycle parking analysis A minimum of one(1)bicycle parking space is required for every twenty-five(25) vehicle parking spaces per UDC 11-3C-6G. Based on the five hundred seventy-eight(552) vehicle parking spaces, a minimum of twenty-two (22) bicycle parking spaces is required. The location of the bicycle racks has been depicted on the site and landscape plans. Staff finds the applicant meets the requirement for bicycle parking. An example of the bicycle rack will be required to be submitted with the CZC for review and approval. 5. Building Elevations (Comp Plan,Architectural Standards Manual): Administrative Design Review(DES)approval is required before building permit submittal for multi-family residential dwellings. The Applicant did not submit for DES approval concurrent with the subject CUP application so the submitted elevations will be fully analyzed with that future application. Further, an application for a Certificate of Zoning Compliance(CZC)will also be required to be submitted for this entire development before the building permit submission. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed multi family buildings as shown in Section VII.G. The applicant is requesting a design exception for the reduced articulation of the building fagade and the omission of the masonry along the base of the building. This an administrative decision to be determined by the director. Final design will be required to comply with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual (ASM)and the recorded agreement unless otherwise waived by the Community Development Director through a design exception request. 6. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): All fencing constructed on the site is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11- 3A-7. No fencing is shown on the submitted plans except for the eight(8)foot privacy wall along the west boundary, as required by the Development Agreement. The applicant shall include an exhibit of the privacy wall for staff review with the future Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) application.In addition, the applicant shall include any fencing proposed for the noted dog park and sports court area along the existing shared north-south private road N. Cajun Lane. E. Transportation Analysis The Ada County Highway District(ACHD)reviewed the submitted application and has determined they support the applicant's proposal to construct 5-foot wide detached concrete sidewalk abutting the site meets District policy and should be approved, as proposed. However, the sidewalk should be parallel to the roadway, as meandering sidewalks are discouraged under ACHD policy. The detached sidewalk should be located a minimum of 41-feet from the centerline of Ustick Road abutting the site. ACHD also supports the applicant's proposal to widen/reconstruct Centrepoint Way meets District policy and should be approved as proposed with the exception of the 23-foot street section which requires the construction of a 33-foot street section south of the driveways to the site's south property line. The lane configuration and striping at the intersection with Ustick Road should be consistent with Centrepoint Way on the north side of Ustick Road across from the site. The applicant will be responsible for the design and construction of any modifications to the existing signal at the Centrepoint Way/Ustick Road intersection. The applicant should be required to dedicate right-of-way to 2-feet behind back of sidewalk, or for detached sidewalk,the applicant can reduce the right-of-way to 2-feet behind back of curb and provide a permanent a permanent right-of-way easement that extends from the right-of-way line to 2-feet behind back City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 170 of sidewalk. Sidewalk shall be located wholly within right-of-way or wholly within an easement. See diagram below. 40-FOOT STREET SECTION I ° EEEHIZEHM LJ I I 1 _ - �� BUIpHGA GUIlG1°GF �' ` �� � ,w erxis RronAry I I 1 �v f I I �I 1 r 1 11 -r 33-FOOT STREET SECTION ';do-.-g ity 1. Access (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-3, UDC 11-3H-4): Per UDC 11-3A-3, the intent of these standards is to improve safety by combining and/or limiting access points to collector and arterial streets and ensuring that motorists can safely enter all streets unless waived by City Council. Access for this development is from Centrepoint Way via Ustick Road and N. Cajun Lane via Ustic Road. Both the shared drive aisle and public street are existing. The shared drive aisle connects from N. Cajun Lane (a private street) to the south up to Ustick Road. This drive aisle was required with the previous Villasport approvals and the Wadsworth site on the hard corner for cross-access and interconnectivity to and from Ustick Road. In addition, the Bienville Square plat depicts cross-access over Cajun Lane and out to Eagle Road furthering the previous anticipation that some traffic would flow through this area. N. Centrepoint Way is an existing local street that connects the Bienville Square Subdivision (Jackson Square) and this site to Ustick Road via a public road and is signalized at the intersection of Ustick Road and Centrepoint Way. Ustick Road is improved with 5-travel lanes, vertical curb and gutter abutting the site.A five (5)foot wide detached concrete sidewalk exists abutting the site on the west side of Centrepoint Way and no sidewalk abutting the site on the east side of Centrepoint Way. There is eighty-six(86) to one hundred twenty-two (122)feet of right-of-way for Ustick Road(fifty (50) to eighty(80)feet from centerline). City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 171 2. Multiuse Pathways (UDC 11-3A-5): Multiuse pathways shall be constructed in accord with the city's comprehensive plan, the Meridian Pathways Master Plan, the Ada County Highway District Master Street Map and Roadways to Bikeways Master Plan. 3. Pathways (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-8): All pathways should be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-8. The Applicant is proposing to construct the missing segment of sidewalk along Ustick Road with a 5-foot wide detached sidewalk, consistent with the UDC requirements. Further, the Applicant is proposing to continue the existing sidewalk along the east side of the shared drive aisle and install a new sidewalk along its west side. The Applicant is proposing 5-foot wide micro paths throughout the development including within linear open space along the western and southern boundaries. 4. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): All sidewalks constructed as part of this proposal are required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17. Detached sidewalks are existing along both sides off. Centrepoint Way and one segment of the attached sidewalk is located along Ustick Road, west of Centrepoint Way; the remaining Ustick Road frontage does not have any existing sidewalk. The applicant is proposing a 5- foot wide detached sidewalk along Ustick Road and the shared drive aisle and is also proposing 5-foot wide micro pathways throughout the development. As noted above, the Applicant is proposing to construct the missing segment of sidewalk along Ustick Road with a 5-foot wide detached sidewalk, consistent with code requirements. Further, the Applicant is proposing to continue the existing sidewalk along the east side of the shared drive aisle and install a new sidewalk along its west side. The Applicant is proposing 5-foot wide micro paths throughout the development including within linear open space along the south boundary. Staff supports the proposed sidewalk and micro path network. In addition, Stafffinds that safer pedestrian crossings can be installed consistent with UDC 11-3A-19B across many internal drive aisles that connect internal sidewalks to the perimeter sidewalks. Specifically,per UDC 11-3A-19B.4, the crossings should be constructed with a different material than the driving surface (i.e. brick,pavers, colored or stamped concrete, etc)and be located at any crossing from the main drive aisle connections to Centrepoint or the shared drive aisle on the east side of the site. 5. Private Streets (UDC 11-3F-4): There is an existing private street, N. Cajun Lane, that abuts the east side of the property. Improvements to the private road are required as part of this development. No new private streets are being proposed for this development. F. Services Analysis 1. Waterways (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-6): Per UDC 11-3A-6,requires limiting the tiling and piping of natural waterways, including,but not limited to, ditches, canals, laterals, sloughs and drains where public safety is not a concern as well as improve,protect and incorporate creek corridors(Five Mile,Eight Mile, Nine Mile, Ten Mile, South Slough and Jackson and Evan Drains)as an amenity in all City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 172 residential, commercial and industrial designs. When piping and fencing is proposed,the standards outlined in UDC 11-3A-6B shall apply. The Milk Lateral has previously been piped and there is a thirty (30)foot irrigation easement that goes through the property. 