Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-10-17 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Thursday, October 17, 2024 at 6:00 PM MINUTES ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE PRESENT Commissioner Brian Garrett Commissioner Andrew Seal Commissioner Matthew Sandoval Commissioner Jared Smith Chairperson Maria Lorcher ABSENT Commissioner Patrick Grace Commissioner Sam Rust ADOPTION OF AGENDA Adopted CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\] Approved Motion to approve made by Commissioner Smith, Seconded by Commissioner Sandoval. Voting Yea: Commissioner Garrett, Commissioner Sandoval, Commissioner Smith, Chairperson Lorcher 1. Approve Minutes of the October 3, 2024 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 2. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Cedar Springs Animal Care Facility, by Sandee Transtrum, Biltmore Co., located at 4759 N. Summit Way 3. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Meridian Oz (MCU-2024-0002) by Pivot North Design, located at 1475 E. Franklin Rd. 4. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Ziggi's Coffee (H-2024-0035) by KM Engineering, located at 4801 S. Tavistock Ave. ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\] ACTION ITEMS 5. Public Hearing for Pine 43 West (H-2024-0038) by CSHQA, located at SW Corner of N. Webb Ave. and E. Fairview Ave. Continued to November 7, 2024 Application Requires Continuance A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a drive-through establishment within 300' of a residential use. Motion to continue to November 7, 2024 made by Commissioner Smith, Seconded by Commissioner Seal. Voting Yea: Commissioner Garrett, Commissioner Seal, Commissioner Sandoval, Commissioner Smith, Chairperson Lorcher 6. Public Hearing for Treasure Valley Athletic Center (MCU-2024-0003) by Erik Hagen Architecture, located at 1250 & 1251 E. Piper Ct. Recommend Approval to City Council Application Materials: https://bit.ly/MCU-2024-0003 A. Request: Modified Conditional Use Permit to modify the existing Conditional Use Permit (CUP-03-056 Meridian Soccer Center) to expand the indoor recreation facility use in the I-L zoning district. Motion to recommend approval to council made by Commissioner Smith, Seconded by Commissioner Sandoval. Voting Yea: Commissioner Garrett, Commissioner Seal, Commissioner Sandoval, Commissioner Smith, Chairperson Lorcher 7. Public Hearing for Treasure Valley Athletic Center (H-2024-0033) by Erik Hagen Architecture, located at 1250 & 1251 E. Piper Ct. Recommend Approval to City Council Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2024-0033 A. Request: Modified Development Agreement to modify the existing development agreement for Medimont Subdivision (Inst. #97072405) to enter into a new agreement for the subject property and remove the requirement for a buffer to adjacent residential land uses and modify dimensional standards and any other applicable provisions. Motion to recommend approval to council made by Commissioner Smith, Seconded by Commissioner Sandoval. Voting Yea: Commissioner Garrett, Commissioner Seal, Commissioner Sandoval, Commissioner Smith, Chairperson Lorcher 8. Public Hearing for Skyranch (H-2024-0022) by Laren Bailey, Conger Group, located at in the S1/2 of the SW1/4 of Section 31, Township 3N, Range 1E Recommend Denial to City Council Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2024-0022 A. Request: Annexation of 20.039 acres from RUT in Ada County to the R-15 zoning district. B. Request: Rezone of 24.53 acres of land from R-4 to R-15 zoning district. C. Request: Modified Development Agreement to create a new development agreement for the construction of the proposed single-family residential development. D. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 285 (284 new and 1 existing) and 36 commons lots on 43.82 acres in the proposed R-15 zoning district. Motion to recommend denial to Council made by Commissioner Smith, Seconded by Commissioner Seal. Voting Yea: Commissioner Seal, Commissioner Sandoval, Commissioner Smith, Chairperson Lorcher Voting Nay: Commissioner Garrett 9. Public Hearing for Touchmark Office Building A (H-2024-0045) by Conger Group, located at 3526 E. Louise Dr. Approved Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2024-0045 A. Request: Conditional Use Permit to construct an office building on 0.504 acre(s) in the L-O zoning district. Motion to approve made by Commissioner Sandoval, Seconded by Commissioner Seal. Voting Yea: Commissioner Garrett, Commissioner Seal, Commissioner Sandoval, Commissioner Smith, Chairperson Lorcher 10. Public Hearing for Touchmark Office Building B (H-2024-0046) by Conger Group, located at 3512 E. Louise Dr. Approved Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2024-0046 A. Request: Conditional Use Permit to construct an office building on 0.514 acre(s) in the L-O zoning district. Motion to approve made by Commissioner Sandoval, Seconded by Commissioner Seal. Voting Yea: Commissioner Garrett, Commissioner Seal, Commissioner Sandoval, Commissioner Smith, Chairperson Lorcher 11. Public Hearing for McDonalds at Firenze Plaza (H-2024-0044) by Kimley Horn, located at 3058 Amity Rd Approved Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2024-0044 A. Request: Conditional Use Permit to construct and operate a 4,507 sq. ft. drive-through establishment and restaurant in the C-C zoning district. Motion to approve made by Chairperson Lorcher, Seconded by Commissioner Smith. Voting Yea: Commissioner Garrett, Commissioner Seal, Commissioner Sandoval, Commissioner Smith, Chairperson Lorcher ADJOURNMENT 8:19 PM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To view upcoming Public Hearing Notices, visit https://apps.meridiancity.org/phnotices --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting October 17, 2024. Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of October 17, 2024, was called to order at 6:01 p.m. by Chairman Maria Lorcher. Members Present: Commissioner Maria Lorcher, Commissioner Andrew Seal, Commissioner Jared Smith, Commissioner Brian Garrett and Commissioner Matthew Sandoval. Members Absent: Commissioner Patrick Grace and Commissioner Sam Rust. Others Present: Tina Lomeli, Kurt Starman, Bill Parsons, Sonya Allen, Linda Ritter, Nick Napoli and Dean Willis. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE _X Brian Garrett X Andrew Seal _X Matthew Sandoval Patrick Grace Sam Rust X Jared Smith X Maria Lorcher - Chairman Lorcher: Okay. Good evening. Welcome to the Planning and Zoning meeting for October 17th, 2024. At this time I would like to call the meeting to order. The Commissioners who are present for this meeting are here at City Hall and I don't think we have anybody on Zoom tonight. 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. 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 it on the streaming -- streaming on our city's YouTube channel. You can access it at meridiancity.org/live. With that let's begin with roll call. Madam Clerk. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Lorcher: Okay. The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. There are no changes to tonight's agenda, but please keep in mind that Item No. 5 Pine 43 West will be open for the sole purpose of continuance. So, if there is anybody here tonight to testify for that application we will not be taking public testimony for this evening. Could I get a motion to adopt tonight's agenda. Seal: So moved. Smith: Second. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 17,2024 Page 2 of 44 Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] 1. Approve Minutes of the October 3, 2024 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 2. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Cedar Springs Animal Care Facility, by Sandee Transtrum, Biltmore Co., located at 4759 N. Summit Way 3. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Meridian Oz (MCU-2024- 0002) by Pivot North Design, located at 1475 E. Franklin Rd. 4. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Ziggi's Coffee (H-2024-0035) by KM Engineering, located at 4801 S. Tavistock Ave. Lorcher: The Consent Agenda. The next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and we have several items on it. To approve the minutes from October 3rd, Planning and Zoning. Facts, Findings and Conclusions of Law for Cedar Springs Animal Care Facility. Meridian OC Subdivision and Ziggy's Coffee. Could I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda as presented? Smith: So moved. Seal: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to adopt the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] Lorcher: At the time I would like to briefly 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 -- and respond to staff's 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 public testimony. The clerk will call the names individually of those who have signed up on our website or in advance to testify. You may come to the microphones in Chambers or you will be unmuted in Zoom. Please Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 17,2024 Page 3 of 44 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 the screen and our clerk will help run the presentation. If you have established that you are speaking on behalf of HOA or another larger group where others from your group have allowed you to speak on your behalf, you will have up to ten minutes. After all those who have signed up in advance have spoken we will invite anyone else in Chambers or on Zoom to testify. If you wish to speak on a topic you may come forward or on Zoom press the raise hand button or if you are only 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 the Commission does -- and the Commission does not have any questions for you, you will return to your seat in Chambers or be muted on Zoom and 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. When the applicant is finished responding to questions and concerns we will close the public hearing and the Commissioners will have an opportunity to discuss and hopefully make a final decision or recommendation to City Council as needed. ACTION ITEMS 5. Public Hearing for Pine 43 West (H-2024-0038) by CSHQA, located at SW Corner of N. Webb Ave. and E. Fairview Ave. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a drive-through establishment within 300' of a residential use. Lorcher: So, to start today's applications I would like to open the public hearing for H- 2024-0038, Pine 43 West, for the sole purpose of a continuance. Madam Clerk, what dates do we have available? Lomeli: Madam Chair, November 7th. Lorcher: May I get a motion to continue the application for November 7th? Smith: So moved. Seal: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to continue Pine 43 West for a conditional use permit for November 7th. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. F Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 17,2024 Page 4 of 44 6. Public Hearing for Treasure Valley Athletic Center (MCU-2024-0003) by Erik Hagen Architecture, located at 1250 & 1251 E. Piper Ct. A. Request: Modified Conditional Use Permit to modify the existing Conditional Use Permit (CUP-03-056 Meridian Soccer Center) to expand the indoor recreation facility use in the I-L zoning district. 7. Public Hearing for Treasure Valley Athletic Center (H-2024-0033) by Erik Hagen Architecture, located at 1250 & 1251 E. Piper Ct. A. Request: Modified Development Agreement to modify the existing development agreement for Medimont Subdivision (Inst. #97072405) to enter into a new agreement for the subject property and remove the requirement for a buffer to adjacent residential land uses and modify dimensional standards and any other applicable provisions. Lorcher: So, tonight we are actually going to do something a little bit different in regard to the Treasure Valley Athletic Center. They have two applications, Item No. 0003 and 0033, and we are going to do both of those together, because I believe all of the information pertains to both at the same time. So, we will begin with the staff report for Treasure Valley Athletic Center. Allen: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. The applications before you tonight are a request for a conditional use permit modification and a development agreement modification. This site consists of 2.12 acres of land. It's zoned I-L, light industrial, and is located at 1251 and the southern portion of 1250 East Piper Court, south of East Franklin Road and West of South Locust Grove Road. This property was annexed back in 1997 as part of the larger Medimont Subdivision with the requirement of a development agreement. A conditional use permit was later approved in 2003 for an indoor soccer recreation facility on the subject property in the I-L zoning district. A property boundary adjustment application was recently tentatively approved between the subject property and the abutting property to the north to shift the shared property line an additional 75 feet to the north to accommodate the proposed expansion. That is as shown on the record of survey before you there. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is general industrial. The development agreement modification request is as shown. The applicant is proposing a modification to the existing development agreement to enter into a new agreement for the subject property. The following modifications are proposed to the existing DA provisions. Removal of provision number 4-E which requires a 20 foot wide landscape buffer easement to be provided adjacent to residential uses. At the time the development agreement was adopted the abutting property to the west was zoned R-40 and was planned to develop with residential uses. Subsequently the property was rezoned to C-G and developed with a mix of commercial and office nonresidential uses. Staff agrees with excluding this provision from the new agreement as there is no longer a need for the buffer. The next modification is to the special setback requirements in provision number 4-P to Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 17,2024 Page 5 of 44 reduce the minimum rear yard setback from 20 feet to ten feet as there is no longer a need for a buffer to residential uses. The ten foot buffer will ensure structures don't encroach in the irrigation pipe easement depicted on the plat. Staff recommends the minimum side yard building setback of five feet per story is also removed, because it's not required in the I-L district. All other setbacks shall be required as noted in the Unified Development Code. And, lastly, removal of provision 4-S pertaining to maximum lot coverage, which limits the building footprint to no more than 50 percent of the building lot. Staff agrees with excluding this provision from the new agreement as current code has no restriction on lot coverage. Staff has reviewed all other provisions in the development agreement and does not recommend any other provisions are carried over into the new development agreement. Staff recommends as a provision of the DA that future development generally complies with the site and the landscape plan and conceptual elevations submitted with the subject application and complies with the conditions contained herein. For the conditional use permit modification application a conditional use permit was approved in 2003, as I mentioned earlier, for an indoor soccer field with accessory uses in the I-L zoning district. A modification of the conditional use permit is proposed to expand the use to include a new 14,700 square foot building to the north of the existing building, which will contain sand courts for beach volleyball, with a weight and training room and eight additional parking spaces on the east side of the building. No changes are proposed to the existing building or the site. So, this is the existing site plan that was approved with the conditional use permit on the left and the proposed site plan on the right. The existing building is here at the south end of the site, if you can see my cursor. All of this parking area is existing. This is the new building proposed and the new parking area. The applicant estimates that on a typical day and evening there will be approximately 30 patrons and two employees within the primary building, the south end of the site, and 20 patrons and two employees in the secondary building. The primary users of the facility will be people of all ages and the facility will be used from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Saturday and Sunday. The heaviest periods of use for the facility are anticipated to be evenings and weekends. Tournaments are held in the existing building, but will not be held in the new building. Off-street parking is required at a minimum of one space for every 2,000 square feet of gross floor area. Based on 37,700 square feet -- that's for the existing and the proposed building -- a minimum of 19 spaces are required for the overall site. A total of 65 spaces are proposed at a ratio of one per 580 square feet, exceeding the minimum standard by 46 spaces. The applicant is in the process of completing a shared access and parking easement agreement with the abutting property to the north, Dutchman Motorsports. This will allow cross-access between properties and provide more parking for the proposed use if needed during the heaviest periods of use in the evenings and weekends. Conceptual building elevations were submitted as shown for the proposed single story building. Building materials consist of vertical and horizontal metal panels, horizontal corrugated metal panels, fiber cement panel accents and glazing with metal standing seam roof. The final design is required to be consistent with the nonresidential design standards for the I-L zoning district listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. Written testimony has been received from Eric Hagen, the applicant's representative. He is in agreement with the provisions in the staff report. No other written testimony has been Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 17,2024 Page 6 of 44 received. The staff is recommending approval per the provisions in the staff report. Staff will stand for any questions. The applicant is here to present tonight. Lorcher: Thank you. Would the applicant like to come forward? Hi. Hagen: Hi. Lorcher: If you can state your name and address for the record. Hagen: Eric Hagen. 280 North 8th Street, No. 204, Boise, Idaho. Lorcher: Thank you. Hagen: Good evening, Madam Chair and fellow Commissioners. The client -- or the owner of the property is currently using the facility for volleyball -- indoor volleyball. There is a need in the valley for indoor beach volleyball. As you know, it gets cold in the winter and most people don't want to be on the beach. So, he's been wanting to build this facility and expand his facility for quite some time and the opportunity came up between him and his neighbor to the north to kind of do a trade and purchase the property. So, we have been working along those lines and trying to fit in three -- three beach volleyball sized courts within a pre-engineered metal building. The metal building would match in style to the existing building, creating a cohesiveness to the whole project and, then, we will be working through the design view process to fine tune the front facade, creating some undulation and staying within the -- the design guidelines for Meridian. Other than that I feel that Ms. Allen did an excellent job of summarizing the project. I don't really have anything else to add to that, but I will stand for questions. Lorcher: Commissioners, do we have any questions for the applicant at this time? Thank you very much. Hagen: Thank you. Lorcher: Madam Clerk, do we have anyone to testify? Lomeli: Madam Chair, no one has signed up. Lorcher: So, no one has signed up. Did you want to add anything else or are you good? All right. May I have a motion to close the public hearing? Smith: So moved. Seal: Second. Lorcher: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on both applications, 0003 and 0033. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? All right. Motion carries. Flo Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 17,2024 Page 7 of 44 MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Lorcher: Kurt, I do have a quick question in regards to this. We are voting on a DA modification and a conditional use permit modification. Is this body the deciding factor or is the DA modification going to City Council? Starman: Thank you, Madam Chair. Typically this body is the decision maker for conditional use permits, but in this instance our code is structured with the conditional use permit is being heard in concert with another application, in this case a modified development agreement. You are just a recommending body and the Council will make the final decision on both applications, both the conditional use permit and the DA modification. So, you will be recommending to the Council on both items. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you very much. I went by here for the first time the other day. I didn't even know where Piper Street was, so that was kind of cool. Not a volleyball player, so I guess it's not in my purview, but there is plenty of space out there. That parcel is big enough to be able to accommodate your new building. There was plenty of parking as well and if it adds an opportunity for more people to get out and be active I support this project. Seal: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Seal. Seal: Just two quick questions. On the Dutchman Motorsports, is that a regular kind of 9:00 to 5:00, 8:00 to 5:00 type business? Do we know? Allen: Commission, yes, that's what I understand. Seal: Okay. And, then, on the -- I mean just from the literal picture that we have in front of us it looks like there is a lot of trees are going to be taken out and tree mitigation part of this application, that's all been taken care of? Allen: With the conditions of approval. Seal: Okay. Perfect. Thank you. Nothing further. Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Mr. Smith. Smith: After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Nos. MCU-2024-0003 and H-2024-0033 as presented in the staff report. Sandoval: Second. 11 1 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 17,2024 Page 8 of 44 Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to approve two applications for Treasure Valley Athletic Center. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. 8. Public Hearing for Skyranch (H-2024-0022) by Laren Bailey, Conger Group, located at in the S1/2 of the SW1/4 of Section 31, Township 3N, Range 1 E A. Request: Annexation of 20.039 acres from RUT in Ada County to the R-15 zoning district. B. Request: Rezone of 24.53 acres of land from R-4 to R-15 zoning district. C. Request: Modified Development Agreement to create a new development agreement for the construction of the proposed single-family residential development. D. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 285 (284 new and 1 existing) and 36 commons lots on 43.82 acres in the proposed R- 15 zoning district. Lorcher: Okay. The next application we have on the agenda is Skyranch Subdivision for annexation, rezone, modified development agreement and a preliminary plat. We will begin with the staff report. Ritter: Thank you. Good evening, Commissioners. So, the applicant is requesting annexation of 20.039 acres of land with R-15 zoning. The rezoning of 24.53 acres of land from R-4 to R-15, modification of an existing development agreement to create a new one to develop -- to develop the proposed single family residential development and a preliminary plat consistent of 285 building lots -- that's 284 new and one existing, 28 common lots, six common drives on 43.82 acres of land, zoned R-15. These are the exhibits for the annexation and rezone. So, in 2015 the city, at the request and consent of the property owners, annexed the property, approximately 1,322 acres of land, with the R-4, R-8, R-15 and C-G zoning districts. It was envisioned that some of the subject properties will seek rezoning consistent with the future land use map designations in the future. At the time no development was proposed with the subject annexation request and, therefore, a vast majority of the property was proposed to be annexed as R-4. All of the subject property owners signed a development agreement that was executed upon approval. Within the DA is a requirement that any proposed development plan be reviewed and approved as an amendment to the executed development agreement. Upon development, redevelopment of all these properties in the future, adherence to the characteristics of their prospective land use designation described above will be required. So, the annexation of these properties -- it was basically a placeholder until F12 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 17,2024 Page 9 of 44 the properties came in for development. So, this is a portion that has been requested for annexation. This is a portion of the project that is requesting a rezone that is currently R-4 and this is the property boundary. The project boundary. So, access to this development -- it's proposed from East Lake Hazel Road. Per the Idaho Transportation Department no direct access to a state highway is approved. Due to the proximity of this development to a state highway, ITD is requesting a traffic impact study for the proposed development. Access is also proposed from the east side of the property via the future collector road. Again, as the property is within close proximity to State Highway 69, the applicant will be required to provide noise abatement. Noise abatement could include, but not limited to, a berm or a berm and a wall combination to help reduce traffic noise and, then, staff is also concerned that the entrance -- the length of the entrance off of East Lake Hazel Road is short and the potential for traffic to back up when trying to access the site. And this is the entrance off of East Lake Hazel Road. So, this is the preliminary plat that they are proposing. They have six phasing plans with this to develop this. Landscaping meets the requirement of the UDC. It requires 35 -- 35 foot wide buffer along entry corridors, North Meridian Road, and 25 foot along arterial roads Lake Hazel and a 20 foot wide buffer along all collector streets. They exceed the open space requirements. It is required for them to have -- they are at 17.1 percent, which we require 15 percent. They exceed the amenity points requirement. We required nine for the amount of property that they have and they provided 30. These are the amenities that they are proposing for their preliminary plat. They also provided some conceptual building elevations. The applicant states that the homes in Skyranch will include -- will be a mix of different product type, two story and single story detached single family homes. So, the buildings will need to be designed with elevations that create interest through the use of broken plane windows and fenestration and produce a rhythm of materials and patterns. Design review is not required for single family detached structures, however, because rear and sides of the home facing East Lake Hazel Road will be highly visible, staff recommends a DA provision requiring elevations -- that those elevation incorporate articulation through change of two or more the following modulations. Projections, recess setbacks, pop out bay, abandoned porches, balconies, material types and other 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. Design review for single family attached and townhomes will be required to meet the city's architectural standards. If a subdivision is put here staff is asking that they put a mix of different housing types, like with townhomes and single family attached within the development. So, the Rawson Lateral resides on a portion of the property and the applicant is proposing to keep it open. The applicant has also provided a 50 foot ingress-egress easement to provide a future bridge crossing to connect the parcels to the south. Again with this current development agreement that they have there was a provision in the development agreement that said if a rezoning application is submitted in the future the city comprehensive plan and future land map designations for the subject property -- we will look at that and determine if the -- the rezone that they are requesting is appropriate. For the area that they are asking to rezone is within the mixed-use regional area. So, the applicant's current proposal has limited to single family residential development occupying the majority of the mixed-use designation area and F13] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 17,2024 Page 10 of 44 with no internal vehicle or connectivity between the two areas, which does not align with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan for this area. By focusing solely on an inward facing single family development the proposal fails to meet the goal of creating a mixed- use environment that would foster a vibrant self-sustaining community with neighborhood supportive uses, employment or retail options nearby. This lack of compliance with the Comprehensive Plan could raise concerns about whether development will contribute to traffic issues, support a balanced community, or meet long-term growth objectives. So, for the mixed-use development there is a max of 30 percent of residential units that -- residential that is allowed and the rest of it is supposed to be commercial. So, the applicant stated that their project will encompass 11 and a half percent of the 219 acres of mixed-use parcels. The parcel has no access to South Meridian Road. It's limited due to -- limited due to the Rawson Canal and the applicant is the person that -- proposing that the property to the south will be developed as commercial and make up the development -- which will make up the development for the mix -- make up the whole of the mixed-use development. But, again, for the mixed- use development to be consistent with the plan they need to demonstrate the following: Functional integration. Development must show that even undeveloped parts of the area can be functionally integrated, either immediately or conceptually. The project should prove that all planned components can work together cohesively. Local connectivity is required to limit local trip impacts to the regional network both for traditional single family homes and mixed-use areas. So, the current proposal lacks such connectivity and is located near a major regional intersection planned for expansion to seven lanes with additional access restrictions. Although the developer claims the proposal integrates with the surrounding commercial areas, no conceptual plans have been provided to support this claim. It is also supposed to have outward facing design. The development should not be insular to turn its back on the neighboring properties or streets. Instead, it should engage with the surrounding -- surroundings, promote an interaction in adjacent areas and development. The planned development does not set up or support any future physical -- visual connectivity with the remainder of the mixed-use area. It also has to have physical integration and shared features. There should be a tangible connection between the different parts of the development, such as shared amenity -- amenities, walkways or other spaces. This physical integration supports local connectivity making the area feel cohesive and accessible. It should support -- support for local services. Development must intentionally create opportunities for local services such as -- as office, gyms, retail, employment or public uses. The current single use proposal fails to support this objective as it does not include local services within the development. Design integration. There should be visual corridors or clear lines of sight connecting points of interest throughout the development. This creates a sense of openness, visual connectivity, making it easier for residents and visitors to navigate the space. The proposed development, however, is essentially isolated and does not provide connections to the property to the south. It is presented as a single use development without the commercial component required by the Comprehensive Plan. It should have purposeful open space. Open space should not be incidental, but purposely designed to enhance connectivity and functional integration. They should serve as common areas that bring people together and provide opportunities for interaction. The 14 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 17,2024 Page 11 of 44 open space provided is solely for the purpose of the single family resident and is not designed to integrate. The open space was not designed with integration with commercial -- to integrate with commercial. It should also provide pedestrian connectivity. Pedestrian pathways and connectivity must be prioritized. Mixed-use areas should encourage walkability, allow residents to move easily between home, services and public spaces without relying on vehicles. Pedestrian connectivity is crucial in mixed-use development to encourage walkability. The absence of such connectivity and the proposal would force residents to walk along busy arterial roads to reach services and public spaces or depends on vehicles to access them. The UDC requires pedestrians connections between residential and commercial areas. limited reliance on arterial roads -- vehicle connectivity should be designed so that local traffic does not depend entirely on material roads. Instead development should incorporate an internal street system that distribute traffic more efficiently -- effectively within the area. So, this proposal lacks connectivity to commercial areas without requiring residents to walk along or cross over a major arterial effectively isolating the development as a single use area. So, the applicant indicates that the residential uses comprise between ten and 30 percent of the development area, which gross densities range from six to 40 units per acre within the residential portion. The proposed Skyranch neighborhood in the mixed-use area would occupy again 11 percent of the two point -- the 219 acres providing a density of 6.5 units per acre, aligning with the comprehensive -- Comprehensive Plan's vision. However, the applicant did not account for the Comprehensive Plan's requirement that mixed-use areas bisected by an arterial or highway are considered separate independent areas for use and design integration and will be evaluated as such. As a result the applicant's approach to using their property as a single use area does not align with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan for mixed- use development. To comply with the Comprehensive Plan the applicant needs to redesign the proposal and incorporate a mix of housing types, local services. It could be office, daycares and add public amenities, parks, plazas within the 24 acres of the mixed-use regional area. This would -- this would not only align with the future land use map destination, but also enhance the functionality and integration of the development within the surrounding area and, then, staff also recommends that the applicant provide a mix of dwelling types within the residential area, such as single family attached or townhomes within Block 8, Lots 2 through 17 and 19 through 34 and Block 9, Lots 2 through 17 and Lots 19 through 34 of the development as allowed by the Comprehensive Plan within the R-15 zoning district. So, the Comprehensive Plan policy to 01.01 C encourages the applicant to maintain a range of residential houses -- residential land use designation that allows diverse lot sizes, housing types and density. To support this policy again the staff recommends that the applicant provide additional housing options in the development. So, staff finds that while the proposed lots comply with the dimensional standards for the R-15 zoning district, they do not meet the intent of the mixed-use development -- mixed-use design due to the single use nature proposal and we do have some block lengths within the residential development that exceed the 750 foot requirement that will necessitate a waiver from the Council. Additionally, the existing house that is proposed to remain as part of the proposed development abuts two streets, which is prohibited by the UDC. Further the lots to the north do not transition to align with the largest estate style lots that are zoned RUT 15 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 17,2024 Page 12 of 44 within Ada county. Therefore, the applicant need to revise their plat map to address the -- identify issues and demonstrate the necessary connections. Again these are the items that I went over for a mixed-use. This is where it talks about when it is bisected by an arterial that is reviewed independently. So, based on the application that came before us staff is recommending denial, because the current proposal does not in line with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal is limited to single family residential development occupying the majority of the mixed-use designation area with no internal vehicle pedestrian connectivity between the areas, which by focusing solely on the inward facing single family home development the proposal fails to meet the goal of creating a mixed-use environment that would foster a vibrant, self-sustaining community with neighborhood supportive uses, employment and/or retail options nearby. The lack of this compliance with the Comprehensive Plan could raise concerns about whether development again contributes traffic issues, support the balance of the community or meet long-term growth objectives and as is application is -- the applicant is requesting an annexation and rezone, the Comprehensive Plan is the appropriate tool to analyze this proposal. If the applicant wants to develop the property as proposed, the applicant has the option of continuing the hearing and applying for a Comprehensive Plan map amendment before the December 15th deadline. So, at this point I will stand for any questions that the Commission may have. Lorcher: Would the applicant like to come forward? Clark: Hi, everybody. Lorcher: Good evening. Clark: Hethe Clark. 251 East Front Street in Boise representing the applicant and, Commissioner Smith, last time I was here you said something about it seems like it's always hard when I come. So, here we go. Lorcher: There we go. Clark: This one we definitely feel a little beat up by the staff report, but I also want to explain why we are not crazy in the reasoning that we have for why we think this does satisfy the staff report, because we don't think that you have been given the complete picture. So, let me walk you through this a little bit and, then, by the end hopefully we can get a little closer to being level set. So, this is our project. We are discussing the 43 acres near the intersection of Lake Hazel and Meridian. A portion of the property is already annexed. It's an area that the city's focused development on over the past few years. Linda did mention that this was part of the big 1,300 acre annexation. It's less than a mile from this project to the Discovery Park. We are very close to the new fire station and Brighton's Apex development is on the east and the south sides of this project. So, this is an area that's anticipated to develop and it is developing with a number of uses in the very immediate vicinity. I'm going to return to this when I focus on the staff report, but with regard to the Comprehensive Plan we do have the two designations. We are medium high density residential on the east, while the rest is 16 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 17,2024 Page 13 of 44 mixed-use regional. I do want to point out that the property is divided from the rest of the mixed-use regional area, that node that's along the hard corner by the Rawson Canal. Given where the Rawson connects, the -- any access onto Meridian is going to be south of the canal. In other words, on the other side, not against our property. So, no access to Meridian Road. In addition, we have low density residential immediately to our north, which means that -- and Linda mentioned that they would like to see a transition. So, this is a very difficult piece. The city has comprehensive planned low density residential against mixed-use -- mixed-use regional that is constrained by the Rawson on the south and constrained by Meridian Road on the west. Now, in addition to being planned and close to city resources, the western half of the property has already been annexed. As I mentioned it was part of that large annexation that -- the western portion has an existing R-4 zone, so we have to keep that in mind when we are discussing the comp plan designation of mixed-use. It's very important to note that the transportation network has been improved. You -- you all know Meridian Road is all built out, but Lake Hazel is almost complete. I expect it will be complete in the next couple of weeks. So, it's going to be built to its -- its ultimate condition all the way to Locust Grove and, then, it's being extended to Eagle Road, which is why my commute now takes 45 minutes instead of 20, because I live just south of that intersection. Commissioner Garrett knows exactly what I'm talking about. And, then, on the weekends I can sneak over, though, and use the ten foot pathways that go all the way from my house on Eagle all the way to Meridian Road and all of that is in and we participated in the construction of the ten foot pathway through a cooperative development agreement with ACHD. So, we paid for the ten foot pathway in front of our project. It's already there. I think that's a very important piece to keep in mind when we say that there isn't any pedestrian connectivity over here. I don't think that's accurate. Our plan includes the 284 single family homes in the R-15 zone. Minimum density is six units per acre or just above that at 6.5. As Linda mentioned, all the open space requirements are met. We are above those minimums. But I would also remind the -- the Commission that we are less than a mile from Discovery Park, so it's a very good place to have a project just like this. Pedestrian connectivity. So, pedestrian connectivity is throughout the project. It will connect to the larger pedestrian network. As I mentioned, the regional pathways have already been put in on Meridian Road. There will also be additional regional pathways on our west side at Meridian -- excuse me. When I said they are already in on Lake Hazel, not already in on Meridian. So, we will be putting it in on Meridian, but we will also be putting it in on the collector on the east side that -- that is already under construction by Brighton. I also want to point out -- and I think that you didn't quite get a complete picture from staff. So, with regard to the access point -- if I can get the cursor to wake up here. So, you can see -- it's not working very well there, but you can see this is our primary access down at Lake Hazel. That will have a light and that will have a very easy ability for pedestrians to be able to cross the street to go into the -- the massive development that Brighton Is bringing forth with the several hundred thousand square feet of commercial. So, our folks will not have to get in a car to go to any of those projects and they are going to have ten foot pathways to get to all of them. With regard to the amenities we are at 30 amenity points, rather than nine allowed. We have dog parks, pickle ball, pool -- it's going to be a very well amenities project. Housing mix. These are some updated elevations. It's a 17 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 17,2024 Page 14 of 44 mix of single and -- and two-story detached. Now, this comes up quite a bit, so we decided to start putting a slide together for this in terms of the -- the timeline. So, given where we are today, if we were to be approved we would be doing final platting and site improvements in 2025 to be ready for the our first phase of homes in 2026. The project is expected to develop in six phases. So, we would have those phases going through 2031, then, the last few houses coming online in 2033. So, let's talk about the staff report and why we are not crazy. The -- it's never staffs obligation to make the case for the applicant. Like I -- I fully agree with that. It is not their job to -- to -- to make the argument for me. But I think that the staff report was unrealistic in some of the ways that it depicted this property as being a property that is just easy to turn into a mixed- use paradise. From our view there is two questions that have to be asked. So, what does the comp plan actually require and what impact do site constraints have on what we ultimately are proposing for the property? So, let me start with a depiction on what those site restraints include. I will get into each in more detail. So, on our south we have the Rawson that separates this property from the ability to be able to connect to the property to our south. On the north, as I mentioned, we have the low density residential that requires a transition while we are trying to hit the density minimums for that area and on the west we have no access to Meridian Road, meaning that there is neither the visibility nor the access that is required for you to have a viable commercial project on the property. Now, the comp plan -- and this is part of what didn't make it into the report. The comp plan is not a rigid document. The -- the -- the comp plan is a policy document. It is intended to set the stage for the zoning code requirements with that would then set the various details. It's not a zoning code. It's policy. And so the it speaks specifically that it is intended in a general way to describe how the community should develop. That concept's of flexibility occurs throughout the comp plan, including in the discussion of the mixed-use areas, which is where this is from. So, with regard to the mixed-use areas within that area some projects may not warrant a mix of uses. This is, again, directly from the comp plan. The comp plan also says that conditions may exist within some mixed-use areas that influence these matrix and access limitations is specifically one of the items that addresses that concern. So, talking about the site. So, this -- the Rawson, just to give you a little bit of reference, the truck that's in these pictures is 22 feet long, gives you a sense of scale. The canal is about 30 feet wide in places. This isn't a small like drainage ditch that's easily overcome. The -- the bridge divides our site from our neighbor and our neighbor is the one that has the hard corner where commercial services are likely to be viable. The big issue, again, is access. With the -- the mixed-use area is on the west; right? So, the -- the west side of our project that's the area that is divided separated from Meridian Road. No access -- and it's going to be hiding behind the Rawson Canal. So, you have no visibility and no access. In addition, that's not -- that's not just ITD that says that we are not going to have access on Meridian Road, that's -- that is Meridian city code that there would be no new approaches on a state highway. So, Meridian says we can't have access there, which -- which, in turn, makes that commercial development more difficult. But it's not just that we can't have the access, you heard staff say that in addition we have to have sound and buffer requirements against Meridian Road. So, we have to build a berm, put up a fence -- there is no -- no visibility anymore at that point. It makes this very undesirable for a commercial property. Again, the comp plan says that if there are access 18 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 17,2024 Page 15 of 44 limitations it supports reduced intensities. So, what we have provided in order to try to be consistent with -- with the -- with the Comprehensive Plan -- we have provided internal gathering spaces throughout. One thing that I don't think was really addressed here is that this concept of what is the integration with our neighbor. Again we have the Rawson Canal that separates us 30 feet. But we took our open space and we have this area that's down near our main area that is open, that faces and addresses our neighbor, that does provide for an opportunity for an integration of those areas to allow for folks to get into that easily and to make some enjoyment of that. I -- I want to be clear, though, the staff report states that we have to -- in order to satisfy the Comprehensive Plan we have to share amenities with our neighbor. That's an unconstitutional requirement. You can't force folks to share amenities with their neighbors. But what we can do is try to integrate it, look at it, make sure that when things come along that they can work together in an appropriate way. We -- to be clear we don't know what's going to develop on the property to our south. I can't control that. I can't control that timing and the city can't force me to control that timing, because, obviously, that would be an impossible condition. Anytime you throw a plan on your neighbor's property you are in dangerous ground, especially if that plan ends up somehow in -- being incorporated in -- in your own approvals. But we have provided that open space in that area and, then, in addition -- and this is something that Linda mentioned at the beginning, but later when we said that there is no -- no connection is inaccurate. Where you see there is a blue box there, we provided an access easement in that location that could be converted later in the future into a connection across the Rawson. Now, again, that incorporates significant costs and expense. If that's a public bridge, then, that is public expense and I just want to give the -- you folks something to think about is that the distance from that blue square to the main intersection is about 250 feet. Down to the main street is 150 feet. And back over is another 250 feet. So, we would be putting in a bridge in order to save 600 feet of travel distance. So, it's -- the bang for the buck in terms of -- in public expense for having an additional connection there across a significant canal is questionable in our view. Let's see. And, again, the -- you know, we think that need is limited and, then, from a pedestrian perspective you can walk just around there, you are going to have the traffic light, you are going to be able to make it down to your -- to the neighboring -- or excuse me -- to the development across the street. All of this is going to give pedestrians a low stress, easy crossing to go down to all that new commercial development and that development, if you look at the area -- I don't think it's appropriate to leave that conversation out, because you can see that there is going to be significant commercial development just across the street and we are providing a very easy way for our pedestrians to get there. So, to conclude, we are proposing the 284 single family homes. The area that's being criticized is already annexed and in the city with an R-4 designation. We are trying to do something that gets it into the type of zoning that actually is approved for mixed-use. Keep in mind mixed-use -- one of the approved zoning designations is R-15 and the remainder of it fits the medium high density residential designation perfectly. We have to keep in mind those constraints, though, and when we say that we can just do Bown Crossing, that Bown Crossing is not behind the Rawson. Bown Crossing is not behind a berm and a soundproof fence at Meridian Road. Bown Crossing is at Boise Ave in Park Center with one hundred percent access. F-19 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 17,2024 Page 16 of 44 So, this is -- that's not an appropriate evaluation here. We think that this straddles the various issues and we ask that it be approved. So, I will stop talking and answer any questions that you have. Lorcher: I do have a question. So, you are -- one of the suggestions that you said across the lateral was to potentially build a bridge, even though your entrance to your subdivision is -- what did you say 600 feet to the -- Clark: Something like that. Lorcher: -- east of that. Does the -- will the irrigation company even allow you to do that? Clark: So, that's been an interesting conversation. The irrigation company is basically at this point starting to take the lead from ACHD, but we don't think that it's going to be a bridge that the public wants. ACHD is not requiring it of us now. I -- my personal opinion is that under the -- the prior, you know, regime they would have said -- they would have just said no. I -- I can't say that