2. Pressurized Irrigation (UDC 11-3A-15): The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water(UDC 11-3B-6). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single- point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 3. Storm Drainage (UDC 11-3A-18): An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments by the City's adopted standards, specifications, and ordinances. Design and construction shall follow best management practices as adopted by the City as outlined in UDC 11-3A-18. Storm drainage will be proposed with a future Certificate of Zoning Compliance application and shall be constructed to City and ACHD design criteria. 4. Utilities (Comp Plan, UDC I1-3A-21): 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. All utilities are available to the site. Water main,fire hydrant and water service require a twenty foot(20) wide easement that extends ten (10)feet past the end of main, hydrant, or water meter. No permanent structures, including trees are allowed inside the easement. G. Development Agreement The Applicant is requesting a modification to the existing Development Agreement [Inst. #2022- 079000 to include the following changes: B. OWNER/DEVELOPER has s4mitted an applie Aienonlied for a Modification of the egg Development Agreement(Instrument#2019-060877) for the purpose of updating the concept and a plan and provisions to construct a mixed-use development consisting of commercial space and and a multi-family development in lieu of an athletic club/spa and commercial building on 11.17 acres in the C-G zoning district. The Meridian City Council approved said the Modification and the Addendum to Development Agreement was recorded as Instrument#2022-079000 in Ada County Records. C. CITY, and OWNER/DEVELOPER now desire to amend said Development Agreement and Addendum to Development Agreement,which terms have been approved by the Meridian City Council in accordance with UDC section 11-513-4. 1. OWNER/DEVELOPER shall be bound by the terms of the Development Agreement recorded as Instrument#2019-060877, except as specifically amended as follows: a. Future development of this site shall be substantially consistent with the submitted concept plan and color renderings inel aea in Seel o V! e attached to this Second Addendum as Exhibit A l9 and the provisions contained herein. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 173 b. Future development shall comply with the standards outline in the multi-family development specific use standards, UDC 11-04-3-27, except for any requests for Alternative Compliance approved by the CitX. c. All future pedestrian crossings that traverse shared drive aisles within the development shall be constructed with brick, pavers, stamped concrete, or colored concrete to clearly delineate the driving surface from the pedestrian facilities,per UDC 11-3A-19B.4b. d. The required landscape street buffers and multi-use pathway segment shall be constructed and vegetated with the first phase of development along E.Ustick Road and N.Eagle Road; the proposed 25-foot landscape buffer along the west and south boundaries shall be constructed with the first phase of development. e. Applicant shall work with ACHD to construct a safe pedestrian crossing from the multi- family site area to the parking lot along the west boundary across N. Centrepoint Way. f. With the future Conditional Use Permit for the multi-family development, the building heights shall.,long the west b,,,,rdar- .shall not be more than not exceed two stories 45-feet in height consistent with the Applicant's revised concept plan and presentation to Council. g. Applicant shall continue the masonry wall along the west property boundary consistent with adjacent development and to help buffer the proposed project. h. Staff and Applicant shall work with ACHD to mark Centrepoint Way as no-parking on both sides, should ACHD allow it. III. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Meridian Planning Division I. Development Agreement Modification: Fifteen(15)days prior to the City Council hearing,the applicant shall provide the revised concept plan for the elevations,landscaping plan and open space exhibit subject to the new DA. 1.1 The modified DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six(6)months of the City Council approval of the Findings. The DA shall, at minimum, incorporate the following provisions: a. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the proposed site plan,landscape plans and conceptual building elevations included in Section V-D and V-G and the provisions contained herein. b. Before the multi-family units are occupied, Owner and/or Developer shall record a income-restricted housing tax credit regulatory agreement with the Ada County Recorder's Office to restrict the rental rates on the units for a minimum of forty(40) years to ensure the units are affordable to individuals and families earning, averaged within the entire project,no more than sixty percent(60%)of the area median income and provide said agreement prior to issuance of any building permit for the proposed City of Meridian I Department Report III. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 174 use. City shall be deemed to be a third-party beneficiary of said regulatory agreement. c. All future pedestrian crossings that traverse shared drive aisles within the development shall be constructed with brick,pavers,stamped concrete,or colored concrete to clearly delineate the driving surface from the pedestrian facilities,per UDC 11-3A-19B.4b. d. The required landscape street buffers and multi-use pathway segment shall be constructed and vegetated with the first phase of development along E. Ustick Road and N. Eagle Road; the proposed 25-foot landscape buffer along the west and south boundaries shall be constructed with the first phase of development. e. Applicant shall work with ACHD to construct a safe pedestrian crossing from the multi-family site area to the parking lot along the west boundary across N. Centrepoint Way f. The height of the buildings shall not exceed the height shown on the elevations in Exhibit G or as modified by City Council. 2. Conditional Use Permit: 2.1 The Applicant shall comply with all specific use standards for the proposed use of Multi-family Residential Development(UDC 11-4-3-27). 2.2 The Applicant shall obtain a Certificate of Zoning Compliance(CZC) and Administrative Design Review(DES)approvals before submitting for any building permit within this development. 2.3 At the time of Certificate of Zoning Compliance submittal,the Applicant shall submit a recorded and legally binding document(s)that state the maintenance and ownership responsibilities for the management of the development, including,but not limited to, structures,parking, common areas, and other development features,per UDC 11-4-3- 27F standards. 2.4 Future development shall be consistent with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2B-3-7 for the C-G zoning district. 2.5 Off-street parking is required to be provided by the standards listed in UDC Table 1I- 3C-6 for multi-family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. 