at this point, but -- but I certainly think there is questionable public benefit to putting a bridge across the Rawson under these circumstances. Lorcher: And the ITD traffic study, has that been -- that has been requested by your group or -- Clark: Madam Chair. So, this is a -- an area that's been heavily studied with ACHD. We provided traffic counts in order to prove up the COMPASS model, which is kind of where things are trending in areas that have been heavily studied and built out. We have provided all of that data to ITD and we think that's all taken care of. Lorcher: Okay. But the results haven't been given back is that what you are saying? Clark: No. We -- we do know the results. We know that the -- the road improvements that have been made along that corridor and the timing for them has been -- continues to be proved up in accordance with the COMPASS model and the traffic counts that we provided didn't contradict that. So, that -- it's -- it's a little different than the create from scratch traffic impact study model that we might be used to. Lorcher: Right. Clark: But where we have this kind of big data it helps us to be able to just prove things up, rather than spending a lot more money to create it from scratch. Lorcher: Okay. Commissioners do you have any questions for the applicant at this time? Garrett: Yeah. I have a question. F20] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 17,2024 Page 17 of 44 Lorcher: Commissioner Garrett. Garrett: Yeah. It's -- as Mr. Clark indicated, he and I have a lot in common on this corner. I go by it daily -- three times a day. Today as a matter of fact. So, I'm very familiar with it. What -- there are developments that are north of this that to the best of my knowledge those are somewhat bound, aren't they, by Meridian Road constraints? I mean they have those exits and entrances, but they are extremely dangerous. Clark: Oh, yes. Commissioner Garrett, I see -- I was thinking you were going to ask a different question, so I was going for a different slide, but I don't have a good one for that one. Yeah. That's correct. So, what -- what we have on -- on these major highways is these access limitations and ITD does try to ensure that the fewest amount of accesses that can be there as possible would be there. There are limitations on that; right? So, if, you know, a property is going to be landlocked, that sort of thing, then, they -- they would give typically a limited access. So, you know, we would anticipate that the hard corner just to the south of us is probably going to get a right-in, right-out on -- on it on -- on Meridian Road. That -- we don't know that, but that -- you know, given our experience we think that's likely to be the case. But overall up and down that corridor ITD policy and city code would both try as a -- as a safety matter to reduce the number of accesses, if that answers your question. Garrett: Right. I -- I mean I just look at that and I -- I think, you know, you -- you just don't have any opportunity on Meridian Road and if you did it would be dangerous. Clark: Uh-huh. Garrett: But I compliment you on this plan. I personally thought it was a good idea and it is close to the fire station as you indicated and the big new development at Discovery Park and the expansion, they have got dog parks, they have got little league fields, they have got soccer fields, they have got any number of things within a short walking distance, so -- Clark: Thank you, Commissioner. Sandoval: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Sandoval. Sandoval: For the applicant. So, you are talking a lot -- or you mentioned your neighbors to the south. Is this just a presumption that they want to do fully commercial? Have you had any conversations? Because that's a big assumption in my opinion. Have you had any talks? Have you asked them? Clark: Commissioner Sandoval, yes, we have spoken with them and they have indicated that their intention is to develop commercial. Obviously, that's not a binding thing. We can't say that that absolutely is going to be the case, but that's what they F21 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 17,2024 Page 18 of 44 have instructed us and that certainly would be the highest and best use for the hard corner of Meridian Road and Lake Hazel, which everyone knows, for better for worse, Lake Hazel is supposed to be the next Chinden; right? So, there is going to be a lot of traffic coming along that hard corner. So, I would be shocked if it was used for anything other than that. Sandoval: Thanks. Lorcher: Mr. Smith. Smith: Madam Chair. Thank you. Like I said, I can appreciate the difficult type of applications that you tend to represent. Someone's got to do them and I'm glad that every inch of Meridian is being looked at for its best and highest use. That being said -- so, I have -- I just have a couple of questions. Could you walk me through I guess how this -- these property boundaries came to be with this -- this western portion, including the hard corner? Was this at one point its own parcel? Clark: Commissioner Smith, I don't know the answer to that. I -- all I know is it's in separate -- it was in separate ownership at the time we acquired it and the -- the person to the south is intending to hold and, then, ultimately develop. So, I don't know exactly what the -- the genesis of the property -- properties were, though. The -- the Rawson being the -- the natural divide, I would expect that they have been in separate ownership for a while, but I don't know that for sure. Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: Thank you. An additional question about the easement. Trying to just kind of imagine what that could be built out to be as a crossing, that location, and its location on that kind of curved street doesn't quite make sense to me. I guess my question is in an alternate configuration, one that maybe looks -- looks different than this, do you anticipate that easement could be positioned somewhere else along the Rawson perhaps in a way that might facilitate better kind of cross-access? You know, I guess it -- what I'm asking is if you have the entire property to -- to go in one would that easement potentially live somewhere else? Clark: Yeah. That's a -- that's a good question, Commissioner Smith. So, there is a couple of different things going on there. So, the -- the reason we picked that location was because of sight distances to try to meet ACHD policy. So, we put it at the location where you are not going to have those 90 degree turns that make it difficult to get an access. The other issue is that -- and you guys know we have had -- I have probably had five or six applications in front of you guys that have been along canals and one of the things we deal with when we are developing along canals is block length and having 45 degree angles streets, all that sort of thing, and, then, the other thing that drives this is that we have this kind of short distance north to south, which means that we have got 22 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 17,2024 Page 19 of 44 to have some east-west roads coming down and so between the block length limitations and the need for those east-west roads, it makes it very difficult to put that connection really anywhere else. The other issue, Commissioner Smith, that I would foresee is that if this develops to the south of us -- you call it a -- if it's a big box or a -- or a large convenience store or something like that, if you put that bridge in the middle it's probably going into the back of the employee parking. Whereas we were thinking that if you have it over here to the side near the -- near the open space that that probably helps to integrate into something that could be more functional for that kind of mixed- use concept. Dropping it into the back of the building didn't make sense to us. Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: One other question. I think there was one slide that you had that talked about the future allocation for other parcels of what residential could be within the mixed-use. Yeah. Right here. So, if I'm reading this correctly, basically, in regards to the percentage of the area that can be residential, is this essentially stating that we are almost limiting the rest of the mixed-use to 44 acres of residential or, you know, basically 20 percent of their area. It would -- not -- not per code. But is that the idea that we are allocating additional residential here, so that we would have less residential of these other properties? Clark: Commissioner Smith, what we were trying to do with this drawing -- and, yeah, I should note that I think staff doesn't agree with our interpretation of this, you know, with the idea of the arterial bisecting and now suddenly we have a mixed-use area that lives unto itself and you can't consider anything else. Frankly, I don't think that's a realistic way to consider a mixed-use area that covers all four sides of this -- of the -- of these major intersections, but I will -- I will set that aside for now. But what we were trying to do was try to provide folks with some assurance that this is a relatively small portion of the mixed-use area that is not ideal for commercial development, but yet you still have significant areas that could be devoted to commercial and -- and still achieve the -- the overall goals. So, like I would note that across the street from us that property that's north of the Rawson probably is going to end up with having some of the same conversations we are having here, because it's probably not going to -- it's also going to probably be access constrained. So, there is going to be these kind of flexibility type conversations that are going to be coming as you look at applications within this area and we just kind of wanted to give you the larger context, because we think it's too myopic to just look at those two properties in isolation. Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: Yeah. I -- I appreciate that. I think, you know, even if -- even if I'm taking the dispute with the staff around the arterial bisecting out of the picture, I'm just imagining a F23] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 17,2024 Page 20 of 44 future hearing where say that site on -- on the southwest and we are full -- Full Gospel Slavic Church is, coming and saying, hey, we have a lot of residential near us, more right across from this big box, for whatever reason we want to have a higher ratio of residential in our mixed-use, but look at this northern property there is 79 acres here. We can put more commercial and less residential there. I -- I guess my concern -- and I'm hoping you can speak to this -- is that we are looking at, okay, increasing the residential here for a reason and if they come to us -- you know, this future developer down here comes to us and says, okay, we actually want to increase the residential here for a reason, it's kind of putting it all either on the back burner of -- the final applicant either has to have a lot more commercial or we have to accept that our residential to commercial ratio is just going to be out of whack for the area and I think neither of those two outcomes are ideal and so that's the concern. If you could speak to that, how is this not just putting that on the back burner. Clark: I get that. So, Commissioner Smith, I -- I understand the concern. The -- the point of this drawing was to try to give everybody context as to what the outcome is and where the -- you know, where the residential would be, where -- where we expect the commercial would be. Two points in response to your question. One is, first, the Comprehensive Plan is a general guide and, second, that needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis for each property and so in this case we are not asking you to kick the can and move the commercial to some other property just because that's our basic preference. We are asking you to look at this and say, okay, we think that this satisfies the Comprehensive Plan, because you have got site constraints, but you still have done the X, Y and Z, including, you know, the pedestrian connections and orienting the open space next to your neighbor and so under these, you know, facts, you -- we think that you have done enough to -- to satisfy our inquiry. The -- and -- and anybody, you know, at the -- at the Full Gospel Slavic Church -- if that property were to go they would have to jump through those exact same hoops. This isn't a precedent for anyone else. Smith: All right. Thank you. Seal: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Seal. Seal: Yeah. The -- I mean -- I mean what we have been presented here -- I appreciate how this is locked in here. So, I mean I don't want that to get lost on here. I like the fact that of all the amenities you have, the open space leaves a little bit of -- a little to be desired as far as the placement of it in -- in my opinion. The bridge location as far as using that as an argument, because it's so close, I mean it can be moved. Does it make sense to move it to where it might be in the back of a business? I don't know. But like you said, we don't know what's going to go there and what's the best use of this property as a whole without taking anything else into consideration for the mixed-use regional portion of this. I mean the mixed-use piece of it doesn't have to be commercial and I think that's kind of what is being missed here. It doesn't have to be commercial, it just has to be different. It has to be something else. So, why is it just exactly the same 24 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 17,2024 Page 21 of 44 as the rest of the property that's -- that's in this application. Why can't it be different in such a way that it actually blends in with the property that is going to be to the north and has a better use of, you know, overall for other types of uses. Clark: Commissioner Seal, I'm not sure I understand the last part of your -- of your question. Like at the -- but let me give a shot at it and see how it goes. So, yeah, commercial is definitely a shorthand. You know, when I -- when I say commercial I also think, you know, if I have three quarters of a million to invest in a -- in an office -- a small office, I don't want to put it up behind a soundproof wall and a berm over on Meridian Road and it is over at Meridian that we are talking about that is the -- the area that's subject to this mixed-use regional conversation. So, I -- I think that's a -- probably a distinction without a difference in terms of commercial versus office versus whatever. With regard to the mix of housing types, we have single -- single family detached and two story, one story. We have considered whether additional types of single family would make sense. As you guys know, this development group does a lot of this across the -- across the city. So, for example, a townhome -- you know, in our view a townhome doesn't really create a -- you know, a significant difference in terms of the look and feel of the neighborhood. It's going to cost just as much to build and it's not going to sell in the same way, because folks are going to prefer to -- if they are going to spend that much they are probably going to go somewhere else or they are going to go for the house that costs the same, but has its own detached yard. And so in our view it's -- it's -- it's a marketability question to go with it. Just trying to be realistic in terms of trying to get something that could go to the market and be successful. So, I hope that got to the various elements there. Seal: Yeah. Madam Chair, it's -- and -- and he -- yes. Kind of. I mean -- I mean it -- it just seems like you are -- you guys are very very rigid about what you are going to put in there. Period. Whether it's based on money or trends or whatever that looks like it just -- it seems like that this is it and you guys you are just unwilling to budge on that. So, it's going to be this type of housing and that's it. And, then, there are no other alternatives. I mean there is, you know, work-live, you know, opportunities that could take place in here for people that don't necessarily need that road front, you know, signage and exposure and things like that, that there is there -- there are other opportunities that could be had in here. So, to just have the argument be as rigid as it is to have this kind of density and mixed-use just doesn't make sense to me. Clark: I understand. And, you know, certainly as the -- as the recommending body if you would like to make a recommendation along those lines we are happy to consider it. We kind of have to live in both worlds; right? We have to live in the world of -- of -- the kind of theoretical comprehensive plan and we also have to live in the world of what can be sold and that's where we live. Seal: Understood. Thank you. Lorcher: And with that in mind the current zoning of R-4 is not marketable? F25] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 17,2024 Page 22 of 44 Clark: Madam Chair, that's a very good question. The -- the development of the property that we are proposing is intending to try to make this consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designations, which is also consistent with the development agreement requirement to consider the Comprehensive Plan whenever you come in and suggest a rezone. So, with that in mind, given that it's a mixed-use regional Comprehensive Plan area, we propose the R-15 and -- and with -- with that we have a minimum density across with all the different machinations of six and we -- we stayed pretty close to that low end, because I think we are at six and a half. So, that's the thought processes is that we are trying to acknowledge and respect what -- both what's in the development agreement and what's in the Comprehensive Plan. Lorcher: One more question. For Skyranch -- and I know this has nothing to do with you. What is to the north of you along Meridian Road? Is that another subdivision? Clark: So, north of us there is vacant land that is comprehensive planned low density residential. Lorcher: Okay. Clark: So, that's part of -- you know, when I mentioned that we have these various site constraints on all sides -- Lorcher: Right. Clark: -- it's a little bit out of place to have a mixed-use density comp plan designation next to a low density designation and so that's why we feel a little bit of whiplash when staff says, okay, put in lower density stuff up there, but hit the mixed-use, you know, numbers and it's -- it's tough. Lorcher: So, is there any physical constraints on the north end of the Skyranch property? For example, you have the lateral on the south -- south part. Wasn't there actually some topographical -- like hills or is it just all flat land between you and the next parcel going north? Clark: I don't think it's -- I don't think there is any hills and there is no significant topographical issues. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you. Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: Question for staff, Kurt, applicant. I recall in -- in previous applications on other issues we had examples where say there was a development that was straddling say R- 4 and R-8 in order for the sake of maybe transitional kind of space the code allowed for 26 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 17,2024 Page 23 of 44 developing of some of the R-8 and R-4 and vice-versa, it's like leading to some percentage. Is there anything in code or is there anything in the comp plan that would -- would limit the ability to do something similar with this R-15 and the mixed-use residential on this -- this -- this side? I'm -- because a lot of what we are talking about with the mixed-use residential is this is the Rawson kind of creating this -- this natural barrier and I'm just -- I'm seeing some -- some less disruption on that medium high density residential side. I'm just wondering if there is a feasible alternative to where you can incorporate some of that mixed use, shift it over into that R-15? Parsons: Madam Chair, Member -- Members of the Commission, if I'm understanding your -- your question correctly, you are asking whether or not there is a possibility of floating in addition -- a designation across a different land use designation I think is what you are asking. So, yes, that -- that is possible. The comp plan allows you to float up to 50 percent, but it's -- it's the larger of the two and I believe the mixed-use regional is the larger of the two. Or is it about the same? Okay. Well, then -- then there is a potential to do that as well and that goes to some of the -- some of the other comments I want to share on some of the discussion that the applicants had with you. So, a couple -- couple clarifying remarks if I may. One is if -- if commercial was provided along Meridian Road there would not be a requirement for sound attenuation. That's -- that's only a requirement if you have a school, hospital or residential. So, again, if you were to pull up the plan there and let's say, for example, you see where that westernmost stub street is stubbed to the north there, if that were to stay office and L-O and, then, the residential transitioned, you wouldn't be looking at that sound attenuation. So, you are not blocking off the commercial business. The other -- so, I just wanted to provide that clarification. It's only required because the applicant is proposing a residential zone up against it. Whether it's R-15 or R-4 there has to be no sound attenuation, that's -- that is the code. That is accurate. And he is -- he is very -- he is correct that access is very limited on this roadway and it will be for the foreseeable future and we are processing an application on the southern portion of Lake Hazel, so I just -- can't go into too many details with you, because it is a pending application. So, as you mentioned that is accurate. What we are -- what we are working with them on. But as you all know, the other thing that I would like to share with the Commission is what's difficult and we hate -- I -- I agree with the applicant, he has some very valid points tonight, but the difficulty is is we just modified our mixed-use standards to make them hopefully easier to understand and incorporate them into these mixed-use areas. But, obviously, when you have a plan it doesn't always take into all the site constraints that could come with in-fill or these types of developments with canals, limited access. We try to do the best we can with goals and policies to give applicants flexibility. That's where staff in this particular case -- and I think we have had enough conversations with the applicant offline on this, but that's what we are really challenged here is with us being so rigid in the code saying you have to look -- we have to look at this 36 acre mixed-use regional area. We can't look at the other surrounding areas. This particular site, 24 acres of the 36 is residential. So it's already exceeding the -- the ratio of that residential use allowed by the comp plan. So, all of those -- and, then, just the integration with commercial and not giving us a concept plan, all the things -- of these things coming together, that's why it's difficult for staff to say, yes, this works and that's why we have made the F27] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 17,2024 Page 24 of 44 recommendation that we have. It's not that we don't disagree with the applicant and their points, because they are valid. This is a very limited site and that is a big canal, but ultimately staff has to look out for the public's interest and we have to make sure -- and that's why it was very critical when we modified those mixed-use standards. We had some general mixed-use policies and, then, we had what we wanted to see in a mixed-use regional area and so those two areas combined to give you the integration, the pedestrian -- it's -- it's more than vehicle connection, it's pedestrian integration, and when we are forcing people out onto an arterial at a signal to go off on Lake Hazel and turn back into a commercial development, that's not, integration, that's forcing more traffic on an arterial and that's what the mixed-use policies say don't do. That's why it's critical that we have the interconnected roadway. So, again, when we talk with the applicant I could see them -- the mixed-use is almost reversed on it. They should actually be Meridian Road the commercial and, then, transition to the -- to the east with your residential and, then, hopefully someone on the low density residential above will float the mixed-use designation on their front edge and get more office and, then, you do have another access to potentially Meridian Road through Shafer View Estates. So, there is ways to do it. We just don't have the plans or the information to show that proves to us that it does work and that's why we are taking a pause and we have recommended what we have. Lorcher: Thank you. Clark: Madam Chair, if I may. Lorcher: Yes. Clark: So, you know, part of the challenge that we are having is that some of the -- the things that staff is asking for don't make sense to us; right? So, like Bill's comment just now -- and -- and Bill and I get along great. We complement each other on our shoes all the time, so -- but when we say that something about our mixed-use development requires folks to drive across the street to get to other commercial developments just because we didn't do whatever doesn't make sense to me. We are providing the regional pathway on both sides. There is going to be an intersection. There is going to be a light. There is going to be a low stress crossing there. Another piece that I would just mention is that the standard I have got on the screen right now survived the update of the mixed-use requirements from earlier this year. It existed before. It exists now. So, even with the update to the mixed-use standards in the Comprehensive Plan, we always have considered access limitations in determining whether this makes sense and, then, the last when we talk about looking out for the public, looking out for the public also means that we take a reasonable and practical interpretation of the facts and circumstances at the time that recognizes the investments in the private property rights and balances that with what staff would like to see in terms of the kind of hypothetical planned community as it might turn out to be and so looking out for the public isn't just upholding a plan that, you know, I think has a -- as you guys know every Comprehensive Plan is Rorschach test, but looking out for the public is not just that, it's F28] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 17,2024 Page 25 of 44 looking out for the private property rights and making sure that we are taking that into account when we evaluate these things. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you. Clark: Thank you. Lorcher: Madam Clerk, do we have anybody to testify on this application? Lomeli: Madam Chair, you have Sean Lanahan. Lorcher: Can you come up? Did you want to speak or no? No? Okay. All right. Did you have any other comments? Well, I guess I should ask is there anybody else on Zoom or in Chambers? Lomeli: Madam Chair, I have an Emily Shavers that signed up. I'm not sure if she would like to testify. Lorcher: Is Emily here? Okay. Lomeli: Madam Chair, that is it. Lorcher: Did you have any other comments before we close the public hearing? All right. Can I get a motion to close the public hearing, please? Smith: So moved. Seal: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on Skyranch Subdivision. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Lorcher: Anybody like to start? Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: Yeah. I -- it's never an easy yes or an easy no when -- when Mr. Clark is the applicant -- you know, stating his case. I understand and I agree with a lot of the challenges of the location. One of the things that I -- I really struggle with is the concept of there being kind of crosswalks for pedestrian access. To me doesn't necessarily mean that there is always safe pedestrian access. I -- I'm -- I'm -- I -- I think back to -- I think it was a year ago on Ustick and Cloverdale where I believe a young mother was hit 29 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 17,2024 Page 26 of 44 and killed and I think there is some questions about, for example, I don't believe that -- I think that's actually in -- in Boise's jurisdiction, but there are some questions to me if intersections like that are safe and I think when I think about serving community, I'm thinking about things like that. I'm thinking about how we handle the future in-fill issue this might create on that southern -- southern boundary. I'm thinking about just the difficulty making this transition in any direction and I understand that this is something that the applicant has worked hard to -- to address. But I -- I think this is an issue for me where -- where I don't know if I can support -- I don't -- I don't think I'm there. I'm not enthusiastically opposed to it. I -- I see a lot of the effort and a lot of the care that -- that went into the application, but I just -- there are too many issues at the moment regarding easements, you know, potentially floating, you know, all kind of the -- well, the comp plan doesn't really mandate that kind of -- kind of issues that -- that I think it's just too much for me to support at the moment. I -- I do think something in -- in -- in the future that might look somewhat similar to this could -- could be a great application, but I think at the time with all of those kind of surrounding issues there is just too many of them at the moment for me to support. Lorcher: Thank you. Seal: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Seal. Seal: Yeah. I appreciate this -- this is going to be a -- it's going to be a tough one to to develop for all the reasons that Mr. Clark brought up. So, it's going to be tough and and I don't know that it's fair necessarily that the connectivity portion with the canal being there -- I don't know that it's fair that we expect that of the applicant. That said that is what is required for this, so that's, you know, unfortunate for this piece of property. I would like to see -- I mean if there is -- you know, if the applicant were amenable, to be honest, I would like to see some kind of blending of, you know, mixed- use -- you know, switch some of that out in order to provide for, you know, more of a mixed-use type development to go in across the board. I mean the mechanism is there to do that, so that way we don't have -- you know, essentially, we are taking an R-4, we are going to an R-15 and we are just packing everything that we can in there possibly, you know, when -- when you have really long drive aisles and seven shared driveways you are packing everything in there you possibly can. So, that's tough for me to swallow. So, I -- I would like to see, you know, something happen at this location, simply because I think it is going to be hard to develop and I think this is close to something that we might want to see go in there, I just don't think this is what it needs to be at this point in time. I mean I can appreciate where it's -- where it's at and -- and -- but I just -- I'm -- I share Commissioner Smith's sentiment that I'm -- I'm just -- I'm not there with it. Thank you. Garrett: Madam Chair? Yeah. I'm -- I'm contrary -- contrary to their opinions. I'm familiar -- as I said, I go by this at least once a day sometimes multiple. It's a tough intersection and it is -- Lake Hazel's being developed into five lanes and it will have a lot 30 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 17,2024 Page 27 of 44 of traffic. You know, whether someone is hit by a car I don't think we can hold Mr. Clark that -- that -- you know, that's fate. But the fact that this has many amenities already present -- I think it's suffices to do with what he is given on this and you have no access on Meridian. I mean the speed limit says 55 and I -- I think it's 20 percent of the people do that 80 percent far exceed that and so you are limited on Meridian and, then, Lake Hazel is going to be a five lane road, so it won't be -- have the exact constraints that it did when it was a two lane road. It will have traffic dispersed over a greater area and that should be finished any day now. I look at it and I think that this development is well conceived for -- given the constraints that you have, the physical constraints, and -- and I just don't know how you would ever put any type of business in there. You just -- there is no visibility. You would have to be a destination business that everybody knew -- knew about and there is no signage. Nothing. So, I think being a residence is about the only thing you can do. Lorcher: Thank you. Mr. Sandoval, do you have any comments? Sandoval: Madam Chair, yeah. To me the biggest issues are the cross-access and I know you said the additional expense of having that extra bridge likely wouldn't be worth it, but in my mind I'm thinking, okay, so that area to the south -- say we -- we go with your plan. It's all residential R-15. Business to the south. So, a family's got to go -- that's 600 feet, that's not a big deal, then, than they are on Lake Hazel, which is, obviously, a very large arterial street. So, I think just safety wise that's a huge issue and I don't think there is any amount of money or resources really that would pay for even the possibility of an accident on a road like that. So, the interconnectivity to me is the biggest issue, not so much the residential, it's so hard to integrate other uses in there and I understand maybe a better way to go about this, as staff suggested, is to put an application to modify the comp plan. I think that's a reasonable accommodation, but as it sits, yeah, I can't support this. Lorcher: Yeah. I -- I feel like the density for the south -- south Meridian is -- is -- is too high. The -- the private streets with all those houses kind of crammed in there, it just seems -- you know. And I understand that you want to be marketable and you have a product to sell and townhouses are going to cost the same as the other, but I think there has got to be a -- a good compromise for redesign to be able to have maybe -- if it is a commercial or office more on Lake Hazel side, since it's going to be -- or somebody pointed out the new Chinden and less density for the transition for the other subdivisions that are around it. So, the way it's designed right now I -- I won't -- I cannot support it either. Commissioner Smith, did you have any other thoughts? Smith: Madam Chair, just a motion if-- Seal: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Seal. F31 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 17,2024 Page 28 of 44 Seal: Just real quick and -- and this -- just off of what Commissioner Garrett had said, I just -- I mean even in opposition you kind of help make my point and -- and that is there is a massive amount of connectivity that's going on as far as the major arterials here. So, if they were to switch up the mixed-use for some of the residential and redo that and bring that down onto Lake Hazel Road, that to me makes way more sense, because there is a lot of exposure there. As far as the ten foot pathways, I struggle with why we put those right on the major arterials here. So, I wish we would follow other communities and, you know, park them back a little bit, so that they are -- they are just a much safer way to go about that as -- as it would be, because I think that the -- I'm -- I'm glad to see that the ten foot pathways are coming in. They make a lot of sense. Especially for people like me that like to bike everywhere and I'm -- you know, hopefully they will continue to do that and make them more protected, especially on, you know, major arterials and intersections like this and, then, as -- as far as -- if they were to swap some of the mixed-use and residential areas, I think they could do it in such a way that the bridge, then, makes sense and ties in better to what may be commercial property on to the south of them, as well as allow them to have, you know, better lot alignment with the -- with the property that's to the north of them. So, again, I mean it's a really tough piece of property to develop, but I think being rigid in that it can only be this and it's because it's -- it can only be like this and it can only be because of our access limitations is not accurate. Thank you. Lorcher: Thank you. Commissioner Smith. Smith: Madam Chair, after considering all applicant -- all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial of File No. H-2024-0022 as presented during the hearing of October 17th, 2024, for the following reasons: A lack of mixed-use and compliant with the spirit of the Comprehensive Plan. Limited connectivity -- limited interconnectivity. Limited transition space from adjacent properties and pedestrian safety concerns. Seal: Second. Sandoval: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to deny application 2024-0022, Skyranch Subdivision for the reasons mentioned. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Garrett: Nay. Lorcher: Motion passes. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY. TWO ABSENT. 9. Public Hearing for Touchmark Office Building A (H-2024-0045) by Conger Group, located at 3526 E. Louise Dr. F32 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 17,2024 Page 29 of 44 A. Request: Conditional Use Permit to construct an office building on 0.504 acre(s) in the L-O zoning district. 10. Public Hearing for Touchmark Office Building B (H-2024-0046) by Conger Group, located at 3512 E. Louise Dr. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit to construct an office building on 0.514 acre(s) in the L-O zoning district. Lorcher: Commissioners, are we still good to go? Keep going? We are going to do a two'fer again. Applications 0045 and 0046 for Touchmark Office Buildings, A and B. We will begin with the staff report. Napoli: Good evening, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. Items No. 9 and 10 on the agenda are the conditional use permits for Touchmark Office Buildings A and B. The applicant is requesting two conditional use permits, one for each property, to construct two office buildings, one being 4,760 square feet and the other being 4,534 square feet in the L-O zoning district. So, as shown on the screen the existing zoning is L-O and the FLUM designation is mixed-use community. Office buildings are typically a permitted use in the L-O zoning. However, the subject properties have the conditional use permit that was approved in 2005 for the previous applicant to develop a property in a mixed-use retirement community consisting of residential dwellings, medical offices, commercial retail businesses and senior community center. The CUP requires all lots within the scope of this permit to receive a detailed CUP approval prior to developing the property. This is the reason why we are processing two CUPs tonight for otherwise a permitted use. To align with the current development staff conditioned the applicant to enhance landscaping between the building and along the eastern buffer. Goal 2.09.02E of the Comprehensive Plan emphasizes the importance of consistent landscaping standards for developments. Therefore, staff is invite -- advising these improvements to be included with the certificate of zoning compliance and design review applications. So, these are the two landscape plans. The original one is on the left that was submitted and this is the revised one. The yellow highlights are what was added. So, staff did talk with the applicant regarding the condition and the applicant did make a slight change. You guys are the -- the decision making body on both of these CUPs tonight, so if you think that that is an adequate change for landscaping you can approve it that way. If you want to ask for more or you want to strike the condition altogether you can do that. You know, staff is recommending approval with conditions and main condition being the one you see on the screen right here and, you know, we did receive written testimony from the applicant and I will stand for any questions you guys have at this time. Lorcher: Would the applicant like to come forward? Good evening. Lopez: Good evening. Marcel Lopez. 4824 West Fairview Avenue here for the applicant. I want to thank Nick and Bill for their assistance through this process. So, we had a little presentation here. If we can get that. Nick's working on that. So, Nick went F33] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 17,2024 Page 30 of 44 through the -- the details a little quick here, but just a little more background. So, as Nick indicated, these are two Lots 9 and 10 of the Touchmark Center Subdivision. The subdivision was platted back in 2007. These lots have been vacant for the duration of time that the plat was done. We are proposing to do, as Nick indicated, two separate detached buildings, one approximately 4,500 square feet and the other one 4,700 square feet and these are just samples of the elevations. We have provided a little bit of variation between the -- the two buildings just to add for the aesthetic value. There were actually three versions of the landscape plan that we went through and this is the revised one that was submitted to staff on October 15th. As Nick indicated we did add some additional plantings to the backside of these buildings on the east boundary based on their comments in the staff report. The challenge here is that even though we have set these buildings ten feet off the boundary line, the L-O allows for a zero lot line, but there is really not much room back here. In addition to the air conditioning units that are located on the back of the building, there is also existing pressure irrigation. There will likely be some power line utilities that run through that section there, as well as gas lines. So, we are requesting that the conditions be modified that -- the condition be removed or this plan be approved and accepted. Thank you. Lorcher: Commissioners, do we have any questions for the applicant at this time? Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: Regarding the vegetation, help me understand a little bit. It looks like there is additional vegetation on the north and south ends in a similar kind of footprint. I understand pressure irrigation, power lines, maybe they preclude trees and things like that, but is there anything that is physically limiting, say similar inclusions of shrubs or perennials like you had included on the other slide? Could you just help me understand that a little bit better? Lopez: Yeah. So, as I said very quickly, in addition to the AC units there is going to be additional utilities that are running along the backside. So, the full ten width -- ten feet area there is not really available and the recommendations for the AC units is to keep those areas clear about two feet around them. So, there is not much space. It looks quite open, but what we have included are these bunch grasses that will grow and they -- they will get about four feet in diameter -- about four feet to six feet tall. So, they will cover quite an area. They don't look great on the plan here, but you can see from the original submission, which is on the -- on the screen here on the -- the left side to the -- to the last revision that was submitted to the staff on the 15th, we have done quite a bit. Overall we have added about 16 perennials, shrubs, grasses and four additional trees based on those recommendations. So, we have tried to accommodate that. The east boundary just -- there is not a whole lot of room and once we accommodate the AC units, along with the additional utilities, there is not much more we can do. F34] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 17,2024 Page 31 of 44 Lorcher: What is on the other side of the back of this building? So, you are suggesting these tall grasses behind the building. There is parking in front of the building. What is -- what's the -- what goes east -- or what's -- what's next? What -- is that -- that's part of your complex as well; correct? Are those empty lots right now? Lopez: It's a vacant lot. Correct. Let me see. Get back here real quick. Yes. So, Lot 11, which is behind us, currently is vacant. The likelihood is that if it does develop, you know, it would develop -- our back would be to their side. So, we wouldn't be adding anything visually necessarily because they wouldn't be looking out the front of their building. Lorcher: And what's the one south of that? Is that number 13? Lopez: Correct. Yes. And that one's also vacant. Lorcher: And so you would propose that if that was to be developed it would be -- it would also be to the side of this building. Lopez: More than likely yes, because their access would -- would come from the south there. Lorcher: Okay. Okay. Thank you. Any questions -- anymore questions for the applicant before we look for public testimony? Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: One quick one. If we could go back to that landscape plan. Could you just help me understand where the AC units are supposed to be? Because I thought I understood where they were going to be, but I think I misunderstood. Lopez: Yeah. So, let's see if I can. There -- there are the square units along the back of the building. The -- the shrubs -- or the grasses that we added are in between. So, there is three bunches in between. The four square units are the AC units. They are also screened so they will -- they won't be visible. They will have an attractive appealing screening to them. Smith: Okay. So -- so, where those squares are, they were not included in the original plan, they were included in revision two and the grass between there or isn't -- or is -- they were -- they were included in revision one and the grass between is in revision two, is that -- Lopez: The -- the original -- it's hard to see, but there are -- that you can see the screenings there, the AC units aren't -- 35 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 17,2024 Page 32 of 44 Smith: Got it. Lopez: -- very visible. Smit: Thank you. Lopez: We did accommodate for them. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you very much. Lopez: Thank you. Lorcher: Madam Clerk, do we have anyone to testify? Lomeli: Thank you, Madam Chair. No one has signed up. Lorcher: Okay. Did you have any other comments? Are you good? All right. Can I get a motion to close the public hearing, please? Smith: So moved. Seal: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearings for application 0046 and 0045 for Touchmark Office Buildings A and B. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Okay. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: For staff could we get that language back up on the screen just to understand what we are addressing. And Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: While that's getting pulled up, at a conceptual level I -- you know, I don't have too much of an issue with this. I think I probably would like to see -- attempt for a little bit more to understand that the space is -- is tough. At the end of the day there are additional CUPs that are going to be happening for the other properties in the area and those can be reviewed for -- for consistency sake. It doesn't seem like there is a ton that is -- is currently in place. I think from my perspective maybe trees and shrubs might -- might be too much for the area, but, you know, I don't know if that the tall grass -- it seems there is -- there is probably a happy medium somewhere in between those two F36] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 17,2024 Page 33 of 44 and maybe usage of perennials or maybe if there are some smaller shrubs that are a little bit less intrusive might -- might blend a little bit. But at the end of the day I think this is kind of all within the same development. I don't think it's going to massively alter the outcome regardless. That's just kind of some starting thoughts. Lorcher: Okay. Seal: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Seal. Seal: Yeah. I think what the applicant has in their revised landscape plan number two is more than adequate, so -- I mean the back of the building is the back of the building. I understand somebody might be looking at it out of a side window or something, but they continue to develop this as more of the commercial element of that -- office buildings and things like that and I don't think that that's going to weigh in on it at all, so -- and -- I mean it's -- because it was -- because it was conditioned as a CUP we are having to modify the CUPs on both properties in order to do this. So, to me it's more of a formality than anything. Lorcher: Right. Seal: When -- when Touchmark is putting more buildings on Touchmark Lane, then -- you know. Lorcher: Right. Mr. Sandoval, do you have any other comments? Sandoval: I have a motion, Madam Chair. Lorcher: Okay. Sandoval: If that's appropriate. Lorcher: Yep. Sandoval: After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony I move to approve File No. H-2024-0045 and H-2024-046 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 17th, 2024, with the following modification -- modifications: Acceptance and use of the applicant's revision number two landscape plan. Lorcher: Do I have a second? Seal: Second. 37 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 17,2024 Page 34 of 44 Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to approve Touchmark Office Buildings A and B, conditional use permit. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. 11. Public Hearing for McDonalds at Firenze Plaza (H-2024-0044) by Kimley Horn, located at 3058 Amity Rd A. Request: Conditional Use Permit to construct and operate a 4,507 sq. ft. drive-through establishment and restaurant in the C-C zoning district. Lorcher: All right. We have one more to go. Application 2024-0044, McDonald's, out at Firenze Plaza and we will begin with the staff report. Napoli: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, the next item on the agenda is the conditional use permit for McDonald's at Firenze Plaza. So, the applicant requests a conditional use permit to construct and operate a 4,507 square foot restaurant with a drive through within 300 feet of a residential district and another drive through in the C- C zoning district. The site consists of .90 -- .09 of an acre zoned C-C located at 3058 East Amity Road. As you are on the screen, the current zoning is C-C and the FLUM designation is mixed-use community. The original concept plan for Firenze Plaza was done in 2016 and this was the concept plan that was provided as you can see where the McDonald's is proposed currently. There was a drive through shown. So, that has been kind of the -- it's consistent with the original concept plan during the annexation of this property in 2016. The site features two access points on the north side of the property from internal drive aisles between the subject property and Albertson's. The internal drive connects to South Cubola Avenue on the western side of the property. The proposed restaurant features two drive-through lanes that merge into one with a space to queue a total of 16 vehicles, along with an escape lane located on the south side of the site -- outside of the drive through lane. Staff has some concerns about peak hour stacking as it may back onto the drive aisle during hours that may impact neighboring businesses. However staff has worked with the applicant to look at data from McDonald's drive throughs during peak hours and it has alleviated most of staffs concerns. The applicant provided data discussing peak hour traffic for McDonald's in Meridian, as well as explaining of the one hundred feet between the order kiosk and the pickup window is the most efficient layout for McDonald's. If needed McDonald's will direct patrons to park in parking stalls to prevent stacking from extending beyond the means of the site. The proposed hour of operations are 5:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. complying with the UDC. Conceptual billing -- building elevations were submitted for the proposed restaurant. The proposed building design includes the following materials: EFTS, brick, standing seam metal panels, parapet metal, wall caps and glazing. Staff recommends incorporation of additional fenestration glazing or banding on the north facade -- or on the south facade, as this is the primary facade visible from East Amity Road. Staff is recommending approval with conditions and has received 26 letters in 38 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 17,2024 Page 35 of 44 opposition now and two letters of support for the project, with the main concerns regarding the smell from the project, property values decreasing, safety, traffic and health of the neighborhood and I will stand for any questions at this time. Lorcher: Would the applicant like to come forward? Good evening. Zuzak: Good evening. Aaron Zuzak. 