2.6 The Applicant shall work with Valley Regional Transit to ensure the transit stop shelter being proposed is appropriate for that location and if they are willing to maintain the area proposed. 2.7 The Applicant shall comply with all ACHD conditions of approval. 2.8 The Applicant shall comply with all ITDs conditions of approval. 2.9 The Applicant shall dedicate twelve(12)feet of right-of-way on Eagle Road to reconstruct the right turn lane to Seville Lane. 2.10 No recreational vehicles, snowmobiles,boats, or other personal recreation vehicles shall be stored on the site unless provided for in a separate, designated and screened area. 2.11 A total of eight(8) amenities shall be installed as proposed by the applicant. 2.12 Provide a pressurized irrigation system consistent with the standards as outlined in UDC 11-3A-15,UDC 11-3B-6, and UDC 9-1-28. City of Meridian I Department Report III. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 175 2.13 Upon completion of the landscape installation,a written Certificate of Completion shall be submitted to the Planning Division verifying all landscape improvements are in substantial compliance with the approved landscape plan as outlined in UDC 11-3B-14. 2.14 Fifteen(15) days prior to the City Council hearing,the applicant shall provide the revised concept plan for the elevations, landscaping plan and open space exhibit to show the removed parking stalls and open space revisions. Provide details for the amenities. 2.15 The Conditional Use Permit approval shall become null and void unless otherwise approved by the City if the applicant fails to 1) commence the use, satisfy the requirements, acquire building permits and commence construction within two years as outlined in UDC 11-5B-6F.1; or 2)obtain approval of a time extension as outlined in UDC 11-5B-6F.4. 2.16 The Director has approved the Alternative Compliance Request to remove the landscape island underneath the covered carports per UDC 11-3B-8. 2.17 The Director has approved the Alternative Compliance Request to reduce the open space requirement by 8,940 square feet with the provisions that the applicant remove the parking stalls parallel on the north property boundary and increase the street landscape buffer to thirty-five(35)feet on the northwest property line adjacent to Ustick Road. B. Meridian Public Works See public record(copy the link into a separate window) https://weblink.meridianciN.oLgzl ebLinkIBrowse.aspx?id=356286&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCit X C. Meridian Fire Department A full fire plan review shall be completed prior to construction of the project. D. Meridian Park's Department See public record(copy the link into a separate browser) https://weblink.meridiancioy.orglWebLink/Browse.aspx?id=356286&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCit X E. Irrigation Districts 1. Nampa&Meridian Irrigation District See public record(copy the link into a separate browser) https://weblink.meridiancioy.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=356286&dbid=0&repo=Meridia n ci F. Idaho Department of Environmental Quality(DEQ) See public record(copy the link into a separate browser) https://weblink.meridiancity�oty WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=356286&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCit X G. West Ada School District(WASD) or Other District/School See public record(copy the link into a separate browser) hyps://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=356286&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCit X City of Meridian I Department Report III. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 176 H. Ada County Highway District(ACHD) See public record(copy the link into a separate browser) https:llweblink.meridiancity.orz/WebLinkIBrowse.aspx?id=356286&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCit Y I. Idaho Transportation Department(ITD) See public record(copy the link into a separate browser) https:llweblink.meridianciU.oLvlWebLinkIBrowse.aspx?id=356286&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCit Y IV. FINDINGS A. Alternative Compliance(UDC 11-513-5E) In order to grant approval for an alternative compliance application,the Director shall determine the following: 1. Strict adherence or application of the requirements are not feasible; or As noted in Section III.D.3, the applicant is requesting alternative compliance due to a deficiency in the required amount of qualified open space, as detailed in the previous section. Staff finds that the applicant's request to increase the site density beyond the previously approved level has significantly reduced the amount of qualified open space.Adequate open space and amenities are essential for maintaining the vibrancy and functionality of a neighborhood. Adhering to the Comprehensive Plan is crucial to ensuring that developments contribute positively to the community and uphold the quality of life for residents. The applicant also requested alternative compliance for the removal of the parking lot islands under the covered parking for internal parking. The applicant states that despite the removal of these islands, the overall landscape buffer percentage will not decrease, as the buffer areas along the east side of Centrepoint Way exceed the city's code requirements. All uncovered parking areas will continue to comply with the requirements for parking lot islands. Staff finds the request feasible as the installation of solar carports, will serve as a green infrastructure amenity by providing an alternative power source for the development and its residents. 2. The alternative compliance provides an equal or superior means for meeting the requirements; and Based on the statement above for the qualified open space, staff finds the applicant did not meet this requirement. Based on the statement above for the removal of the landscape islands underneath the solar carports, staff finds the applicant met this requirement. 3. The alternative means will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or impair the intended uses and character of surrounding properties. Staff finds that the proposed alternative means will not be materially detrimental to public welfare or impair the intended uses and character of surrounding properties. However, reducing the proposed density to the previously approved number of units would increase the available open space, thereby contributing positively to the community and enhancing the quality of life for residents within the development. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. Findings 177 Stafffinds the alternative compliance request for the removal of the landscape islands underneath the solar carports will not be materially detrimental to public welfare or impair the intended uses and character ofsurrounding properties. B. Conditional Use (UDC 11-513-6E) The commission shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request upon the following: 1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. Stafffinds that as proposed, the design cannot meet the dimensional standards and development regulations without the approval of several alternative compliance request. However, stafffeels if the proposal adheres to the conditions of the staff report it would be a nice addition to the community. 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan and in accord with the requirements of this title. Stafffinds that if the site is built as recommended by staff and all conditions of approval are met, stafffinds the proposed site design and use of multi family residential would be harmonious with the comprehensive plan designation of Mixed-Use Regional and the requirements of this title when included in the overall MU-R designated area. 3. That the design,construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. Stafffinds that despite the proposed use being different from the residential uses to the west and south, the site design, construction, and proposed operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and should not adversely change the essential character of the same area. 4. That the proposed use,if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Stafffinds the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of approval for CUP H-2022- 0072 and MDA H-2022-0035, it will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools,parks,police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal,water,and sewer. Stafffinds the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services because all services are readily available and both ACHD and ITD have reviewed and approved the proposed layout and traffic generation with conditions. 6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. All public facilities and services are readily available for the subject site so stafffinds that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community or create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services. Utilities have already been approved for this development with the previous application. 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes,materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic,noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. Stafffinds that although traffic is sure to increase in the vicinity with the addition of more residential units, the addition of the multifamily in this will not be detrimental to any persons, City of Meridian I Department Report IV. Findings 178 property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. Staff is unaware of any natural, scenic, or historic features within the development area, therefore, staff finds the proposed use should not result in damage to any such features. V. Multi-Family Development Analysis A. Multi-family Development(UDC11-4-3-2n Specific Use Standards: A. Purpose. 1. To implement the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan: a. Plan for safe, attractive, and well-maintained neighborhoods that have ample open space, and generous amenities that provide varied lifestyle choices. Staff finds the applicant does not meet the open space requirements as per the project goals. The proposed amenities are also insufficient compared to those previously approved. Given that this is a low-income housing development,providing ample and accessible amenities within the complex is crucial for the residents, as they may face challenges in traveling to access similar facilities elsewhere. b. Require the design and construction of pathways connections, easy pedestrian and bicycle access to parks, safe routes to schools, and the incorporation of usable open space with quality amenities as part of new multi-family residential and mixed-use developments. 2. To create multi-family housing that is safe and convenient and that enhances the quality of life of its residents. a. To create quality buildings and designs for multi-family development that enhance the visual character of the community. Staff finds the request to exclude the masonry from the base of the building does meet the City's architectural standards for multifamily developments, as building designs must include masonry at the base. The applicant is requesting a design exception to exclude the masonry along the base of the building. b. To create building and site design in multi-family development that is sensitive to and well-integrated with the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant is requesting a design exception to exclude masonry along the base of the building. According to the City's architectural standards for multifamily developments, building designs must include masonry at the base. The request for this design exception will undergo review during the administrative process, with the final determination to be made by the Director. c. To create open space areas that contribute to the aesthetics of the community,provide an attractive setting for buildings, and provide safe, interesting outdoor spaces for residents. Staff finds the applicant does not meet the open space requirements as outlined in the project goals. Staff recommends relocating all amenities to the inner portion of the lot, specifically near buildings A, Bl, and B2. This would create a safer outdoor environment for residents, as opposed to placing the sports court and dog park adjacent to N. Cajun Lane. City of Meridian I Department Report V. Multi-Family Development Analysis 179 B. Site design. 1. Buildings shall provide a minimum setback of ten (10) feet unless a greater setback is otherwise required by this title and/or title 10 of this Code. Building setbacks shall take into account windows, entrances, porches, and patios, and how they impact adjacent properties. The Applicant is proposing a total of five (5) buildings within three(3) distinct areas for the Centrepoint Apartments. The west area (west of Centrepoint Way) includes Building D,four stories tall(41 foot building height to the roofs peak). The central area includes the three buildings, Buildings A, BI &B2, and are 41 feet tall to the roof's peak. East of the shared drive aisle that connects Cajun Lane to Ustick Road, one 4-story building is shown. Based on the submitted Site Plan, this requirement is met because none of the buildings are proposed closer than approximately 25 feet from any property boundary. 2. All on-site service areas, outdoor storage areas, waste storage, disposal facilities, and transformer and utility vaults shall be located in an area not visible from a public street, or shall be fully screened from view from a public street. The Applicant shall comply with this standard. However, there are existing transformer and utility vaults along E. Ustick Road that were in place before this owner obtained the property. Staff does not find it prudent or feasible to require these vaults to be relocated as they are previously existing and the proposed landscaping will beautify these structures along the street frontage for added screening. 3. A minimum of eighty(80)square feet of private,usable open space shall be provided for each unit. This requirement can be satisfied through porches, patios, decks, and/or enclosed yards.Landscaping,entryway,and other accessways shall not count toward this requirement. In circumstances where strict adherence to such standards would create an inconsistency with the purpose statements of this section, the Director may consider an alternative design proposal through the alternative compliance provisions as outlined in section 11-5B-5 of this title. The Applicant shall adhere to this standard. This will be reviewed with the submittal of the CZC and DES application as it is a condition of approval. 4. For this section,vehicular circulation areas,parking areas, and private usable open space shall not be considered common open space. Staff finds the applicant has met this requirement. 5. No recreational vehicles, snowmobiles,boats, or other personal recreation vehicles shall be stored on the site unless provided for in a separate, designated and screened area. The Applicant shall adhere to this standard as it is a condition of approval. 6. The parking shall meet the requirements outlined in chapter 3, "regulations applying to all districts", of this title. Stafffinds the applicant has met this requirement. See the parking section in the general analysis below. 7. Developments with twenty(20)units or more shall provide the following: a. A property management office. b. A maintenance storage area. City of Meridian I Department Report V. Multi-Family Development Analysis 180 c. A central mailbox location, including provisions for parcel mail,that provides safe pedestrian and/or vehicular access. d. A directory and map of the development at an entrance or convenient location for those entering the development. The applicant is proposing more than 20 units (279 units)so the applicant is required to provide the items above in compliance with this standard. These items shall be depicted on the site plan with the submittal of the CZC application. C. Common open space design requirements. 1. The total baseline land area of all qualified common open spaces shall equal or exceed ten (10)percent of the gross land area for multi-family developments of five(5)acres or more. The multi family area is greater than 5 acres in size, approximately 10 acres. Approximately 43,516 square feet equals a baseline often (10)percent of open space. The applicant is required to provide 113,266 square feet of open space but is only providing 104,345 square feet. The applicant is requesting alternative compliance for the 8,940 square foot deficiency in qualified open space. 