1556 Parkside Drive, Walnut Creek, California. with Broman Development Company. Good evening Madam Chair -- we have a presentation, don't we? A PowerPoint. Sorry. Good evening, Madam Chair and Members of the Planning Commission. Again my name is Aaron Zuzak and I'm with Broman Development Company and thank you very much for allowing me to be here before you guys again tonight. I'm here to request your approval of the Conditional Use Permit application for McDonald's at Firenze Plaza. I'm joined here with one of my business partners Vic DeMelo and he is also with Broman Development Company and he is responsible for organizing all our leasing efforts for this development. And tonight I'm also here with the team from McDonald's to help us with our presentation. We appreciate staff's thoughtful analysis of this project. The project is in full compliance of the conditional use permit criteria and we are in agreement with all of the conditions of approval. We are here tonight requesting this conditional use permit only because the drive through is within 300 feet of the Albertson's Pharmacy pickup window. Broman Development Company is a family-owned long-term operator of retail properties. We take pride in our developments. We are not a merchant transactional developer looking to build and sell our next project. We are here to invest in the community, to provide the best in class grocery anchored neighborhood center and McDonald's will complement the diversity of uses we have brought to Firenze Plaza and it's synergistic with our existing development. The development of Firenze Plaza -- the development of Firenze Plaza has been a long road of approvals and construction, with the Albertson's obtaining the master plan approvals for the development in 2017, with the initial preliminary plat and development agreement approvals in 2019 and Albertson's opening their doors in June of 2022. In 2019 the approved preliminary plat included the development of a fast food 5,000 square foot restaurant on this parcel. Our proposed development is substantially in compliance with a similar shaped building and a drive through layout but it actually is reducing the building size by almost ten -- ten percent. We started our involvement in Firenze Plaza over three years ago and we purchased the property from Albertson's in early 2022 and have since completed the construction of the Albertson's and four additional high quality retail and commercial buildings in the center. We have worked very hard to enhance the quality of the development by bringing the best in class tenants and setting a new standard by enhancing the architectural design of the project. I have spent a great deal of time ensuring that the -- the design theme and the architectural standards throughout the development of the highest quality and we believe you will see that with McDonald's elevations, which are a far adaptation from their prototypical design. We have been patiently working with a number of great tenants in the development whom we believe will provide a variety of options for the residents of south Meridian. We have introduced a diverse number of high quality food options, including a sit down restaurant which is currently under construction in one of our buildings. Take out options. And we are excited to present F39] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 17,2024 Page 36 of 44 McDonald's on this remaining parcel on Amity. We are excited to deliver to the community a high quality project that will serve a variety of needs and can be enjoyed by the neighborhood and community. In this category of use McDonald's is on a select list of tenants that meets our standards of providing impactful community support with the long-term owner-operators involved in this project. I respectfully request the Planning and Zoning's approval of the conditional use permit application. I'm here to address any comments or questions, concerns and Connor is here to finish the presentation for McDonald's. Candrian: Hello. Connor Candrian. 1100 West Idaho Street, Boise, Idaho. I'm here on behalf of McDonald's and appreciate your time tonight. So, a little bit of timeline of how we got here. In April of this year we had a pre-app meeting with staff. We hosted a neighborhood meeting on August 2024 and, then, submitted our application shortly thereafter. Here we are tonight at the P&Z hearing. So, the site is located near the intersection of Amity and Eagle Road in the Firenze Plaza master planned development. The site is just shy of one acre and is proposing no direct access onto Cubola Avenue or Amity Road. It is within the mixed-use community FLUM designation and in the community business zoning, which a drive through restaurant is an allowed use. Again, the conditional use permit because of the pharmacy window on the Albertson's drive through within 300 feet. The site plan includes a 4,500 square foot one story building. We have three entrance drives proposed for the site. Two of them are two way drive aisles and one of them is a one way drive aisle. We have two drive through lanes with a full bypass lane. We have the landscape buffers along Amity and Cubola Avenue installed with the final plat the Firenze Plaza. The parking required is 18 spaces with one bicycle space. We are providing 21 spaces and one bicycle rack or two spaces. We wanted to add a slide to show the distances from the existing residential at this site and, then, the conceptual elevations that have been discussed to be harmonious with the rest of the materials and design in the development. We feel we are in compliance with the CUP criteria as noted by staff and we agree with the staff conditions and we are here requesting approval of the conditional use permit. We will stand for any questions. Lorcher: Commissioners, do we have any questions for the applicant at this time? Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: Thank you. I'm just curious regarding the addressing of-- of stacking and things like that with the parking spaces being pulled out -- you know, customers pulling out in the parking space. How many are being intended to be set aside for those -- if it's similar to other McDonald's I assume there is dedicated spaces for those. Candrian: Yeah. So, this location actually has all the bells and whistles of efficiency for McDonald's. They have -- if you can see the mouse here -- on the west -- or east side of the building you can see cars one and two are in their roll forward positions. That's F40] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 17,2024 Page 37 of 44 fairly new for McDonald's. This window -- this location also has a third window at car three that a vehicle can pull forward to and, then, car four is at the present window. As it was mentioned by staff, we have done studies on peaking at the other locations within Meridian and that peaking was found to be less than what would spill out of this site. Smith: So, to be clear that the 21 is not including those -- 21 parking spaces that you have are not including those roll forward positions? Candrian: No. The 21 spaces is just the actual parking spaces on the site. Smith: Thank you. Lorcher: All right. Thank you very much. Madam Clerk, do we have anybody that would like to testify? Lomeli: Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes. The first person we have is LeAnn Hume. Okay. The next person will be Andrea Nilson. Lorcher: Hi. If you can get your name and address for the record that would be great. Nilson: My name is Andrea Nielsen. 1461 East Roanoke Drive, Boise, Idaho. Lorcher: Okay. Nilson: And I have a little bit of a cold, so, sorry, bear with me. I have been in the real estate industry for 23 years now, so I have worked on developments kind of all over the country. I was in-house with Albertson's for eight years, so I have worked on Albertson's developments across the country. In coming into tonight's meeting I read all of these e-mails. I read the article, too, that came out in Boise Dev that was titled The Stink in the south of Meridian and when you look across the country and you look at the developments there are McDonald's in several grocery anchored centers, not only in the Treasure Valley, but across the country and -- excuse me. Some of the letters indicated that they thought their property would be devalued by having a McDonald's as part of the project and I just think that's an interesting statement, because it's just not true. You go to Eagle, Idaho, there is a McDonald's in the Albertson's parking lot and I think you would be hard pressed to say that your property has been devalued in Eagle, Idaho. So, I just thought it was interesting, because I think in this project particularly we have turned down several tenants because we didn't think they were a good fit for the project. So, we have really put effort into making sure that we have services, nail salon, club pilates, a bank, a dentist. We wanted to make sure we have sit-down restaurants, which is why we have 2,800 square feet that are still vacant there. We are working hand in hand with Albertson's to try to get a few waivers that we need to allow that sit- down restaurant in the other end cap. We have Jersey Mike's, which I think is a healthier option for sandwiches. We have a dry cleaner, which is another service provider. So, I feel like we have turned away several tenants that we just did not think were a good fit for the project and so I just thought it was very interesting when people were so upset about McDonald's, because if you look at their menu they actually have F41 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 17,2024 Page 38 of 44 healthier options if you like to choose them. So, anyway, I just wanted to kind of give my two cents there based on development that I have done across the country. I think it's -- you are never going to make everybody happy, but I think we have done a really good job trying to do that in this development. Lorcher: Thank you. Madam Clerk. Lomeli: Madam Chair, the next person that signed up is Vic DeMelo, I believe. Lorcher: Okay. Lomeli: The next person is Julie Kissler. Kissler: Julie Kissler. 1401 South Denver in Boise. And I don't know if we can go back to the slide that showed the distances between -- yep. That one. So, I just wanted to add my two cents to this, because I actually live less than a hundred feet from a McDonald's off of Broadway Avenue in Boise and McDonald's has done a great job with their landscaping and their barrier between the residences between my home and the McDonald's. I don't have any issues with sound stacking. I mean I live off of Broadway and I hear more of that than I do from the McDonald's and there is absolutely no smell and I have been there 24 hours a day -- I mean I have been there when there is football games and the traffic has had no impact on myself and other neighbors in the area that I have discussed with, so -- that was all. Lorcher: Thank you. Madam Clerk. Lomeli: Madam Chair, the next person is Kellie Elliott. Lorcher: Good evening. Elliott: Good evening. I'm going to move this down a little bit. Kellie Elliott. 4199 South Leonardo Avenue. I actually was quoted in that Boise Dev article that I just saw a week ago, so, yea for seeing that, because I didn't even know there was a public hearing because I did not see the sign until this week. So, yes, I am in opposition of this for several reasons and my comments have already been submitted. But as the young lady -- much respect to her for her experience, she lives off Broadway, we live in Meridian, surrounded by parks, walking paths, pocket parks, a neighborhood elementary school. All due respect to Albertson's and the owners of the development, and McDonald's does not fit in with our neighborhood. And the -- across the street from the site is zoned as residential. So, how does that work when the drive thru is, again, right by residential. That's R-8 designation. I sat in the Albertson's parking lot the other morning just to see what it would be like to visualize -- give an opportunity to see that, well, this drive through thing sounds interesting. I sat in a parking spot so I could see the pharmacy. There was a lady at the pharmacy drive through. It's a very busy drive through, because nobody wants to get out and get their medicine. If that's all they need to go through that drive through. So, Albertson's had a truck blocking the back portion F42 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 17,2024 Page 39 of 44 of the entrance. You could still get into it, but you had to go around the truck, because that's where they unload on that back lot. So, there was a truck blocking that. Car drove around it to get to the pharmacy and, then, another car was coming in, so because that truck was blocking they went down the street in front where those parked cars are, that little outlet street on the -- I don't -- on the other side of the site the same time the pharmacy lady was exiting and it's tight. It is extremely tight and I can't imagine a drive through going in on this corner even as bare as it is right now, just because of the pharmacy drive through, the buffer, the parking and that street that's minimal. Now, I also want to talk about -- I was very surprised to see that ACHD didn't have anything to say. ITD didn't have anything to say, because coming off this roundabout -- and, by the way, the whole C-C is supposed to be encouragement, support, benefit of living, shopping, dining and working nearby, thereby reducing vehicle trips. A drive through does not reduce vehicle trips, it draws more vehicles to that area. So, I thought that was interesting. Also the owners sell for these tenant spots is 23,000 cars a day through that roundabout. So, my time is done? Lorcher: It is. Elliott: Okay. I respectfully ask that it be denied. Thank you. Lorcher: Thank you. Madam Clerk. Lomeli: Madam Chair, the next person is Brett Shavers. Okay. Robert -- yeah. Sorry. Lorcher: Okay. Lomeli: Last on the list is Samantha Hall. Lorcher: If you would like to testify you will have to come up. If you can give your name and address for the record, please. Hall: Samantha Hall. 2979 East Ragusa Street. So, I live the closest to where this would be and there are tons of cars in there through the roundabout all the time. The lanes merge -- if you guys have driven -- I'm sure some of you have driven through that roundabout. So, it goes from -- I think it's three lanes, because there is like two coming from the roundabout and, then, they all merge right in that same spot where some of those exits would be. So, you have got -- you are going to have a lot more traffic coming out of the Albertson's area and this drive through area where all the lanes are merging right there as well. It's going to be incredibly chaotic and it's not a good fit for that neighborhood. Not whatsoever. I know you guys are trying to say that it looks classy, but a high quality McDonald's is not high quality, does not fit with that neighborhood. It does not fit with what you guys are trying to do in that whole section of Meridian. Right after that Lake Hazel, you guys are trying to do a lot of pretty stuff off of there. This does not fit. So, that is -- that -- and we actually live there, so that is why we are so concerned about it, because our kids drive through there -- our teenage drivers and our children walk through there and ride their bikes through there. F43] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 17,2024 Page 40 of 44 Lorcher: Thank you. Hall: Thank you. Lorcher: Madam Clerk? Lomeli: Madam Chair, no one else has signed up. Lorcher: Would the applicant like to come forward and address some of the concerns? Candrian: Yeah. We would like to speak on behalf of -- maybe the concern on traffic and the concern on circulation within the development. Well -- so, with the circulation on the development, so I want to go back to the original plan and maybe point out the improvement of circulation that we are proposing on this site. Originally the site was proposed with the -- maybe. There we go. As you can see it was originally proposed with the drive through and the parking directly accessing off of that shared drive aisle for the overall development and the site plan now actually has a separation of nearly ten foot wide planter to create separation from that shared drive aisle and pull the McDonald's users into the site, rather than stacking in that shared drive aisle clogging up the rest of the development. In regards of the traffic study, because this was studied as an overall development the original traffic impact study for the site was analyzed as a 5,000 square foot building and now we are proposing a 4,500 square foot building. So, we wanted to show the traffic counts decreased based on that reduction in square footage and as it was noted ACHD did not have any comment on this project because all of the applicable improvements of the streets were done as part of the overall development at that 5,000 square foot. So, those -- those improvements that were already installed would be more than adequate for the reduction in building size. Lorcher: Okay. Commissioners, do you have any other questions for the applicant before we close the public hearing? Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: Are -- are there any contingencies just generally speaking if say -- say McDonald's is having a really good day and the additional efficiency plans aren't enough, are there any contingencies in place regarding handling that -- that -- that overflow in that scenario? Zuzak: Would you mind if we actually have the McDonald's folks come up and answer this question? Lorcher: That's fine. Hi. If you could just state your name and address for the record. F44] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 17,2024 Page 41 of 44 Yagusosky: Sure. Robert Yagusosky. 7105 Fairway Avenue Southeast, Snoqualmie, Washington. Lorcher: Okay. Yagusosky: So, in terms of contingencies, I believe that we have already shown the pull forward lanes, which is -- which is what we have those for. We also can route people around to open parking stalls if need be to the point where if it ever got to that. But we have analyzed this and we don't anticipate getting anymore than three cars behind the order points. So, you know, one in -- one in one lane and two in the other, so -- and, then, I think we can fit actually an additional car without blocking the drive aisle on top of that. So, we have put a lot of thought into this, you know, and we believe we have the space to mitigate if we have a really great day like you are saying. Lorcher: All right. Thank you very much. Can I get a motion to close the public hearing, please? Smith: So moved. Seal: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for application H- 2024-0044. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Lorcher: Before we go forward, Kurt or planners, I would just like to reiterate -- or have you reiterate what we are voting on tonight. Starman: So, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, I will start by starting at the ten thousand foot level, which is -- and it's already been alluded to, but this project is nearly fully entitled, you know, at the point of annexation and the concept plan and preliminary plat were part of the development agreement for this property. So, those entitlements are in place. I think it was mentioned in the staff report a restaurant is a permitted use in this zoning district. Really, the only issue before the Commission this evening is a very narrow issue, which is -- and has been discussed previously -- because this is a -- another drive through in close proximity to the drive through at Albertson's for their pharmacy and/or within 300 feet of a residential district, that's the issues before you and so the purpose of the conditional use permit before you tonight is what mitigations may be required -- conditions may be required to mitigate the impacts of this drive through because of its proximity to another drive through and so staff has developed a list of proposed conditions for your consideration. The applicant has indicated that the applicant is -- is in agreement with those conditions and so that's the issue before you. It's a conditional use permit that is very specific to this drive through and only because it's in close proximity to the Albertson's pharmacy drive through. F45 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 17,2024 Page 42 of 44 Lorcher: Nick, do you have anything else that you want to add as far as the conditional use permit? Napoli: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, no. I think Kurt did a great job. It's really restaurant is a permitted use in the C-C, so if McDonald's did not want a drive through here and just wanted to put a brick and mortar with no drive through they could have done that without going to the public hearing process. So, really, it is just for the drive through here tonight and, like Kurt said, for any mitigation to your concerns that you might have regarding traffic and those type of things for the drive through. Correct. Lorcher: So, for those of you in attendance tonight and if you are also listening on Zoom, this could have been, you know, any restaurant, but they announced that it was going to be McDonald's. So, it could have been -- they could have not said what it was. They were good to say a drive through restaurant. And so the permitted use is already there. As a -- as a voting body for a conditional use permit it is not within our purview to say yes or no on the type of food that's going to be offered. Our job is to make sure that they are following the rules of the City of Meridian for the conditional use permit. That is what we have been asked to vote on tonight. It just happens to be a McDonald's. If you don't like McDonald's, if you don't like Taco Bell, if you don't like In-N-Out, then, it's been already approved to be a drive through restaurant. That's happening. So, it happened to be that the developer of this particular organization has decided that the tenant is going to be McDonald's. So, Commissioners, do we have any comments as in regard to this application of what's been put up in front of us to vote on this conditional use permit? Smith: Madam Chair? Sandoval: Madam Chair? Smith: I will defer. Lorcher: All right. Commissioner Sandoval. Sandoval: Yeah. Just to address some of the -- the public testimony here, you know, I'm one of those nutty people who thinks that we should have 700 ingredients approved to eat. So, I'm all about health food, but fast food is not on trial here. It's really just that drive through to me and that barrier with that island I think is a great separation. So, as far as the CUP I don't see really any option other than to approve it. Lorcher: Okay. Commissioner Smith. Smith: Madam Chair, I echo a lot of that feedback. I also think that this kind of looks similar or all the concerns about Albertson's being near McDonald's, I -- I think immediately to Target on Chinden having a Starbucks. I believe the KFC or an AW there and that functions relatively, you know, adequately. I don't see any issues when I'm -- when I'm there and so -- I mean I'm sure there are growing pains as the F46] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 17,2024 Page 43 of 44 development gets settled, but the plan in place I think is great. I -- I -- I'm happy to see that they are -- they are -- the applicant is embracing technology and embracing kind of new developments with -- with these new kind of windows and these pull forward locations. I think that's -- that's an interesting approach and to know that there is additional fall backs in case, you know, there is a great day at -- at peak hours. I -- I feel happy in supporting this. Lorcher: Commissioner Seal, any comments? Seal: Yeah. Madam Chair, I echo what was just said about the -- the drive forward position and stuff and first time I really saw any of those is when I was on the East Coast in North Carolina and they work very very well, so it's good. I mean just to address some of the other comments that remain in public testimony -- on the written public testimony. I mean there is a million things that could have gone in here, so, you know, I mean there is a lot of restaurants that fit the same complaints that are there, so -- I mean I love Los Betos, but you can smell it from quite a ways away. It's a great local restaurant. Don't get me wrong. You know, Sid's Garage, a great place, but you want to talk about noise, holy moly, and God forbid we put an In-N-Out there. So, you know, there is -- there is a lot of things that could go in that might make things a whole lot worse than -- than a McDonald's that's there. So, you know, whether or not it's healthy, that's up to the people that want to inhabit that, so -- Lorcher: I think it works at Cherry Lane and Ten Mile. I think it works at Locust Grove and Fairview. I think it works well at State Street and Eagle Road. You know, it's -- the -- at the grocery stores seem to have a fast food component on the outside. That's not unusual for our community, whether you are on the south side of the freeway or the north side of the freeway. So, in regard to our purview to vote on the conditional use permit that they are following the rules of how it should be, because it's near another drive through, I think they do -- are doing what they have asked -- the city has asked them to do. So, with that in mind, after considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve file No. 2024-0044 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 17th, 2024, with no modifications. Smith: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to approve File No. 0044. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Lorcher: I will take one more motion. Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. F47] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 17,2024 Page 44 of 44 Smith: Move to adjourn. Seal: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:19 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS. ) APPROVED 11 I 7 12024 MARIA LORCHER - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK F48 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Approve Minutes of the October 3, 2024 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 4 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 3,2024 Page 69 of 69 Lorcher: It's been moved to decline the conditional use permit and annexation for Rolling Hill Subdivision due to the enclave and lack of transition. Do I have a second? Grace: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded for application number 2023-0070. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Lorcher: Commissioners, I will take one more motion. Grace: Move to adjourn. Rust: Second. Smith: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:02 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS. ) APPROVED 10-17�2024 MARIA LORCHER - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK F73 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Cedar Springs Animal Care Facility, by Sandee Transtrum, Biltmore Co., located at 4759 N. Summit Way F74 CITY OF MERIDIAN C� E IDIAN --- FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ",A H O DECISION& ORDER In the Matter of the Request for Conditional Use Permit for Cedar Springs Animal Care Facility, Located at 4759 N. Summit Way in the L-O Zoning District,by Sandee Transtrum,Biltmore Co. Case No(s).H-2024-0036 For the Planning& Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: October 3,2024 (Findings on October 17, 2024) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of October 3, 2024, incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of October 3, 2024, incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of October 3, 2024, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of October 3,2024, 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. 11-7 84 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 upon the applicant,the Planning Department,the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [H-2024-0036] Page 1 75 7. That this approval is subject to the conditions of approval in the attached staff report for the hearing date of October 3,2024, 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 § I I- 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 a Conditional Use Permit is hereby approved in accord with the conditions of approval in the staff report for the hearing date of October 3, 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 11-5B-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 11-513-6.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 § 67-6521(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 §§ 67-652 1(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. G. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of October 3,2024 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [H-2024-0036] Page 2 F76] Byy action of the Planning&Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the 17th day of October ,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 SAM RUST VOTED Maria Lorcher, Chairman 10-17-2024 Attest: Chris Johnson, City Clerk 10-17-2024 Copy served upon the Applicant,the Planning and Development Services divisions of the Community Development Department,the Public Works Department and the City Attorney. 10-17-2024 By: Dated: City Clerk's Office CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [H-2024-0036] Page 3 77 EXHIBIT A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C��fEPIDIAN*,,--, DEPARTMENT REPORT HEARING 10/3/2024 Legend --------------- [� DATE: Project Location I TO: Planning&Zoning Commission -:Area of impact m }= City Limits FROM: Linda Ritter,Associate Planner O Analysis 208-884-5533 1. fritter@meridiancity.org APPLICANT: Sandee Transtrum,Biltmore Co. SUBJECT: H-2024-0036 Cedar Springs Animal Care Facility- 41 ®5 CUP YRM LOCATION: 4759 N. Summit Way, located in the Wk '/2 of the NE %4 of SEC 36, TAN,R.1 W � I. PROJECT OVERVIEW A. Summary A Conditional Use Permit to develop a 4,450 square foot animal care facility offering general practices such as examinations and small procedures on 0.249-acres of land in the L-O zoning district. B. Issues/Waivers None C. Recommendation Staff: Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit with the conditions noted in Section IV below. D. Decision Approved City of Meridian I Department Report 1. Project Overview ■ IL COMMUNITY METRICS Table 1: Land Use Description Details Map Ref. Existing Land Use(s) Vacant - Proposed Land Use(s) Animal Care Facility - Existing/Proposed Zoning Vacant/L-O VI.A.2 Future Land Use Designation Office VI.A.3 Table 2: Process Facts Description Details Preapplication Meeting date Tuesday,May 21,2024 Neighborhood Meeting 8/8/2024;6 attendees Site posting date (Click or tap to enter a date) Table 3: Community Metrics Agency/Element Description/Issue Reference Ada County Highway District IV.D • Comments Received Yes, Staff Report - • Commission Action Required No - • Access N. Summit Way via W.McMillan Road - • Traffic Level of Service (Description of level of service or performance indicators) - ITD Comments Received (Yes/No, Staff Report or Other IVY Meridian Fire No Comments Error! Reference source not found. Meridian Police No Comments Error! Reference source not found. Meridian Public Works Wastewater Distance to Mainline: Sewer service available to the site; IV.B Impacts or Concerns: See Public Works site specific conditions. Meridian Public Works Water Distance to Mainline: Water available at the site;Impacts IV.B or Concerns:None—Ensure no trees are located within 10' of the water meter. See City/Agency Comments and Conditions Section for all department/agency comments received. City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics ■ Figure 1: One-Mile Radius Existing Condition Metrics Reference Parcel: R1333210170 Date Retrieved:2024/9/11 Parcel Count Parcel Acreage Infill Indicator: Surrounding Area 4,079 40 2% Not City 2,235 1,681. ® City Limits 5 Not City Household Change Household & Population Growth • Households El2020 Population Chanqe:4.7% population ■Growth (Household and Population Change since 2010 Decennial) 10,000 20,000 30,000 Use Types Residential Addresses All Addresses Sinizle-familv is 2%1% 11% ElMulti-family ❑ Commercial Preliminary Plats(last 5-years) Conditional Use Permit(last 5-years) Proposed Proposed ' Pending Pending Approved Approved 0 200 400 600 800 0 100 200 300 Single-familv ® Multi-familv Notes: See VII.Additional Notes&Details for Staff Report Maps,Tables,and Charts. City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics ■ Figure 3: Service Impact Summary ImpactService • • Ready Marginal Caution o\`oe � y\� o� � \ `\Ae Notes: See VII.Additional Notes&Details for Staff Report Maps,Tables,and Charts. City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics ■ III. STAFF ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code(UDC) A. General Overview This property is designated Office on the Future Land Use Map(FL UM) in the Comprehensive Plan. This designation is meant to provide opportunities for low-impact business areas. These uses would include professional offices, technology and resource centers; ancillary commercial uses may be considered(particularly within research and development centers or technological parks). The existing Cedar Springs subdivision is zoned L-O and contains twelve (12) commercial lots in which seven (7) of the buildings are completed or underway. The uses include personal or health services. Cedar Spring Lot 18, a .249-acre parcel, is located in the center circle of this business complex and has commercial buildings, drive lanes, and parking stalls buffering it from the residential lots on all sides. Table 4: Project Overview Description Details History AZ-00-019,PP-00-018,DA(Inst.# 102067381),RZ-03-013 DA(Inst.# 105058639),Preliminary Plat(PP-02-027)DA(Inst.# 103192357),PP-03- 044,and FP-04-012 B. History and Process The property was approved for annexation and zoning of 81.54 acres of land to R-8 and L-O zones for the Cedar Springs North Subdivision in 2002. All utilities, roadways,pathways, perimeter and street landscaping has been installed. This lot is part of Cedar Springs Subdivision No. 5 which consist of twelve(12) commercial building lots and five (5) common lots on 8.55 acres. C. Site Development and Use Analysis A Conditional Use Permit is requested to develop a 4,450 square foot animal care facility offering general practices such as examinations and small procedures on 0.249-acres of land in the L-O zoning district as required by UDC Table 11-2B-2. No overnight boarding is being proposed. The applicant states as the population of Meridian continues to grow, the need for additional pet care for residents is limited. Foothill Veterinary Clinic will be a neighborhood clinic with general business operating hours, never before 6 am or after 10 pm, to treat general pet health and small procedures, no boarding services will be available and pet outdoor access will be confined to a small fenced area under staff supervision as needed. Additional noise insulation and landscaping will be used on this building to ensure the Foothill Veterinary Clinic will be a valued addition to the surrounding community and neighbors. Per UDC 11-4-3, all animals shall be indoors at all times, except when being exercised.At such times, animals shall be under the supervision and direct control of a caretaker. The animals cannot be released outside within the fenced area without supervision. 1. Existing Structures/Site Improvements (UDC 11-1): There are no existing structures on this site. All the perimeter landscaping and roads have been installed with the plat. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ 2. Proposed Use Analysis (UDC 11-2): The proposed use `Animal Care Facility"is an allowed use with an approved conditional use permit. 3. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): The proposal meets the dimensional standards for setbacks, landscape buffers,parking requirements, landscape requirements and maximum building height for the L-O zoning district. 4. Specific Use Standards (UDC 11-4-3): 1. All animals shall be indoors at all times, except when being exercised.At such times, animals shall be under the supervision and direct control of a caretaker. The applicant is proposing to install a wooden privacy fenced area are located on the southeast side of the building to ensure animal safety. This area will be used to walk the animals while in the hospital care in a safe environment and to prevent escape and/or injury to the animals. 2. The facility owner and/or operator shall comply with all state and local regulations relative to such a facility and shall maintain housekeeping practices designed to prevent the creation of a nuisance and to reduce noise and odor to a minimum. The animals will be indoors at all times except when exercising. All animal waste shall be maintained and discarded in a manner that minimizes odor. 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. Require appropriate building design, and landscaping elements to buffer, screen, beautify, and integrate commercial, multifamily, and parking lots into existing neighborhoods. Buildings shall be designed in accord with the "City of Meridian Architectural Standards Manual." There are no existing structures on this site. Sidewalks, landscaping and parking were installed with development of Cedar Springs Subdivision No. 5. 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): All the perimeter, buffer and parking lot landscaping were installed with the development of Cedar Springs Subdivision No. 5. 3. Parking (UDC 11-3C): Off-street vehicle parking is required per the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-6B.1. i. Nonresidential parking analysis Per UDC 11-3C commercial buildings require one (1)parking space for every five hundred(500)square feet of gross floor area. The total number of parking spaces City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ required is nine (9). The applicant is proposing twenty-seven (27)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 the twenty-seven (27) parking spaces provided, a total of one bicycle parking space is required. 4. Building Elevations (Comp Plan 5.01.02D, Architectural Standards Manual): Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed structure as shown in Section III. Building materials consist of stucco, shingle roof, anodized aluminum storefront, stone veneer and accent paint. Final design is required to comply with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual and recorded development agreement. 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): The applicant is proposing to install a four(4)foot high vinyl fence for the enclosed dog area. E. Transportation Analysis 1. Access (Comp Plan 6.01.02C, UDC 11-3A-3, UDC 11-3H-4): Access to the property is from N. Summit Way via N.McMillan Road. 2. Multiuse Pathways (UDC 11-3A-5): There is an existing multi-use pathway along W. McMillan Road. 3. Pathways (Comp Plan 4.04.0IA, UDC 11-3A-8): Ensure that new development and subdivisions connect to the pathway system. Pathways currently exist for this development. No new pathways are required. 4. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): Sidewalks along N. Summit Way and on the lot currently exist for this development. F. Services Analysis All utilities shall meet the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan and UDC sections identified below. 1. 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. 2. 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. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ 3. 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. Water and sewer services were installed with the construction of Cedar Springs Subdivision No. 5 and stubbed to the parcel. Street lights were installed within the development and along N. Summit Way. No additional street lights are being proposed with this development. There are existing fire hydrants at the corner off. Summit Way and Havasu Falls Street and existing fire hydrants within the Cedar Springs North Business Park. IV. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Meridian Planning Division I. Future development of this site shall comply with the previous conditions of approval and terms of the existing Development Agreement and the conditions contained herein [AZ-00- 019,PP-00-018,DA(hist.# 102067381),RZ-03-013 DA(Inst. # 105058639),Preliminary Plat(PP-02-027)DA(Inst.# 103192357),PP-03-044, and FP-04-012]. 2. The proposed project shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-22 for animal care facilities. 3. All animals shall be indoors at all times, except when being exercised. At such times, animals shall be under the supervision and direct control of a caretaker. 4. The hours of operations shall be limited to 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.per UDC 11-2B-3B. 5. Protect the existing landscaping on the site during construction,per UDC 11-3B-10. 6. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application shall be submitted and approved for the proposed use prior to submittal of a building permit application. The design of the site and structures shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19; the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. 7. The applicant shall coordinate with Republic Services for the appropriate size and location of the proposed trash enclosure. The trash enclosure shall be relocated away from the residential development. 8. The applicant and/or assigns shall have the continuing obligation to provide irrigation that meets the standards as set forth in UDC I 1-313-6 and to install and maintain all landscaping as set forth in UDC 11-313-5,UDC 11-313-13 and UDC 11-313-14. 9. 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 as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6F. B. Meridian Public Works See public record(copy the link into a separate window) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=362078&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCit X City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments & Conditions ■ C. Meridian Park's Department No multi-use pathways requirements D. Ada County Highway District(ACHD) See public record(copy the link into a separate window) https:llweblink.meridiancity.ory WWebLink/Browse.aspx?id=362078&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCit Y E. Idaho Transportation Department(ITD) See public record(copy the link into a separate window) https://weblink.meridiancity.ory/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=362078&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCit Y V. FINDINGS A. Conditional Use (UDC 11-513-6E) VI. ACTION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit with the conditions noted in Section IV below. B. Commission: The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard this item on October 3,2024. At the public hearing.the Commission moved to approve the subject CUP request. 1. Summary of the Commission public hearing: a. In favor: Jason Poulson Biltmore Co. b. In opposition:None C. Commenting: None d. Written testimony: None e. Staff presenting application: Linda Ritter 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 V. Findings ■ 1 ' 1 1 l�-CHINDEN �. TIP k Z r _ MEM•IL--LAN �,: � ,� W �•c o�C f YJ � IZf. � � >�;` •mot F - -�I« �. }.�W...+.,I-L..,- F'� �ti yI� ft � L•e �- t USTICK -" • unii'Jri "Ir � Y • w.r�•iyf Aun uraa'M:: • •1•\\i Yip � 111 •1■•11,1.1\ ~Ii•l,u••-•-,•. 1111 "'Y"' nr a[i••oi � EII.11 I 0 iii'! °.-- ��11 • •n,• �•� � -�'::::i':n•` r:ila�piiiYil• •I•IIl•.n• •• - r111111 "'p1..�Yliiiil "ii:ii"""i �:�: •••'■! p _ 1•IIIY�.- _... .-•ice ::ViW rn,•pIp•. ''.nnu'i"F.�. s�r�i••.a I Sl Cl w.J '`� '" .t�:rii: 1•.. W vu1r�� _pr�4. , •ii 1 � ��i�� 0 E.•r • iii:." • ' MCMIL-L-AN G!!� '.�I+i-�aun�r�d•"'gyp•+Inr•• .r�v �i�i=_: ` •1 i�1S.L!:"iii-. �ii���„-- V 'fh��r����?��Iplf��. �n, �.:�-� l.ux•::� innunx s r•r ■-- Z .::r='1„ •:�..i. iii .-- :::. 11.1 ►�� nlrur.'-I:.' iiiiil "'J :::1'e.•`. ':,�••• �11�LnW rflr iy nnl' �•1....., r 11111��I lffl�rlrrrll -- - •'iYU\i',i"1111• .�iiiiiiiii:�'•••If�nrrp •••n - •ii•:::::7`::: p mnnnQb,' 1'Y••• •••• ►'r1 carry I 'e;1...._ Ir4`Nullll•u1F1.11:�wlllrl fl .Ii.1::3: : • . ... :'.�:n L��.--..- -•N.Id1 fr1111r plrllr •IIIIr YIY p: • �i�}•+i. 1 li i Ili, Y+ •I1F11-llY'f1/11• /Y /1► roll II — •IP: •IIU •ipr�a� �1� • 111. , � • USTICK — /— -PCH'INDEN IM . ............... II Z �- --- iri,�li..:.r.1,rT;•ys7►I�r':� .I:..,tV4��,,,,�,,:,- .r.r _ 1.,� _ :��n:::::..���. q.-I ■ .I,.or,,,,.,;,IIYIIIIF.� R...■ • • ��. ` "iiii:ii . 1l.,..� _ �� ' 7- -:ii• � _ 1!•�ulul■r Ilrl �ii� -'Fn 11'� - ni::iu'1"um1'n�f,•-i:- Vpr-` -• �-- •_'.•••••••••:n Ilullln eul • � 111•r"j nnY1.laFrj::�:.u'u.:'IR 1:'Irtlnxl.aallllllf"li.f� •- u•N7L' _:C11n•,::� !•��-�{•-:1111111111 II•w'l1A .Ly 0.. - .•=I::„°u•.'•,'�.�%:.9.y'�Y,�, ,W=','k"'^: :ii':�i1n:::."�n1-"IYY"IYNIF' , -,Plfl,rlwl =.-.-.lrAl���F - � -- �1��•i., �� Hi,ry ~ FF"�!!!O�:f1i111111!ll11111111111111 Alllllll+ - • ,' Illflll,-::� -\ �,•1, qra�,, I--_�..ul111!• ::■:^. FF m ally �'��dminn.�: ��'•', . n�lu'u:uu. ..:aYl.... .!■a_4.r..w.r a1...!'. „IIIII� -.li!�--•-i:FFF nn' ____ -�u,!\, -_::: 331%��,i (1\ •f = :�� uI IIIIIIIr j•iiiii i:i::I�:ilu:V�= " __ ••`�, - I"I] •y�„ _--:1a::i i--• V� ♦� _ -:�u. n.r�'� wnw..nur::....... _ I : '4'•' __ _ ':'1:0::; lVl• :ln::i---- f I._r' - na�ti di'h�•, __� _\�.y0�•�_Il.:. Jr� P!!1! rI F.• rlr::_ man lu Y............ �� # -• .I. s =_rd �, --iillF ar aiwrwlll,\•I::IIIInIn - - !- - 'llll•,' r•:n! I!r!!:r'� Ii'�•���"'_ `r- 11lL�, ./IIII IIIIIII a�-d1111lIFF • 0 `�,♦ ,!.=O'I• '•L"r� - \If lf�/ ,1r�,,�l.w 111,v,n•n„ �"- 0 - • �i�o�:■�1-"/.r.,'_V Il�,r� � ,1yii!ll:��r i ,,,,nnn l' i y bf:•af IIIIF a'a:i:o� alc n o _•i1lr ■i♦1� -r(4i O ..Ira MCM�IL-L-AN ••,►nFllll:�,��,� =� :;1; -IIB= � Mpillllll Inilnl�y _ I.Iuw a Ti I IIIIIIII. i ' = . : Inlllll 7 p: urtn■a irrr Q , -::n: �yn;.':1 •'lumnun • , - Z ;xi,u � IIJ • - • J :::Y;e:::..l:e''� =�•: __ �-I'�w''.=,'•n6.Nn.1..n...w�aalr _ n1i rr�►.r r YI u! I - r.—.n:.:..— - _.: � �Ia..r1111.-....:';..'•r. _a1111 I!Y!o• 711�� q rw 717rfI -..:..::Pan' YI li� FfHI jpli �IIf1 �7 r•f.'1:-wn�'.•,! :::'r r:s•\s!w• �1"'7i C::'.-�i ur auuniil h��L��iller 1 - ::5i"•'••••••••,• • • •••�I9inn ie a'.;-,•�i"n' +'�~ f Q\Iil F1.\!i illn wl�� __i=� rP.i_+�::::• �\ollll;Ill,lurt`>/`�, 4•���0 �nm ►.n,��� p�ij• :-�e '��� ��::. �iil:'.:: '.'.'.:i:.:ll�oiir�,un::�_�Nu■I I��„w�ti �11.I111 1 13 ..... .:.:i i+` �r �y�4�4_:: ,�n,�11�b"'.,"l;iil sal+q.:'11•'_•?��`"+1��' hill :". - US++ YII:IIlllllla ;}•!!R; - ;�;;,,•. ..: �.... _ a Irlllll"III Irk_p._Illmi� 'I'' - i:llll'Ir��--w '!qw�r!i•ii A 1��n��'ii �iii y -f i-�w ~ ':Till'"_��wl4ww,..11111111__.,',_�+ i�l�y� r�-i',jiiniiiiilit'r11 n11 - ,� . qunnn.f�-�:�'11� -� �=_ Illap:allnm�11��1��111111., �i' CI .�:: : :nS'n:...r.FF•••rll ,- rw�gi..`•r � =�gpr::i': -_-? �.�flunw' •Nie wulYlnrpr� ' � -::ua��iS:.=i'mu 1 ='.In r p�1:: u u '^unnlN•a!.un>_IiA p��'` =: a 1�: ! I m 1 - - :.nrl�y� ems.+:.; c a� �3��•:nb" :'..`A�'nyr:•.y. � �°��'.'.�'.�:.'.:: - Ilu\'iuiii�lu -.All. . .-. _ .- S. 4�0..,,, ,t r. n-. ..il!•r:�•' -- u1i'� ::uw►►. 1. y%rr r•illrwi�:--.',' � .:Il.c=_�:::::::�' • r■anal■ ��::- o' �• W �Ill.a� .... ���::ii • gun un frr��. -•. ��rnon,n►i:7 N-�,;p"vo I�ii l? i�: ..i -.lulu�I`� i::iuF11n• �.:'J''••'•' N '1'I�' � '� c n:'_i Ewa ' -i::111u,: aIIIIIiw • ----- +�n,IP-_:,'iililr,.r ll� !rinai �p • p-h�' ` 1.•_:_'1�,.��r1� I � Imps"e='.:iiim:: nl• o:riuF. ii ::ruuui�•�`•, 3" ''�`,` . �1... -.mx�' '���ui:•:•m p ! n.uru•!F uunnnrN�:i::u `rn.10 �+�', nln �••' ��Inu- r _ ���>1Cl nrnla+i alli'.n���\.�•uFF, I i.FFn I11,. •r .�►11...�.. �r:r::�•�'p.::::l�l:.. 'VMq'�1--�:i �■�■■irr _ MCMIL-L-AN = %,r►fA1H��ltl,�� =-' � nnr . n.0 �/ :,J•:- :'•:P�fill�C:�"- -= 1......^namnul n ,i,61 n14 ♦� a! a..,.�7��:Y`a.'.:•nu N'' 114�m u� an �• un Ma•SY`` 1�"1 W ==--'iYlYllnr.•::••;'� __ :\FF.F.FF. O i '-�� 1••wlfl O a_ FIn1ula:�- =-i'ii:f:q �/ Z nr� —IIr.�' •j�iei•i=7 Z _: �iiiil�uiii Y : lurr . I:y anal. � •C♦�Ar 1� *\u r. .oiNurn m.�F r lullw �`^•up14�"n Flu r4: J -. ,.Lnn,r _�. •nlr4 Irrrp�-. I���nWaa1 ''dlrlrr Gii�b -••h,n -^ ::Yln iuAFlnq _ AFns► /hpinegq; -iiiiiml'�rii�■7nglj 1:=.'.l Sj ���:::::'e=...�.�:-:= x 0 m nln,I�e'r� `a'�►►iar frL: Y,-, �.e=RL :e�z• i1 I• "t'Iun�yt Irlli;IIIV'r/pV 4i•i l:: ,rrny ,� -1,,=' — sq_ _ c•!p n110 r■ ■ USTIEK ::.i•r1, iiw•�• :,N1 d 1. i 5. Map Notes Recent Area Preliminary Plats: Nearby Recent Preliminary Plats(2018+) H-2016-0112 H-2017-0104 Recent Area Conditional Use Permits Nearby Recent Conditional Use Permits (2018+) H-2020-0123 B. Subject Site Photos too l44)"-tqv*i A""''Y -1 7� �^ .•� � `+�If� "ems"+!� �` pwill y n j i 41 ' a✓ 4c City of Meridian Department Report VI. Exhibits ■ C. Service Accessibility Report PARCEL R1333210170 SERVICE ACCESSIBILITY Overall Score: 35 65th Percentile Location In City Limits GREEN Extension Sewer Trunkshed mains < 500 ft. from parcel GREEN Floodplain Either not within the 100 yrfloodplain or > 2 acres GREEN r 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 6REDA Arterial Road Buildout Status Ultimate configuration (#of lanes in master streets YELLOW plan) > existing (# of lanes) & road IS in 5 yr work plan 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 F Park Walkability Park within 1/2 mile OR a Neighborhood Park wit'-'- GREEN 1/4 mile walking City of Meridian I Department Report VI. Exhibits ■ D. Site Plan(date: 6/19/2024) .................. -F! ZZ , .. z 7,71 z EV > F Al 41= 2�M— -�D CLIP-1-0 City of Meridian Department Report VI. Exhibits E. Landscape Plan(date: 6/24/2024) ly uHoscwc Hors: urvoscwc wx•wsrw�. �••— o o CD 77 K � W � � eau z sH 9 gaHreR A e .