2. All common open spaces shall meet the following standards: a. The development plan shall demonstrate that the open space has been integrated into the development as a priority and not for land use after all other development elements have been designed. Open space areas that have been given priority in the development design have: (1) Direct pedestrian access; (2) High visibility; (3) Comply with Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CTED) standards; and (4) Support a range of leisure and play activities and uses. Staff finds that the applicant did not prioritize the integration of open space into the development.It appears that open space was considered only after other development elements were finalized, resulting in a deficiency in the required amount of open space. b. Open space shall be accessible and well-connected throughout the development. This quality can be shown with open spaces that are centrally located within the development,accessible by pathway and visually accessible along collector streets or as a terminal view from a street. c. The open space promotes the health and well-being of its residents. Open space shall support active and passive uses for recreation,social gathering,and relaxation to serve the development. Staff finds that although the applicant has provided these items to serve the development, the request to increase the site's density beyond the previously approved level has significantly reduced the amount of qualified open space. Adequate qualified open space and amenities are essential for maintaining the vibrancy and functionality of a neighborhood as well as upholding the quality of life for residents. 3. All multi-family projects over twenty (20) units shall provide at least one (1) common grassy area integrated into the site design allowing for general activities by all ages. This area maybe included in the minimum required open space total.Projects that provide safe City of Meridian I Department Report V. Multi-Family Development Analysis 181 access to adjacent public parks or parks under a common HOA, without crossing an arterial roadway,are exempt from this standard. a. Minimum size of the common grassy area shall be at least five thousand (5,000) square feet in area. This area shall increase proportionately as the number of units increase and shall be commensurate to the size of the multi-family development as determined by the decision-making body. Where this area cannot be increased due to site constraints, it may be included elsewhere in the development. b. Alternative compliance is available for these standards if a project has a unique targeted demographic; utilizes other place-making design elements in Old-Town or mixed-use future land-use designations with collectively integrated and shared open space areas. The submitted plans depict two (2) open common grassy areas 8,000-9,000 square feet, above the required 5,000 square foot minimum. Although the Applicant is providing amenities above code requirements within this development, the development is deficient in the required amount of qualified open space. The applicant is asking for alternative compliance for qualified open space requirement stating the site is irregular, has a unique targeted demographic of an affordable housing community, has significant indoor and outdoor passive and active amenities and excellent connectivity to public parks within walking distance. The project also includes an extensive network of pedestrian oriented pathways including an outer loop around the entire project with internal connections to the various amenities for the project allowing for free movement of pedestrians throughout the site. Staff finds that the applicant's request to increase the site density beyond the previously approved level has reduced the amount of qualified open space.Adequate qualified open space and amenities are essential for maintaining the vibrancy and functionality of a neighborhood. Adhering to the Comprehensive Plan is crucial to ensuring that developments contribute positively to the community and uphold the quality of life for residents. 4. In addition to the baseline open space requirement, a minimum area of outdoor common open space shall be provided as follows: a. One hundred fifty (150) square feet for each unit containing five hundred (500) or fewer square feet of living area. b. Two hundred fifty(250)square feet for each unit containing more than five hundred (500) square feet and up to one thousand two hundred(1,200) square feet of living area. C. Three hundred fifty (350) square feet for each unit containing more than one thousand two hundred(1,200) square feet of living area. Per the property size and the unit counts and their sizes, the minimum open space required to be provided is 113,266 square feet (approximately 2.60 acres). According to the submitted open space exhibit and landscape plans, the project is deficient by approximately 8,940 square feet of qualified open space. The applicant is requesting alternative compliance stating the site has an additional 40,498 square feet of non-qualifying landscape area, pathways, and buffer landscape area not included in the qualifying calculation. 5. Common open space shall be not less than four hundred(400)square feet in area,and shall have a minimum length and width dimension of twenty(20) feet. City of Meridian I Department Report V. Multi-Family Development Analysis 182 Staff finds that the Applicant complies with this requirement. 6. In phased developments, common open space shall be provided in each phase of the development consistent with the requirements for the size and number of dwelling units. Staff is not aware of any phasing for the proposed project. 7. Unless otherwise approved through the conditional use process,common open space areas shall not be adjacent to a collector or arterial streets unless separated from the street by a berm or constructed barrier at least four(4)feet in height,with breaks in the berm or barrier to allow for pedestrian access. The applicant is proposing over 8,000 square feet of open grassy area adjacent to Ustick Road which is an arterial. The applicant is required provide an updated landscape plan fifteen day prior to the City Council public hearing showing how they meet this requirement unless otherwise waived by Council through the CUP process. D. Site development amenities. 1. All multifamily developments shall provide for quality of life,open space,and recreation amenities to meet the particular needs of the residents as follows: a. Quality of life. (1) Clubhouse. (2) Fitness facilities. (3) Enclosed bike storage. (4) Public art such as a statue. (5) Dog park with a waste station. (6) Commercial outdoor kitchen. (7) Fitness course. (8) Enclosed storage b. Open space. (1) Community garden. (2) Ponds or water features. (3) Plaza. (4) Picnic area including tables,benches, landscaping, and a structure for shade. c. Recreation. (1) Pool. (2) Walking trails. (3) Children's play structures. (4) Sports courts. d. Multi-modal amenity standards. (1) Bicycle repair station. (2) Park and ride lot. (3) Sheltered transit stop. City of Meridian I Department Report V. Multi-Family Development Analysis 183 (4) Charging stations for electric vehicles. 2. The number of amenities shall depend on the size of the multifamily development as follows: a. For multifamily developments with less than twenty (20) units, two (2) amenities shall be provided from two(2)separate categories. b. For multifamily development between twenty(20)and seventy-five(75)units,three (3)amenities shall be provided,with one(1)from each category. c. For multifamily development with seventy-five(75)units or more,four(4)amenities shall be provided,with at least one(1)from each category. d. For multifamily developments with more than one hundred(100)units,the decision- making body shall require additional amenities commensurate to the size of the proposed development. 