—._ L117 ��. Irk. AD - e ---------------- _ •on• r` s �e • I® t.LrLf"I—r__f —L118 City of Meridian Department Report VI. Exhibits ■ F. Building Elevations(date: 6/24/2024) vM E o yo rti xaxix aEvwnox u ow m� i CUP 2.0 e� t'e� E A N o �a x do ?o _ r m (1NW PERSPECIIYENEW 9°` \'J CUP-3 0 City of Meridian Department Report VI. Exhibits ■ VII. ADDITIONAL NOTES & DETAILS FOR STAFF REPORT MAPS,TABLES,AND CHARTS (link to Community Metrics) A. One-Mile Radius Existing Condition Notes This data is automatically derived from enterprise application and GIS databases, and exported dynamically. Date retrieved notes generally reflect data acquired or processed within the last 30- days. Analysis is based on a one-mile radius from the centroid of the identified parcel. Parcel based data excludes certain properties and represents land as it exists now. Properties considered are only those with a total assessed value greater than 0(i.e. excludes most HOA area,transitional development, government, and quasi government facilities). The following values also constrain included property acreage to reduce outliers and non-conforming instances from distorting averages: R-2< 5.0; R-4<2.0; R-8 < 1.0; R-15 <0.5; R-40<0.25. Conditional Use Permits and Preliminary plat data likely include duplicate project submittals as they may be for the same project, approved at different times through multiple application types. Consider each independently or review prior application approvals. Some approved entitlements, and particularly older ones,may be constructed. Decennial population counts and household counts are based on the most recent Decennial Census. Current population and current household values are COMPASS estimates,usually for the year previous, and are based on traffic analysis zone boundaries(TAZ's). B. Mixed Use Analysis Notes This data is derived from enterprise application and GIS databases, and exported dynamically. Data considered for analysis are only those areas overlapping the overall Mixed Use boundary area. Mixed Use areas across arterial roadways are distinct, separate, and not considered as they do not meet the mixed use principles in the Comprehensive Plan(e.g.pedestrian safety, transportation efficiency, etc.). Mixed Use parcel areas may be greater or smaller than the future land use area designation boundary due parcel size, configuration,right-of-way, and other factors. Conditional Use Permits and Preliminary plat data likely include duplicate project submittals as they may be for the same project, approved at different times through multiple application types. Consider each independently or review prior application approvals. C. Service Assessment Notes This data is derived from enterprise application and GIS database, and exported in dynamic reporting. The system references the most recent available from a variety of sources including sewer main lines, sewer trunksheds, floodplain, fire service areas and response times,police crime reporting,pathway information, existing and planned transit, existing and planned roadway improvements, school proximity,park proximity, and other resources. The overall score represents the total points scored using weighted criteria(it is not a ranked order), and the percentile score is relative comparison value of the parcel being considered versus every other parcel in the City(the higher the better). This tool was developed as a City Council prioritized outcome of the 2019 Comprehensive Plan. D. ACHD Roadway Infographic Notes The Ada County Highway District utilizes a number of planning and analysis tools to understand existing and future roadway conditions. • Existing Level of service(LOS).LOS indicator is a common metric to consider a driver's experience with a letter ranking from A to F.Letter A represents free flow conditions, and on the other end Level F represents forced flow with stop and go conditions. These conditions usually represent peak hour driver experience. ACHD considers Level D, stable flow,to be acceptable. The LOS does not represent conditions City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Additional Notes&Details for Staff Report Maps,Tables, and Charts ■ for bikes or pedestrians, nor indicate whether improvements: are possible; if there are acceptable tradeoffs; or if there is a reasonable cost-benefit. • Integrated Five Year Work Plan (IFYWP).The IFYWP marker(yes/no) indicates whether the specified roadway is listed in the next 5-years. This work may vary, from concept design to construction. • Capital Improvement Plan(CIP).The CIP marker(yes/no)indicates whether the specified roadway is programmed for improvement in the next 20-years. City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Additional Notes&Details for Staff Report Maps,Tables, and Charts ■ E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Meridian Oz (MCU-2024-0002) by Pivot North Design, located at 1475 E. Franklin Rd. F96 CITY OF MERIDIAN V IDIAN;--- FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ! DAHO DECISION& ORDER In the Matter of the Request for a modification to a conditional use permit for Meridian Oz, Located at 1475 E.Franklin Road in the R-40 Zoning District,by Pivot North Design. Case No(s).MCU-2024-0002 For the Planning& Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: September 19th,2024 and October 3rd, 2024 (Findings on October 17th,2024) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of 10/03/2024, incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of 10/03/2024,incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of 10/03/2024, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of 10/17/2024, 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 § I I-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 upon the applicant,the Planning Department,the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [MCU-2024-0002] Page 1 97 7. That this approval is subject to the conditions of approval in the attached staff report for the hearing date of 10/03/2024,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 a modification to a conditional use permit is hereby approved in accord with the conditions of approval in the staff report for the hearing date of 10/03/2024, 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 11-5B-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 § 67-6521(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. G. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of 10/03/2024 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [MCU-2024-0002] Page 2 F981 By action of the Planning&Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the 17th day of October ,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 SAM RUST VOTED Maria Lorcher, Chairman 10-17-2024 Attest: Chris Johnson, City Clerk 10-17-2024 Copy served upon the Applicant, the Planning and Development Services divisions of the Community Development Department,the Public Works Department and the City Attorney. By: Dated: 10-17-2024 City Clerk's Office CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [MCU-2024-0002] Page 3 F991 Exhibit A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C��fEFIDIAN*,­ DEPARTMENT REPORT A H O HEARING 10/3/2024 Legend DATE: _ _-- Project Location m TO: Planning&Zoning Commission ::: Area of impact --LJL1J'L1L = City Limits FROM: Nick Napoli,Associate Planner 0 Analysis 7�0 m nnapoli@meridiancity.org APPLICANT: Danielle Stehman SUBJECT: MCU-2024-0002 - ri Meridian Oz ' LOCATION: 1475 E. Franklin Rd.,in the NE 1/4 of Section 18,T.3N.,R.IE. (Parcel r -- #S1118110051) PROJECT OVERVIEW Summary Modification to the existing Conditional Use Permit(MCU)to amend bedroom counts,building elevations, and site design for a multi-family development consisting of 36 dwelling units on 2.39 acres of land in the R-40 zoning district. Recommendation Staff. Approval with conditions Decision Commission: Approved. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [MCU-2024-0002] Page 4 11001 COMMUNITY METRICS Table 1: Land Use Description Details Map Ref. Existing Land Vacant/undeveloped land - Use(s) Proposed Land Multi-family development - Use(s) Existing/Proposed R-40 Zoning Future Land Use Mixed Use—Community 0 Designation (MU-C) Table 2: Process Facts Description Details Preapplication Tuesday,May 7,2024 Meeting date Neighborhood 5/30/2024 Meeting Site posting date 9/6/2024 Table 3: Community Metrics Agency/ Description/Issue Reference Element Ada County 0 Highway District Comments Received Yes - Commission Action Required No _ - Access Access is proposed via S. - Locust Grove Rd.,an arterial street,at the eastern boundary of the site;no access is proposed via E. Franklin Rd.,an arterial street,at the northern boundary of the site. Traffic Level of Service Franklin Rd.&Locust - Grove Rd.—Better than"E" (acceptable level of service is"E") ITD No - Comments Received Meridian Fire Response Time: Less than 5 - minutes Meridian Distance to Station: 0.6 - Police mile;Response Time:2:58 minutes Meridian Distance to Mainline: Public Works Available at site;Impacts or Wastewater L Concerns:No CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [MCU-2024-0002] Page 5 Floll Meridian Distance to Mainline: 0 Public Works Available at site;Impacts or Water Concerns:No See City/Agency Comments and Conditions Section for all department/agency comments received or see public record. (https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=311186&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity&cr= 1) CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [MCU-2024-0002] Page 6 [102] III. STAFF ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code(UDC) General Overview The applicant is requesting a modification to an approved conditional use permit to redesign the site, elevations, and modify the bedroom count. The original CUP was approved with 36 units and all of them being 2-bedrooms. The applicant has decided to change the bedroom count to 18 1-bedroom and 18 2-bedroom units. Additionally, the site was redesigned to reduce the building count from 8 to 3 buildings. The original plan shows 8 garden style apartment buildings while the new plan is 3 climate-controlled apartment buildings. The proposed use and density of the development is consistent with the Mixed-Use Community(MU-C) FLUM designation. Table 4: Proiect Overview Description Details History AZ-99-005 (Development Agreement(Inst.#99121334; Ord. 848—Cobblestone Village);CUP-99-005 Cobblestone Village(expired);ROS#13695 (not approved by the City);H-2022-0073(Meridian OZ Apartments MDA&CUP—denied);H-2023-0048 (Meridian OZ Apartments CUP—Approved) Phasing Plan 1 Phase Residential Units 36 multi-family units Open Space 0.34 acre(or 14,837 s.f.) Amenities Covered picnic area,children's play structure,pedestrian walkway,dog park with waste station,enclosed bicycle storage,community garden and exercise facilities. Physical Features The Cook Lateral runs along S.Locust Grove Rd. on this site. Acreage 2.39 acres Lots N/A Density 15 units/acre(gross) History and Process The first MDA&CUP application(H-2022-0073 Meridian OZ Apartments) for a 60-unit multi- family development,with a density of 25 units per acre,was denied by City Council. The denial was based on the density not aligning with the existing DA and the proposed sole access via Locust Grove presenting significant traffic safety concerns with the number of units proposed only using the one access. The Council stated actions to gain approval could include reducing the number of units to be more consistent with that contemplated in the existing DA and better ingress/egress for the site. The previous CUP was approved for a 36-unit multi-family development at a density of 15 units/acre. Site Development and Use Analysis Proposed Use Analysis (UDC 11-2): The previous CUP was approved for a multi-family development consisting of 36 dwelling units in eight(8)3-story structures on 2.39 acres of land in the R-40 zoning district. All of the units were proposed to have 2 bedrooms each. The gross density for the development is 15 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [MCU-2024-0002] Page 7 [103] units/acre consistent with that approved in the existing development agreement and with the guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan for MU-C designated areas. The proposed use is consistent with the previous approval;however,they have shifted to have 3 climate-controlled apartment buildings consisting of 12 units each. Staff has some concerns about the orientation of the building entrances as they are not visible from the drive aisle. This can cause safety issues and make it difficult for emergency services to monitor the area. Staff recommends Buildings 1 and 2 are reoriented to provide better visibility of the entrances or pedestrian lighting is provided to add additional visibility. Staff has reviewed these provisions and included comments below and conditions of approval in Section IX. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): The proposed plat and subsequent development is required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-6 for the R-40 zoning district. The proposed development appears to comply with the dimensional standards of the district. Specific Use Standards (UDC 11-4-3): Residential buildings shall provide a minimum setback of ten feet(10')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 proposed buildings shown on the site plan shall comply with this standard. However,in discussion with our building department, 10 feet of separation is required between carports and the building. Building#3 appears to be 5 feet from the carport on the south side of the building which requires this building to be shifted to the north five additional feet to meet building code requirements. The changes should be reflected on the site plan submitted with the certificate of zoning compliance application. 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 site plan depicts a trash enclosure within the perimeter buffer at the Southeast corner of the site and another trash enclosure at the Northeast portion of the site. Neither of which are visible from the public street due to landscaping screening the enclosures. 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, entryways and other access ways shall not count toward this requirement. In circumstances where strict adherence to such standards would create inconsistency with the purpose statements of this section,the Director may consider an alternative design proposal through the alternative compliance provisions as set forth in section I 1-513-5 of this title. The Applicant states each patio will be roughly 80 square feet. Floor plans should be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application that demonstrate compliance with this standard. For the purposes of this section,vehicular circulation areas,parking areas, and private usable open space shall not be considered common open space. These areas were not included in the common open space calculations for the site. 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 comply with this requirement. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [MCU-2024-0002] Page 8 [104] The parking shall meet the requirements set forth in chapter 3, "Regulations Applying to All Districts", of this title. The proposed parking meets and exceeds UDC standards per the analysis below. Design Standards Analysis Qualified Open Space&Amenities (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3G): Goals 2.02.00 and 2.02.01B of the Comprehensive Plan focus on creating safe, attractive, and well-maintained neighborhoods with ample open space, diverse amenities, and alignment with community needs and values. For multi-family developments,there are specific open space and amenity requirements to support these goals. Open Space Requirements: 1. Baseline Requirement: For multi-family developments of five acres or more,the total baseline common open space must equal or exceed 10%of the gross land area. Since the proposed site is 2.39 acres,this baseline requirement does not apply. 2. Additional Open Space Standards (UDC 11-4-3-27C.5): o Units<500 sq. ft.: 150 sq. ft.per unit(not applicable here). o Units>500 sq. ft. and< 1,200 sq. ft.: 250 sq. ft.per unit. All 36 units fall within this range. o Units> 1,200 sq. ft.: 350 sq. ft.per unit(not applicable here). Given that all units are between 832 sq. ft. and 1,073 sq. ft.,the total required open space is 36 units X 250 sq. ft. =9,000 sq. ft. (or 0.21 acres). 3. Common Grassy Area: Multi-family projects with over 20 units must provide at least one common grassy area of 5,000 sq. ft. to accommodate general activities for all ages. This requirement scales with the number of units. For 36 units, a proportionate area is 9,000 sq. ft. (based on 250 sq. ft.per unit). The proposed site includes a total of 16,664 sq. ft. (or 0.383 acres)of common open space. However, a portion of the open space is adjacent to Franklin Road which requires Commissions approval in order to count towards open space. Staff is recommending a berm or barrier of at least 4 feet in height proposed along E. Franklin Road to help with this. While some areas do not meet the qualified open space standards,the central open space exceeds 5,000 sq. ft., and the total proposed open space meets the minimum requirements. Amenity Requirements (UDC 11-4-3-27D): For multi-family developments with 20 to 75 units,three amenities must be provided,with at least one from each of the following categories: 1. Quality of Life: Outdoor clubhouse and enclosed bike storage. 2. Open Space: Picnic area. 3. Recreation: Pathway. 4. Multi-modal: Bike repair station. The proposed amenities meet the minimum standards,ensuring that the development supports the quality of life, open space, and recreational needs of its residents. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [MCU-2024-0002] Page 9 [105] Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): Landscape buffers along streets A 25-foot wide street buffer is required along E. Franklin and S. Locust Grove Roads, both arterial streets, landscaped per the standards in UDC 11-3B-7C. The DA requires a landscape setback of 35-feet to be provided beyond the required right-of-way of Franklin Rd.;the proposed plan depicts a 50'+1-landscape setback in accord with this provision. Parking lot landscaping Landscaping is required to be provided along all parking areas per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8. The proposed landscape plan does not meet the minimum requirements. The landscape plan should be revised to include a tree in every planter island, if this is not feasible due to utility easements, alternative compliance shall be applied for with the certificate ofzoning compliance submittal. Landscape buffers to adjoining uses The perimeter buffers along the west and south boundaries are required to be landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-313-8C.1 for parking lots. A minimum of one(1) Class II or III tree is required every 35 linear feet along with shrubs and vegetative groundcover. The landscape plan should be revised to include trees and calculations that demonstrate compliance with the standard on the Southern property boundary. Tree preservation Mitigation is required for all existing trees 4-inch caliper or greater that are removed from the site as set forth in UDC 11-313-10C.5.Include mitigation information on the landscape plan that demonstrates compliance with these standards. Storm integration Storm drainage is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-18. Drainage swales should not be within the landscape setbacks along Franklin and Locust Grove Roads as set forth in the development agreement. Pathway landscaping Landscaping is required to be provided along all pathways per the standards listed in UDC 11-313-12C; The proposed landscape plan does not meet all of these requirements. A tree is required on either side of the pathway every 100 linear feet. This is not being met for a portion of the pathway on the east portion of the site.A revised landscape plan shall be submitted with the certificate ofzoning compliance. Parking (UDC 11-3C): Residential parking analysis The parking shall meet the requirements set forth in chapter 3, "Regulations Applying to All Districts", of this title. The proposed parking meets and exceeds UDC standards per the analysis below. Based on(18)2-bedroom units and(18) 1-bedroom units,a minimum of 67 off-street parking spaces are required,including four(4) spaces for guest parking,with 36 of those in a covered carport or garage. Accessible parking is required in accord with ADA standards. A total of 73 spaces are proposed, including 36 covered spaces,meeting the minimum requirement. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [MCU-2024-0002] Page 10 [106] Any parking abutting a sidewalk or landscaped area shall either be widened to 7-feet where 5-feet is currently depicted and the length of the stalls reduced to 17-feet if wheel stops are not desired in parking spaces; otherwise wheel stops shall be provided to prevent vehicle overhang.Wheel stops should be added in all of the carport parking spaces to prevent vehicle overhang onto the adjacent walkway. Bicycle parking analysis Based on 73 vehicle parking spaces, a minimum of three(3)bicycle parking spaces should be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. Bicycle storage is proposed at the pavilion as depicted on the site plan.A bicycle rack capable of holding a minimum of three(3)bicycles, is provided in the central common area for guests in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. Building Elevations (Comp Plan,Architectural Standards Manual): Goals 5.01.02D and 5.01.02A of the Comprehensive Plan emphasize the importance of building design and landscaping in buffering, screening,beautifying, and integrating commercial,multifamily, and parking areas with existing neighborhoods. The schematic renderings for the proposed 3-story structures, detailed in Section V.G,reveal a design utilizing a mix of EIFS siding and metal accents in a neutral color scheme. To ensure the buildings meet these goals, Staff recommends incorporating modulation and pedestrian-scale elements to enhance the visual interest and integration of the structures. The final design of all buildings must comply with the standards outlined in the Architectural Standards Manual. The applicant has revised the elevations to better align with the surrounding buildings and the city's architectural standards,reflecting a commitment to meeting the design and aesthetic requirements. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. A chain-link fence with wire strands along the top exists around the ACHD storm drainage pond to the northeast of this site. The applicant shall work with ACHD to modify this fencing and potentially move it closer to the drainage on the neighboring property. The landscape plan correctly depicts this on the eastern boundary of the site. A 6-foot tall closed vision vinyl fence is shall be included along the southern boundary of the site adjacent to the existing residence in accord with the development agreement. Transportation Analysis Access (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-3, UDC 11-3H-4): Goals 6.01.01 H and 6.01.02B of the Comprehensive Plan emphasize reducing the number of access points onto arterial streets through methods such as cross-access agreements,access management, and frontage or backage roads. These goals also stress the importance of enhancing local and collector street connectivity and incorporating pedestrian access connectors to link subdivisions and promote neighborhood connectivity within the community pathway system. For the proposed development, access is planned via S. Locust Grove Rd.,with no access allowed from E. Franklin Rd. The existing curb cut on Franklin Rd.must be removed, and curbing extended across the former driveway as part of the development. The Police Department has recommended that access via Locust Grove be restricted to right- in/right-out only for safety reasons.Although the ACHD report does not currently include CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [MCU-2024-0002] Page 11 [107] such a restriction, if the Commission concurs with the Police Department's recommendation, a provision should be incorporated to enforce this restriction. Additionally,the Police Department has suggested implementing traffic calming measures within the north/south drive aisle to enhance tenant and pedestrian safety. Staff has included a condition of approval to address this recommendation. Given that both the subject property and the adjacent property to the south are designated MU-C (Mixed Use-Commercial)on the Future Land Use Map(FLUM) and there is no existing local street access,the applicant has proposed a cross-access/ingress-egress easement and driveway, including a pedestrian walkway,to facilitate future interconnectivity with the property to the south, in accordance with UDC 11-3A-3A.2. Staff recommends this cross- access is moved to align with the parking curb cuts closest to Locust Grove. Additionally,the applicant proposes a cross-access/ingress-egress easement and driveway to the property at 50 S. Adkins Way for future connectivity. The site and landscape plans should be revised to reflect this provision. It is important to note that there is a strip of land between this property and 50 S. Adkins Way owned by the Stonebridge Business Owner's Association, so future access will require obtaining consent from that owner. Multiuse Pathways (UDC 11-3A-5): There are no multi-use pathways designated on the Pathways Master Plan for this site. Pathways (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-8): There are no multi-use pathways designated on the Pathways Master Plan for this site.An internal 6-foot wide pedestrian walkway is proposed along the east perimeter boundary of the development adjacent to the existing ACHD storm drainage pond at the corner of Franklin and Locust Grove Roads which could be reduced to 5-feet in width. Landscaping should be provided along the internal pathway in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C; the landscape plan should be revised accordingly. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): There are existing attached sidewalks along E. Franklin Rd. and S. Locust Grove Rd. Typically, detached sidewalks are required along arterial streets; however,because these sidewalks are still in good condition, Staff does not recommend they are removed and reconstructed as detached sidewalks at this time. Services Analysis Pressurized Irrigation (UDC 11-3A-I S): Underground pressurized irrigation water is required to be provided as set forth in UDC I I- 3A-15. Storm Drainage (UDC 11-3A-18): Storm drainage is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-18. Drainage swales should not be within the landscape setbacks along Franklin and Locust Grove Roads as set forth in the development agreement. Utilities (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-21): Connection to City water and sewer services is required and are available to be extended by the developer with development in accord with UDC 11-3A-21 and Goals 3.03.03G& 3.03.03F.Urban sewer and water infrastructure and curb, gutter, and sidewalks are required to be provided with development of the subdivision. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [MCU-2024-0002] Page 12 [108] IV. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS Meridian Planning Division 1. Future development of this site shall generally comply with the provisions in the existing development agreement(AZ-99-005,H-2022-0073,H-2023-0048, and DA Inst. #99121334) and the site plan,landscape plan, open space, site amenities, and elevations submitted with this application and with the conditions listed below. 2. The multi-family development shall have an ongoing obligation to comply with the specific use standards for multi-family developments listed in UDC 11-4-3-27. 3. Floor plans shall be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application that demonstrates compliance with the private open space standard of 80 square feet for each unit as set forth in UDC 11-4-3-27B.3. 4. The multi-family development shall record a legally binding document that states the maintenance and ownership responsibilities for the management of the development, including, but not limited to, structures,parking, common areas, and other development features as set forth in UDC 11-4-3-27F.A recorded copy of said document shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy within the development. 5. Provide a recycling receptacle in the trash enclosure. 6. All structures shall comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. 7. The existing curb cut via Franklin Rd. shall be removed and curbing extended across the driveway. 