3. The decision-making body shall be authorized to consider other improvements in addition to those provided under this subsection(D),provided that these improvements provide a similar level of amenity. For the 279 multi family units proposed, a minimum offour(4)amenities, one from each category,shall be provided to satisfy the specific use standards. The Planning and Zoning Commission is authorized to require the applicant to provide more amenities through this process if needed. Per the submitted plans and narrative, eight (8) qualifying amenities are proposed with amenities from each category. The proposed amenities include a clubhouse with community space and leasing office, indoor fitness facilities, large common grassy areas ranging from 8,000-9,000 sf, shaded plaza/courtyard with activity lawn, shaded picnic areas with barbecue grills, tables, landscaping, children's play structure, dog park with waste station, a micro path system, sports courts, and a bicycle repair station with tools and a pump. All of the proposed amenities except the proposed dog park and sports court are located within the central open space area or part of the three (3) central buildings (A, BI and B2). E. Landscaping requirements. 1. Development shall meet the minimum landscaping requirements by chapter 3, "regulations applying to all districts",of this title. The applicant is proposing a reduction in street buffer landscaping for Ustick Road and Centrepoint Way by using water conserving design.UDC 11-3B-5.0 allows a fifty(50%) percent reduction to the landscape buffer. 2. All street-facing elevations shall have landscaping along their foundation.The foundation landscaping shall meet the following minimum standards: a. The landscaped area shall be at least three(3)feet wide. b. For every three(3) linear feet of foundation, an evergreen shrub having a minimum mature height of twenty-four(24)inches shall be planted. c. Ground cover plants shall be planted in the remainder of the landscaped area. Staff finds the applicant is has met this requirement. F. Maintenance and ownership responsibilities. All multifamily developments shall record legally binding documents that state the maintenance and ownership responsibilities for the management of the development, including, but not limited to, structures, parking, common areas, and other development features. City of Meridian I Department Report V. Multi-Family Development Analysis 184 The applicant shall comply with this requirement and provide said document at the time of CZC submittal. VI. ACTION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the requested Development Agreement Modification and Conditional Use Permit per the conditions of approval included in Section III in accord accordance with Findings in Section IV. B. Commission: Pending C. City Council: Action Pending. VII. EXHIBITS A. Project Area Maps (link to Project Overview) 1. Aerial Legend 'S:' Project Location 0 Area of Impact .2 j �? Analysis 11 M>l � •Y '' e 'af. yly r7 Yam: n31Im la5�r_*aa` �e1•. R lT I IIIIIIIBr _�- IIIIP'1•_, � rll �ti Pisa City of Meridian Department Report VI. Action 185 Legend Project LocationQIIn Ion Area of Impact i■ Analysis r ►�; Im ■ � �r frrol■I :►r= �o 11111111 /■■ IIIIIIII (� V ullluu.�■ USTICK o_ago ■I I� . ■Im IIII '-n�_'�, ■Hollow ■ rlr EIIIIIIIII �"7 ''�_- � man Inunw ■■■ Ill + 0 ,' ■;' '_ 1 Rll■,�u uu■I If i11f1 Ai J ■rl'■ iuii !i. ==- �"i�' ?-'- ♦♦ R�.:II 111111111►r '�I r 1aa11rIr11 ■ �.aln IN n■■nn1.1�piy� ��� I alarm agll�,�;"■u,\� I •�� 1 ' : iiiini:::� O ■ ?andumw -�i- -nn111 1 11 Li- ■--r-BI,Ipr is:r-� � � 1 � �u-.nnn►r -■ � 1 wRI!11111:..--;w�'rlrllrrr•. I■ra ■Ina m■ti ► iurm►=� r -..�• �nnrinlr ■n anlnni :aw Nnrr, II �iu.11l_nwst,:�,Yinnum$ ywl■r�Ji`\r n- Irr �ililii i I. , (■,ri:��6nr■1r � -- � ILI ■�' . � w Ci ri,■1■ummat�■■■long •.Ilgr}I■xl IIII -a�..� ra Nlllnll 11 ■N■■ ■I fill�11n■■lN�1 In + �nn■■r Ion I Ills In� ��■■�rrlalwr. W Legend _ �I!■■�� Project Location IIII■1Sol r= Area of Impact Analysis -G Juuuiuuu i ♦� 11\��/f�r an^ :C�:a.a la a/f r lunr�4■I■■ , ,cum-I __nllen- Raa■r■wj+�jy■■■:r ��iunru■u��r= - nn■III � •• -r■■■rn,r- _ iiliu' _ rrai■q.�l 1�::pG IIl rIL '- i Gul'I n�.nam rlfff::'' is�' unI • ■■� :_IIr...�r V j naa y � ■ lu ",+Iuwm .-II I ullll � ,II rf�A1►, .... .Ili � IIII �rlllllll O �irr r•^'- 11,■, USTICK _ llnu Ilmnnn.,..l...u..l. nmllll nl non li_ �jial.�i}Irr ��■,ff =___=nn�1=IIIIII unu lun!o I m•a �•■OI 11111�,I- prlr} �•r v=_= Illlu unn�� = r ■ 11 IIIIII olil? *�\� ____=mm_Illllll.a-I IIIIII= iume-1 naa��-I ■rl Iln■rr■r�r■� Illlll=1■L.'n1 IIIIIII rrr 11111111111 � ,■■qar■r► � p lii•Y■glrll,n II I Irl` rii iii � ■rr IIIIOgIr■�, !�■■gAllllNl{ � ■■■■■■■1.�_ nr• 1 *ia� mu■, �__ nlllllln�e m VI I •i --: �r11lI��Allli:�� .0 1llr annl�- Q ar11I■■ill4 " r 111 I��A Imo■ =I�,O'�Sr ■r{.- � • n< I IEIrI 1� OI :. ■■�, ■■ W lu� ���oi��r•� it - • r I - vs� I w�O�d�•r.r r- - • - • `arras mll ��::-i�aillll ♦ np nullp:�:::E �r-nnury - I�Iql• nuuu-�imwlHr�" r■r■,r Illlf f II oil S" s �1: rllllaa \r yw•ran, :. ■:■: / i11►Il■■: � �sf1■rY1-i:���II■■1■■■!a:i1 r I Q� �■- �. u-SL4iuRr,ul urnau•u rnuuluu■ur�.Q■an��-.Ir nI■-.:d■1:m►.aa■luu■o.■u.■a.nun.r■.q o■.a..r 3•-:;i���I�i►■Il+url►+�rr rV{q-i/��-i����+/i/•• _■� wr,f 4. Planned Development Map Legend :- , 'I,� Project Location -___- Area of Impact City Limits Planned Parcels O Analysis iFFFR 1, 1 � 1 I 1 ®® -- City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 187 B. Subject Site Photos a lhr IL 7a 1.i.•�i`irk% ' , - _ MM ff _ brig a Rom,• , ":''! - 14 144-7-7 'T •� ► ��. Ilrrr!-s I.rrn.E. �izrz �q.�,�.y M �� wow aft {yL i'- City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 188 b nor �} ...... .... . City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits F189] C. Service Accessibility Report PARCEL S"1'1D577077'"1 SERVICE ACCESSIBILITY Overall Score: 37 82nd Percentile Description Location In City Limits Epp Extension Sewer Trunkshed mains r 500 ft.from parcel GREEN Floodplain Either not within the 100 yrfloodplain or > 2 acres GREEN Emergency Services Fire Response time < 5 min. GREEN Emergency Services Police Meets response time goals most of the time GREEN Pathways Within 1/4 mile of current pathways GREEN Transit Not within 1/4 of current or future transit route RED Arterial Road Buildout Status Ultimate configuration (#of lanes in master streets GREEN plan) matches existing (# of lanes) School Walking Proximity Within 1/2 mile walking GREEN Either a High School or College within 2 miles OR a School Drivability Middle or Elementary School within 1 mile driving GREEN (existing or future) Either a Regional Park within 1 mile OR a Community Park Walkabifty Parkwithin 1/2 mile OR a Neighborhood Park within PREEN 1/4 mile walking City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 1 90 D. Proposed Site Plan(date: 8/29/2024) 511E INFOPM4TION .® •-��LL UGEND FFFTM r ' I SITE PLAN-CENTREPOINT Eagle&Uadek Meridian,ID A g,ft 29,20299 9 1 9 Kimi »Horn H-2022-0072 Centrepoint Apartments CUP Approved Site Plan(date: 8/30/2022) g,E IrraaunaN �R-m -� ie yt _ _______ - L ' ..sa I¢p IFGENG Akk CONCEPT SITE PLAN-CENTREPOINT Eagle 6 Usti&Meridian,ID ague[ Mmky Mom City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 191 1 E. Landscape Plan(date: 7/18/2024) di gE o A,)— IT �T -MME. - + _._.. - I -DEVCO -CENTREPOINT HOUSING-PCONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN Eagle&Uatick Meridian,ID July I8,2D29 Kimley»Horn TTT WI�INIINIINIINI�INII IIIIIf I _.� -- • _ I DEVCO-CENTREPOINT HOUSING-CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN RENDERING Eagle&Uu:kk Meridian,ID July 18,2824 Kimley,»Horn City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 192 F. Qualified Open Space Exhibit(date: 8/29/2024) OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS Arum �� a .muwrturw .r�cluuwN . Wnreueuvcr.e e..;. uieen.r._ne -- s ' 1 � ,..,.a -- \ I arw�cwvaEuaircn.awow. e�s ---'-----'- i _ i � REquiaERE Ts fswti— moI '= �� M7I �— La „ DEVCO-CENTREPOINT HOUSING-SCHEMATIC OPEN SPACE PLAN Eagle&Uad.k Meridian,ID ANgua<29,2024 Kimley»Horn City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits Fl 93 0 � GI � I:1 ■ : : ■ it ■ .: = .#� ■ � I:I ■ r : n � ■ a ■ M. 0 ■ j � ■ ■ 11 : : ■ ■ : ■ 11 IU a ■ 1 : 1 ■ i •.1 11 1m nm ■ a a =_: Nil 11 r. a F11 ■ 11 ■ �I fll EVC9 TE ILE ■ L■J __ i; �', _ F : F H a II li 1 r IN ■ al ■ i :, . , ■ Ill �W Ill. I � a ■ L a - m a i �I ; ■ :1 — - are ■ C © ■ 7 I i1 t ■ n ■ ul !,6 I ■ - ■BUILDINGS 1311132 ELEVATIONS Devco-CentFepoint Housing — Fir D ■ ® Li �j ■ -- ® -- ■ ■ I1 ■ I� ■ 1� 111 ® 1 ■ : ■ El Ill ^-I 1 01 I ■ [1 ■ - INN IS ❑■ ■ �11 :I 01 ■ ■ CI ■ a 1n GI 1■■■■ I■■■■ I ■I ■ e ■ i n 1n i ❑■ IYY 1��I� 1 ■ ! ■ -�1 IN I A m �BUILDINGS B11132 ELEVATIONS WITH COMMUNITY - DEVCO n n n _ ----- Fro _ IT, - - n1 _ n e li 1 s ® ® ■ BUILDING C ELEVATIONS Devro-Centrepoint Housing rvco B1 A 1�1 Rllll --------—----- — —_— _--_--- L[Fl. ----- - EASTNl FlEVATION ----�• FgRTIP�OIfTFi ELEVATION ----� AM BUILDING D ELEVATIONS Devao-Centrepoint Housing • • M Mlnn WIIDIMG X�GMT GGMPARNIOM —---—----—---—----—---- --- —___—____ - -- — LlD ` H Ll El — — PNEVIGU-APPNDVEG ELEV►TION XEIGXT r. PRGP03EG ELEVATI ON XEIGXT B1 1 1 we 62 a� (E"P3N S2-CENIREPOIlf�WAY Z➢E LESLIE DR -- - -- -- - -- -- -- 51-PI�RI W W LENTREPgIJr WAY Lf]Mn A.05 I BUILDING SECTIONS Devoo-Centrepoint Housing • • City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits Fl 96 E IDIAN;--- Applicant Presentation DEVCO | DEVCOUS.COM 1 Centrepoint Apartments September 5, 2024 DEVCO | DEVCOUS.COM 2 Devco, LLC is an integrated development and investment company focused on multi-family communities. Founded in 1994, Devco and its affiliates are developing, own and manage over 10,000 affordable and market rate apartment units throughout the United States. Headquartered in Washington, Devco, LLC is the largest provider of affordable housing in Washington State. Who We Are Boise, Idaho 100% Affordable Units 30-70% Area Median Income of Meridian 3 Bedroom Family Style Units IHFA Green Building Standards High efficiency lighting, ventilation, irrigation, and water saving measures Income deed restricted for 30-50 years Affordable Housing Features DEVCO | DEVCOUS.COM 4 Affordable Housing Mechanics •Deed Restricted – Affordable housing restrictions will be in place for a period of 40 years. •Income Restricted – 60% of Area Median Income for Ada County. •Income Restricted – Offering units for individuals making between $35,000 - $60,000. Anticipated Centrepoint Rents Village Apartments Regency at River Valley One Bedroom $918 $1,495 $1,357 Two Bedroom $1,088 $1,745 $1,647 Three Bedroom $1,234 $2,115 $1,970 DEVCO | DEVCOUS.COM 5 Affordable Housing Demand •3,343 Income Eligible Households in the market. •Only 76 planned income restricted units, with only 96 existing income restricted units. •1.1% vacancy for affordable projects in the market. •Gap between affordable income restricted rents and the average market rent is 38 – 40%. * Data provided by Third Party Market Study conducted by Novogradac in March of 2024. DEVCO | DEVCOUS.COM 6 Letters of Support DEVCO | DEVCOUS.COM 7 Vicinity Map SITE 2019 Villasport DA & CUP Athletic Club & Retail 2022 DA Mod & CUP Multifamily & Drive-Through April 2024 Pre-App & Neighborhood Meeting May 2024 DA and CUP Modification Application Submittal Timeline SEP 2024 PZC Hearing OCT 2024 CC Hearing FEB 2025 Civil & Building Plan Approvals Spring/Summer 2025 Construction Start DEVCO | DEVCOUS.COM 9 Infill parcel adjacent established varied residential/commercial subdivisions Established roadways and Milk lateral bisecting the site into 3 sections with irregular shapes High-capacity roadways adjacent the site, lacking pedestrian networks UDC changes since prior approval increased open space & parking requirements Opportunities and Constraints DEVCO | DEVCOUS.COM 10Centrepoint WayUstick Road Eagle RoadProject Overview Centrepoint Apartments Parking requirements have increased since current 215-unit approval, proposed project includes more parking spaces per unit. Property Size:9.99 acres Total Units:279 units Unit Breakdown:139 1-bed (50%) 105 2-bed (38%) 35 3-bed (12%) Proposed Density:27.9 du/acre Parking Provided:552 spaces (1.97 per unit) 291 covered DEVCO | DEVCOUS.COM 11 Benefits of Proposed Site Plan Provides affordable 3-bedroom family units within an area greatly needing it and gives them closest access to amenity areas Traffic calming to ensure safe pedestrian crossings Positions largest buildings and units away from neighboring residential on the south and west property line Provides more parking per unit than the previous project and meets all parking requirements on site without off-site shared parking agreements with commercial Before You Tonight DA Modification & CUP Modification •Modify conceptual plan for residential uses o Change from approved 215-unit mixed use development with studios, 1 and 2 bedroom apartments to 279-unit multifamily affordable apartment development with 1, 2, and 3 bedroom apartments (64 additional units with 110 additional parking stalls) o Change from 2 and 3 story buildings to maximum building height of 45-feet which is within range of a typical 3 story building •No change to existing commercial uses •Change language in DA to reflect proposed changes Alternative Compliance Requests •Removal of landscaping islands under covered parking (solar carports) •8,940 sf reduction of qualified Open Space DEVCO | DEVCOUS.COM 13Centrepoint WayUstick Road Eagle RoadAlternative Compliance #1 Removal of landscape islands under covered parking (solar carports) Green infrastructure solar carports for covered parking and requests removal of landscape islands in parking lots only where carports are proposed. Preserves solar panel efficiency in capturing daylight (no interference from tree canopy growth), reduce maintenance requirements: removal of leaf debris and plant/tree replacement. Alternative Compliance #1 Removal of landscape islands under covered parking (solar carports) Alternative relief for removal of parking islands under covered parking should be granted as the proposed solar carports will provide equal or superior benefit to the community by: Providing relief from the visual and heat island effect of asphalt in parking lots (~18 degrees cooler) Contributing to traffic calming in parking lots, improving pedestrian safety Reducing utility cost for residents Alternative Compliance #2 Open Space Alternative relief for 8,940 sf reduction of qualified open space should be granted because explicit compliance is not feasible as the site is irregularly shaped and the site plan will provide equal or superior benefit to the community as: Project has a unique targeted demographic of an affordable housing community. Total OS 3.3 AC / 144,843 SF + amenities with 43,535 SF non-qualifying open space and multi-use pedestrian paths Proposal DOUBLES the required amenities with additional private open space. Centrepoint WayUstick Road Eagle RoadRequired OS:2.6 AC / 113,266 SF Provided Qualified OS:2.4 AC / 104,345 SF Extra Non-Qualified OS:0.92 AC / 40,498 SF Total OS Proposed:3.3 AC / 144,843 SF + Extra Amenities Alternative Compliance #2 Open Space Qualified OS Non- Qualified OS DEVCO | DEVCOUS.COM 17Centrepoint WayUstick Road Eagle RoadAlternative Compliance #2 Open Space CLUBHOUSE GRASSY AREA, PLAY STRUCTURE, COURTYARD/ ACTIVITY LAWN SPORTS COURT & DOG PARK Required Amenities:4 Provided Amenities:9 Providing DOUBLE the required amenities while meeting affordable housing goals ACTIVITY LAWN DEVCO | DEVCOUS.COM 18 QUALITY OF LIFE · Clubhouse with community space and leasing office · Fitness Facilities in Clubhouse · Dog Park with Waste Station OPEN SPACE · Large Central Common Grassy Area > 9,000 SF · Add. Large Common Grassy Area > 8,000 SF · Shaded Plaza / Courtyard with Activity Lawn · Shaded Picnic areas with BBQ grills tables, benches, and landscaping RECREATION · Perimeter Walking Trail · Children's Play Structure · Sports Court MULTI -MODAL AMENITIES · Bicycle Parking with Bicycle Repair Station On Site Amenities DEVCO | DEVCOUS.COM 19 Building Height Comparison All proposed buildings are under 45-feet in height with flat roofs, within the same height range as typical 3-story buildings previously approved for the center of the project. The Regency at River Valley & Village Apartments in the surrounding area average four stories in height. DEVCO | DEVCOUS.COM 20 Elevations Buildings comply with City of Meridian Architectural Standards for residential buildings; however, as with the currently approved building design, the proposed building design includes a reduced articulation of the building façade and no masonry along the base of the buildings. DEVCO | DEVCOUS.COM 21 195’ 45’176’147’ 200’ DEVCO | DEVCOUS.COM 22 Neighborhood Cross Sections Revisions Along The Way •Initial proposal of 300 units has been reduced by 21 units •Added 118 parking stalls on site •Removed alternative compliance request for reduced balcony SF •Increased number of amenities and expanded open space,reducing deficit from 27,552 SF to 8,940 SF •Improved multi-use pathway landscaping •Reduced building heights from pitched roofs to 45’ flat roofs •Reduced number of driveways on Cajun & Centrepoint Way, adding safe pedestrian connections Staff Report Clarifications •DA Condition D and Staff Condition 1.1D update below, working with ITD to resolve. •Latest Landscape Plans submitted on 8/29/2024 •Update Staff Condition 2.17 The Director has approved the Alternative Compliance Request to reduce the open space requirement by 8,940 square feet and continue to work with City staff to reorient the parking and open space adjacent to Ustick Rd. with the provisions that the applicant remove the parking stalls parallel on the north property boundary and increase the street landscape buffer to thirty-five (35) feet on the northwest property line adjacent to Ustick Road. DEVCO | DEVCOUS.COM 25 DA Modification & CUP Modification –279 affordable residential units –Maximum building height of 45-fe et Alternative Compliance Requests –4 additional amenities and 40,498 SF nonqualifying Open Space in exchange for qualifying Open Space reduction of 8,940 SF –Removal of parking lot landscaping under covered parking (solar carports) Recommendation of Approval for: Findings & Conclusions Applicant Team MELANIE DAVIES Devco Residential Group Montana NICOLETTE WOMACK, AICP Kimley-Horn Idaho BRANDON MCDOUGALD, P.E., LEED AP Kimley-Horn Idaho STEPHANIE HAYWARD, AIA, NCARB, LEED GA Moody Nolan, Inc. Ohio CHASE HUBER Devco Residential Group Washington CHRISTIAN JOOSSE, AIA, NCARB, FITWEL Moody Nolan, Inc. Ohio DEVCO | DEVCOUS.COM 27 DEVCO | DEVCOUS.COM 28 Self-Parking Area of Site Self-Parking (incl. guests) Provided Parking (incl. guests) Parking per Unit (incl. guests) Middle*423.5 (211 covered)406 (249 covered)1.92 (1.18 covered) East 83 (44 covered)92 (17 covered)2.11 (1 covered) West 46 (24 covered)54 (25 covered)2.25 (1.04 covered) *City parking requirements include 3 stalls for each 3 bedroom unit and additional guest parking (35 3-bedroom units require 108 parking stalls). In most instances, 3 bedroom units will be rented to family tenants with only 1 or 2 drivers in the household. Taking this into consideration, it could be argued that the middle section also "self-parks". DEVCO | DEVCOUS.COM 29 Building A DEVCO | DEVCOUS.COM 30 Building B1/B2 DEVCO | DEVCOUS.COM 31 With Community Center Building B1/B2 DEVCO | DEVCOUS.COM 32 Building C DEVCO | DEVCOUS.COM 33 Building D DEVCO | DEVCOUS.COM 34 Nearby Parks SITE DEVCO | DEVCOUS.COM 35 3100 N Centrepoint Way Centrepoint Way DEVCO | DEVCOUS.COM 36 Future Land Use Map SITE MU-RG - Mix of employment, retail and residential, with residential densities between 6-40 units per acre DEVCO | DEVCOUS.COM 37 Zoning Map SITE DEVCO | DEVCOUS.COM 38 4 STORIES 4 STORIES C E IDIAN�-- Public Presentation(s) to 0 0/6� 0�/Eve 'rq All Good evening Members of the Meridian City Council , If it pleases the council , I would like to have these notes read into the record and submitted to the council for consideration regarding the proposal for Centrepoint Apartments on the SW corner of Eagle Road and Ustick Road . City of Meridian , Ada County, Idaho . Personal: My name is Joseph Lemay, I am the owner of 2989 N . Centrepoint Way, City of Meridian , Ada County Idaho . My home is in very close proximity to the proposed development property. I thereby have reason to have my opinions and concerns voiced . Unfortunately, I cannot attend this meeting in person . My concerns with this proposed development are as follows . 1 - Building Height It is my understanding that the city' s regulations limit building heights in this area to three stories . However, the proposed development plans include buildings with four stories . In addition to the height of the buildings , the barracks look is not complementary to anything around the area , and against the intent of the original Bienville plat planning . This alone should warrant a denial of the application . 2 = Traffic Limited access points for the proposed development will direct traffic through Jackson Square, a small subdivision , which is mainly a dead - end area . Considering Eagle Road is the county Is most frequented road and Ustick is its longest continuous road , traffic congestion in this region is already significant . With nearly300 units planned for the new development , it will introduce approximately 400 — 500 additional vehicles to this area , exacerbating the current strain on road access and the traffic signals at the intersection of Eagle Road and Ustick Road , alongside the Ustick and Centrepoint signal . This additional traffic will further intensify congestion and gridlock, leading to increased traffic and compound the existing problems with vehicles speeding through Jackson Square attempting to avoid said traffic . 3 — Type of Units As a home owner, I am not against development of the property, just against the current proposal . This type of development belongs away from small residential enclaves , and more around larger commercial developments . The proposed development of Centrepoint Apartments being some 300 units of ` affordable housing ' provides no buffer to the Jackson Square Community. The traffic and lack of ingress and egress as well as the dead end nature of the streets in Jackson Square unfortunately lend themselves well to nefarious activities and individuals which generally accompany ` affordable housing ' developments . This is the type of activity which we are all trying to avoid . Further changes requested In reading through the application , the developer is asking for further changes away from the City standards . At what point do the standards even have a place if the developer can continually request modifications, and mostly in the negative of what is required ? Here again , this type of development does not belong along a major corridor, nor blocking out a small enclave subdivision . Community Support Submittals In reading the letters of support by St . Alphonsos Hospital and St . Lukes Hospital, I can only surmise that these letters of support were either coerced or bought . I cannot in my right mind believe that either of these institutions have many, if any wage earners that make only $ 35 . 000 - $75 , 000 which is the 30% — 70% of median income for Meridian as referenced which lands somewhere between $ 93 , 000 — $ 120 , 000 depending on the source . Thereby negating their argument in support of ` affordable ' or ` worker ' housing . Even the West Ada School District has concerns with this development ! Their assessment of children impacting the local schools leans toward not approving this development . I realize they only asked for walking paths , and sidewalks , which again will directly impact Jackson Square , but with other planned development in the surrounding area , this will quickly over run the ability of the schools to accommodate the additional students . There is not room around this area for additional schools , so this development should be placed in a more commercial location , or a location where additional schools can be built to support continued growth in our community. In Closing I support development , but not like this . I urge the Council to reject the current application , and I I4 would askthe owners/developers to considerthis location better suited for commercial use such as restaurants and retail outlets . Commercial development would be a more destination type use, and thereby would reduce the concerns I 've mentioned above . Best Regards — os emay Joseph Lemay 2989 N . Centrepoint Way Meridian , Idaho 83646