8. Outdoor lighting shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-11C. The height of a free-standing light fixture on private property shall not exceed 6 feet; streetlamps are exempt from this height restriction.A photometric report shall be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application that demonstrates compliance with these standards in accord with the development agreement to ensure the adjacent residential property and the traveling public aren't impacted by glare. 9. Signage is limited to one(1)low-profile monument type sign near the entry of the development on Locust Grove Road as set forth in the development agreement. 10. Drainage swales should not be within the landscape setbacks along Franklin and Locust Grove Roads as set forth in the development agreement. 11. Multifamily developments with units that take access via secured common corridors shall install and maintain a keyless entry system, or suitable alternative,to provide police access to the common corridors under exigent circumstances as set forth in UDC 11-4-3-27G. The keyless entry system or alternative shall be subject to review and approval by the Meridian Police Department. 12. The site and/or landscape plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance shall be revised,as follows: a.All transformer and utility vaults and other service areas shall be located in an area not visible from a public street,or shall be fully screened from view from a public street in accord with UDC 11-4-3-27B.2. b. Depict a berm or constructed barrier at least four(4)feet in height along E. Franklin Rd.with a break in the berm or barrier to allow for pedestrian access as set forth in UDC 11-4-3-27C.8. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [MCU-2024-0002] Page 13 11091 c. Internal common open space areas shall be landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-513 and include a variety of trees, shrubs, lawn or other vegetative ground cover. d. Depict landscaping within the 5-feet on both sides of the internal pathway in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-313-12C. Include calculations to demonstrate compliance in the Landscape Requirements table. e.Verify if fencing exists along the west boundary of this site or along the west boundary of the adjacent 20-foot wide property to the west—correctly depict the location on the plan. f. Depict trees and shrubs along with vegetative groundcover within the perimeter buffers adjacent to parking or other vehicular use areas along the west and south boundaries of the site in accordance with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C.1. Include calculations to demonstrate compliance in the Landscape Requirements table. g. Mitigation is required for all existing trees 4-inch caliper or greater that are removed from the site as set forth in UDC 11-313-10C.5. Include mitigation information on the landscape plan that demonstrates compliance with these standards. h. Move the proposed cross access on the south portion of the site closer to Locust Grove to align with the parking area to the east of Building Building 2. Record a cross- access/ingress-egress easement with a pedestrian walkway to the property to the south for future interconnectivity in accordance with UDC 11-3A-3A.2.A copy of the recorded easement shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy within the development. i. Record a cross-access/ingress-egress easement to the property to the west at 50 S. Adkins Way for interconnectivity. A copy of the recorded easement shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy within the development. j. Depict new wrought iron fencing to replace the existing chain link fencing around the ACHD storm drainage facility if determined acceptable by ACHD; move fencing in closer to the actual drainage area if agreed upon by ACHD. k. Depict a bus stop along Locust Grove Rd. as required by Valley Regional Transit. 1. Depict modulation in the placement of the structures for a variety in profile. in. Depict traffic calming within the site in the north/south drive aisle to slow traffic for tenant/pedestrian safety as recommended by the Police Dept. n. Depict wheel stops in all of the parking spaces abutting a sidewalk or widen sidewalks to 7 feet to prevent vehicle overhang onto the adjacent walkway. o. Depict a tree in every planter island,if this is not feasible due to utility easements, alternative compliance shall be applied for with the certificate of zoning compliance submittal. p. Widen the parking drive aisles to be a minimum of 25 feet. q. Depict a 6-foot closed vision fence on the south boundary. r. Reorient buildings 1 and 2 to provide better visibility of the entrances for safety purposes or provide pedestrian lighting along the pathway to the entrances. 13. A conditional use permit,when granted, shall be 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 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [MCU-2024-0002] Page 14 11,01 conditions of approval,and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground.Upon written request and filing by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with subsection(17)(1)of this section,the director may authorize a single extension of time to commence the use not to exceed one(1)two-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 this chapter. Meridian Public Works Click or tap here to enter text. Wastewater s UistanoetoSewer Sewer Awailable at Site Serwices t er Shed r Estimated Project See application Sewer LRtl's • WRRF Uechnin@ Balance + Project Consistent Yes xnth W4Y Master Plan/Facility Plan + lmpaots/cancerns + r See Pttbli€WoFks Site Spedlir Conditions Water Distance to Water Water Awailahle.atSite Se rwices • Pressure Lone • Estimated Protect See appl.catron Water kKU's watertmllty Hone ProjlextConsistent Yes with Water Master Plan r Irrlpaf Vton€erns I Hone PIJBIJ47W(MunDFIPAWFM 3W Site 54Hcifie Conditiom of Approval I_ A'Aruotlight Flan i�Teyuired for this 1)evelo MUML 2 linsum no sew cr% rvires cram infiltration benches- 3- Frrtvidc 2T liasern u for maim,hydrant laterals and water smiaea_la--uments should extend up to the end of mainthydrandwatcr meter and I U heyund it. 5_ No permanrnl Atructures(tmcs,bushes,huildings,caiTm5rLs,trash rencptacle walls,fences, inli ltration trenches light pales,etc-)to be built within the utility carcment. 4_ Wslcrand Scvecr running Paralial require a 30fiFAgemcnt Geoffal Candidom of nppraval I_ Appi icant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and nxWrkg with Ibc PuWie Worb Th•iuutn wnL _. K i Meridian City Cndc(M C),the appl icamt A di be resparm-Mc to install sew"and waLar IIRi11%u-and thrtvo This developme L Applicsnimay becligtible for a FeimbuFserti tt a"IL�lIIcut for infr&Ntructure cnhareocinent per M(.V R-tr5_ CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [MCU-2024-0002] Page 15 Fill] 3- Me applicant shall provide ca9cmcrk4a)for all Intel is water/socwer mai ns outside of public right of way(includrall watersorviocamA hydrant4). Scwcr/water casement varies de{scnding on sewer depth.Sew�cr 0-24 ft dcc{s require a 34 ft taaernc�2�25 ft a 44 ft t�treruc�and 25-30 ft a 45 ii cascmerst f nsure ne perrnarsrnt Ken rs,mc(tr•};bushc building carps trash roxpLgcJc wadLs fcric infiltration trcridses,light pfllaa,etc.)arc built witted n the utility cascistient- Submit an executed eascmem(an the farm available f m Publ is Wnrks),a legal description prepared by an Tdaha I-im msed PmfcaaifHuL IAnd SurucWr,which must inel tide the area frf the catici1xm1 (marked EXHIBrl'A)and an 8I12"x L L"map with bearings and distances(marked rXJ-TIBIT B) for review-Balk exh.iWo must be sealed signed and dated by a Fmfbssiermd IAM Survoyor.D(} NOT RRMRD. d- The CityofMcridian requircathal prmariaad irrigation symcmabc eryrpliM by a year-round source of water(UDC 11-3 M� The appl icam sbould be required to use any existing surface ar wcLL walcr for the primary souroc- If a surface c r well scarce is not avai lable,a single-paint connc#ion to the culinary water system xhall be required.Tf a mWc-Iminteunnectiun is utilized, the developer will he reWrtsible fcr the payment ofwm=mt:nis fcrtheeanunon areas prior to priorto romlyIng development plan approval. 5- Any.gaucturfa that arc aLlowrd to remain-AWL be subject to evaluation and poss2ble rcaysignmrnt of street addressing to be in eompl iance with MCC- 6- All irrigation ditchers,canals~laterals,or drains,exclusive of ritual wmcmayN.imamerting, crossing or laying adjacent and cnntigunuw to the area being subdivided AuLL he addressed per UDC I I-3A-6. Tn performing%uch work,the applicant shaLLI comply with Idabo Code42-1207 and anyothsx appLieahlt law OF rcgdation. F- Any w-,l Is that will not mnti nue to be used must be praperLy abandoned according to Maim.Well Commotion Standards RoLca administered by the IdaM Department of Water Rraaurct�. The Dc4rlupor's 1?nglnccr shall provide a stamncnt addressing whether there are any existing wells i n the devch�r ant.and if xe,how they Will eMtinuc W he LL or provide rwnfd of their ahandonnrcnt- Any existing scptic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 4-L-4 and 44 S. ContaaContral District Health fur abasrdonmcnt procedures and inspections(209)375-521 L. 4- All i mlrrovcmcnis related to public Iifc,Rafay and hcalth shall be oamlrle ed prior to ecompamy of the structmcs. 14. Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development pLan review,and onnstnre m inspection feer4 as daanunod during the pLan review procem,prior to the iwmx=ofa plan apprcwal.lff=r- 1 1. Tt shall be the respons-biLity efthe applicmi to ensure that a1L dcvcloprnwit features comply with the Amcrieans with Di.saN ities Act mid the Fair Howsing Ant- 12. Appl irant shall be rasponkbLe far application and oompUmw with any Section 4 M Pmrnittiog that 113U-Y be required by the Army Corps of Frigimem. 13. Dek�clkrlm shall efwrdinatc mailbox Iswatitut;with the Meridian Ns.- {Office. lei. C'sl1111lkwliU1I Lest results shall he submiaLA la theMtxidian Building Department far all buiLding pads rceciving engineered hackfill,whore footing wnuld sit atrop fill material- ly. The design cnginoer chaLI be rcquireito ecrtify that the.Amet mmuLi merJcvationa are seta minimum of 3-fcctabum the highcatemabUshcd peak giroundwata cLeva2ion. Thin is toensure that the bomm elevation of the crawl spaxsofbamca Ls at Icast I-RkA above- 16. The 2NJkanic design engineer shall be reespurc ihlc for i nspeetiun of al I Irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that&not fall under the jurisdietion of an irrigation district err ACHD.Mr.design engineer shall providecertification that the faciLitim have been.installed in mcordance with the approved design plank This cenficatinn will he requi red befam a certificale of oecupwicy is bowed.far any euudure.q within the project. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [MCU-2024-0002] Page16 112 17. Al the completion of the proje4 the applicant shaft be responsible to submit Finard drawings per Ore City of Meridian AutcCAD standwiL, Th=c record dmw i ur-I I lust be r=imi and approved prior to the issuance of a c xtificatirwtcf amynney for any%,utLwr,within the projwt 19. A stray I fight plan will need to be indu&d in the Civil crntstrucli6m I 11ans.13v=1 ight plan mquircmmtsut Listed in-Amnon 0-5 of the ImpFovm ent Startdar&,fix Smza Lighting,Acopy of ilre siaudards can be found at htLo:ffw%4-w.rocridiamitV.oWpulrlic woFlo aspx?id-272- 14. The CityofMcridian roquires thal the cwmr pant to the City a perforrrmic=surety in&c amount of 125%ofthe fatal Construction text for 21L inaompLelc sewer,wsta and reuse infrastru-lure prior to final plat yignaturc-This surety will be verified by a line item cast c,6 iFL tc provided by Orc owua to the City-The surety can be ported in the farm of an inmvacablc Lola of credit,cash dcpaxit ar bond.AWkantmwu file an application forsurcty,which can be finrrrd on the Community TkvcLopnxm Npanmentwehsitc. Pkww,-outftm Sand rkVcLopmmt Service for more information at 997-221 1- 24. The City of Meridian requires thal Ow owner pout totheCity a warcardy xurcty in thcamc&a of 20%of the total canstnretian teat Rw a1L completed sewer,water and reuse i nfrasuwft ro for duration oftwo}tars-Thia surly+will be verified by a Line item cost cxti mate puwided by the osrna in the City-The surety can be pomod in the farm of an inmvocabLt Lola of crodit,cash deposit ar braid.Applicant mwst file an appLicamim Mr Curdy,which can be f mW an the Community IhweLcpnnnt NpairMicnt wdrsitc. Pkasecontact Iand rscvclupmcnt 5rnicc for mare information at 997-221 1- CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [MCU-2024-0002] Page 17 113 Ada County Highway District(ACHD) Lpxl€piCk4ring,Pr'44G9n# MiranOa cold.'nw-13rogidert ACHD JIfiS FIErSim,C6M1Yihddldlikr IGdnt C4kfthDrpL C.0re%M& *tVrcr V'I & Duw Wginney,Convn&Wo r July 15. 2024 To-. Danielle$tehman PW North Design 116 S 611'street Boise. ID 83706 Subject: MER24-006811VIUU-2024-0002 1475 E Franklin Road Meridian Oz On November 16,2022.the Ada County Highway district approved MER22-01261H-2024-0073,Meridian Oz Apartments,for a conditional use permit and modification to an existing development agreement to oonsibrod five 12-p1ex multi-family buildings.The silie-speoifiG Conditions of approval also apply to MER24 006&MCU-2024-0407, If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at(208)387-8384. Sincerely, Sam Standal Assistant Traffic Engineer Development Services cc: Nlck Napotl and BIII Parsons,Clly of Meridian connecting.you to more See the public record for additional agency comments. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [MCU-2024-0002] Page 18 F1 FINDINGS 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. The Commission finds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and dimensional and development regulations of the R-40 zoning district if the Applicant complies with the conditions in Section IX(see Analysis, Section III for more information). 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan and in accord with the requirements of this title. The Commission finds that the proposed use is generally consistent with the future land use map designation of MU-C and is allowed as a conditional use in UDC Table 11-2A-2 in the R-40 zoning district and with the existing development agreement. 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. The Commission finds the proposed design of the development, construction, operation and maintenance should be compatible with the mix of other uses planned for and existing in this area and with the intended character of the area and that such uses will not adversely change the 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. The Commission finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the proposed use should not adversely affect other property in the area. 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. The Commission finds that essential public services are available to this property and that the use will be adequately served by these facilities. Comments were not received from the school district on this application. 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. The Commission finds 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. 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. The Commission finds the proposed residential 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. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [MCU-2024-0002] Page19 [115] 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. The Commission finds the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feather of importance. ACTION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed Conditional Use Permit with the conditions in Section W. Commission: The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard this item on September 19',2024 and October 3',2024.At the public hearing.the Commission moved to approve the subiect modification to a conditional use permit request. 1. Summary of the Commission public hearing: a. In favor: Danielle Stehman b. In opposition: Lynzey Uechi C. Commenting: Danielle Stehman d. Written testimony: Lynzey Uechi e. Staff presenting application:Nick Napoli f. Other Staff commenting on the application: Kurt Starman and Bill Parsons 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony: a. Concerns about the safety of the neighboring property to the south. 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission: a. Discussion for what could be done to mitigate the concerns while also r� cross- access. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. The commission ruled to have the cross-access road and pathway stubbed to the neighboring property on the east side of Building 2. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [MCU-2024-0002] Page 20 116 EXHIBITS Project Area Maps to Project Overview) Aerial Legend Project Location Area of Impact 0 Analysis rr CITY �- �� '1. ..'r:EI �, -y4� �I ,`'��■Y��{Fai�s, ■�� ► , 'r t� FRANKLIN_, tq 4kt' � --, , �_ �"�. �� -fin , � � s � „! • � OF OF • • OF • ORDER CASE • 1 111 J ' a ,'� NINE m o FRANKLI�N� r � W / i` i• I //r/. / I♦ram` ' ♦ OF moll A mill;I "M i��� �� • — N :ir .7J" oor I • i ,/ J E00" / OFF r or Orr / J ��7000r � 84 r • 1 � 111 Planned Development Map Legend Project Location m` ' RR Area of Impact y City Limits ®® Planned Parcels �L OAnalysis - -r L r- [L[ • , _ _ti I \ I I r w Q 5�;z I CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [MCU-2024-0002] Page 23 11,91 Subject Site Photos ' .* n.SIP� 1 t� ,T _...i2- :':. J'c � .e � "":x:'�.sT�¢r°.'.=moo. �.y� •:t ��..-. y�e. �7�:ram_ Pr: ��ri.•-'-.•�.�',�....� �- - - . rti ? - i CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [MCU-2024-0002] Page 24 [120] Service Accessibility Report Description ■ ■ Location In City Limits Extension Sewer Trunkshed mains < 500 ft.from parcel GREEN Floodplain Either not within the 100 yr floodplain 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 Within 1/4 mile of current transit route GREEN Arterial Road Buildout Status Ultimate configuration (#of lanes in master streets GREEN plan) matches existing (# of lanes) School Walking Proximity Within 112 mile walking GREEN Either a High School or College within 2 miles 0R a School arivability Middle or Elementary School within 1 mile driving GREEN (existing or future) ParkWalkability No park within walking distance by park type RED CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [MCU-2024-0002] Page 25 121 Site Plan (date: 6/28/2024) II �j °W I � I j I e I 1CT F CUP-02 t - 7 7:7: i - --- SITEPLAN �_ --- Mp _ram — _ - _ .. TREKARCH a ...... �,. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [MCU-2024-0002] Page 26 122 Landscape Plan (date: 7/2/2024) n ja �. ° l -_--•••••--EF[IAHI�--------_.-_--.1 R ,. . . - L--------.------------- ---------------------- n '.li -Ae. ..r.RAN --_______________________________----_---_---4-_ --_:- J _. L101 I� i mm r e • O 70, PTV i ® .e •r ----------- - --- --------------- CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [MCU-2024-0002] Page 27 [123] Qualified Open Space Exhibit(date: 6/28/2024) I — iJ11:lYL 1f ©1 EMIL e,a I I 1 - 11 i � tlLll➢NGK �� ' � CCnAIlLIHMItl '..�u.r -- _- 11 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [MCU-2024-00021 Page 28 124 Building Elevations (date: 6/28/2024) T - ij � I � I..A ° q Q PEll cup m M - a ' 7M SCHEMATIC RENDERING LLLVA I I UN�110M P NIKINGAI LA T TREKARCH ,� CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [MCU-2024-0002] Page 29 125 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Ziggi's Coffee (H-2024-0035) by KM Engineering, located at 4801 S. Tavistock Ave. 126 CITY OF MERIDIAN E IDIAN;�-- FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ! DAHO DECISION& ORDER In the Matter of the Request for Conditional Use Permit for Ziggi's Coffee Shop, Located at 4801 S. Tavistock Avenue in the C-N Zoning District,by KM Engineering. Case No(s).H-2024-0035 For the Planning& Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: October 3rd,2024 (Findings on October 17t",2024) A. Findings of Fact I. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of 10/03/2024, incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of 10/03/2024, incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of 10/03/2024, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of 10/17/2024, incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law I. 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 upon the applicant, the Planning Department, the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [H-024-00351 Page 1 [127] 7. That this approval is subject to the conditions of approval in the attached staff report for the hearing date of 10/03/2024, 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 § 1I- 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 a conditional use permit is hereby approved in accord with the conditions of approval in the staff report for the hearing date of 10/03/2024, 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 11-5B-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 § 67-6521(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. G. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of 10/03/2024 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [H-024-00351 Page 2 [128] 17th By action of the Planning&Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the day of October ,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 SAM RUST VOTED Maria Lorcher, Chairman 10-17-2024 Attest: Chris Johnson, City Clerk 10-17-2024 Copy served upon the Applicant, the Planning and Development Services divisions of the Community Development Department,the Public Works Department and the City Attorney. By: Dated: 10-17-2024 City Clerk's Office CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [H-024-00351 Page 3 [129] Exhibit A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C��fEFIDIAN*,- DEPARTMENT REPORT A H O HEARING 10/3/2024 legend DATE: Project location --- - `• TO: Planning&Zoning Commission Area of Impact i= City Limits -- -- - FROM: Nick Napoli,Associate Planner O Analysis -------- 208-884-5533 nnapoli@meridiancity.org APPLICANT: Connor Lindstrom SUBJECT: H-2024-0035 Ziggi's Coffee LOCATION: 4801 S. Tavistock Avenue, in the North '/z of Section 33, T.3N., ,R.IE. (Parcel #R3636010020) @ � I. PROJECT OVERVIEW A. Summary Conditional Use Permit to construct and operate an 825 square foot Drive Through Establishment in the C-N zoning district,by KM Engineering. B. Issues/Waivers Staff has concerns with the queuing extending into the private drive aisle during peaks hours and trash pickup going through the drive through to access the enclosure (preliminary approval was granted from Republic Services to the applicant). C. Recommendation Staff:Approval with conditions. D. Decision select:Pending. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [H-024-0035] Page 4 [130] II. COMMUNITY METRICS Table 1: Land Use Description Details Map Ref. Existing Land Use(s) Vacant - Proposed Land Use(s) Restaurant/Drive Through Establishment - Existing/Proposed Zoning C-N Zoning V.A.2 Future Land Use Designation Mixed Use Neighborhood V.A.3 Table 2: Process Facts Description Details Preapplication Meeting date Tuesday,May 14,2024 Neighborhood Meeting 6/13/2024 Site posting date 9/20/2024 Table 3: Community Metrics Agency/Element Description/Issue Reference Ada County Highway District III.D • Comments Received Yes - • Commission Action Required No - • Access Access is proposed off an existing private drive aisle. - • ITD Comments Received No Meridian Public Works Wastewater Distance to Mainline: Stubbed to site;Impacts or Concerns: No Meridian Public Works Water Distance to Mainline: Stubbed to site;Impacts or Concerns: No See City/Agency Comments and Conditions Section for all department/agency comments received or see the public record(Please insert this link into your preferred browser: https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLinkBrowse.aspx?id=356831&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCit Y)• CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [H-024-0035] Page 5 [131] III. STAFF ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code (UDC) A. General Overview This property is designated as Mixed-Use Neighborhood(MU-N)on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The use of a drive through coffee shop (restaurant)is consistent with the comprehensive plan for the MU-N designation. The subject site is among several commercially zoned properties surrounding the intersection of S. Tavistock Avenue and E.Amity Road. The proposed use of a restaurant with a drive-through aligns with the desired uses specified within the Mixed-Use Neighborhood designation in the Comprehensive Plan, as noted above. In conjunction with the already approved daycare development directly to the southwest and the currently approved and under-construction commercial, the proposed use satisfies the general Mixed-Use Neighborhood future land use designation for this area. A restaurant is a permitted use in the C-N zoning district but the drive through is within 300 feet of a residential district therefore a conditional use permit is required. The proposed restaurant and drive through are required to comply with UDC 11-4-3-11 and 11-4-3-49. Table 4: Proiect Overview Description Details History AZ-15-004(DA#2015-061375);H-2016-0092(MDA#2016-119080);H- 2018-0127(MDA-2nd Addendum to DA#2019-033207);H-2019-0134 (MDA—31 Addendum DA#2020-059662);H-2020-0080(MDA 4m Addendum DA 2020-117720);H-2020-0055 Hill's Century Farm North No.1 Final Plat Acreage 0.497 acre B. Site Development and Use Analysis 1. Proposed Use Analysis (UDC 11-2): The proposed use of a restaurant and drive-through establishment aligns well with the Mixed- Use Neighborhood(MU-N)future land use designation,which supports a blend of residential, commercial, and recreational uses. By offering service options within proximity to both residential areas and existing commercial developments, this project contributes to the community's overall livability and sustainability. Specifically, it adheres to Policy 3.06.02B, which encourages and supports mixed-use areas that provide the benefits of living, shopping, dining, and working nearby, thereby reducing vehicle trips. Additionally, the proposal is consistent with Policy 3.07.02B,which recommends locating smaller-scale,neighborhood- serving commercial uses in clusters that complement and provide convenient access to nearby residential areas,while minimizing direct access to major roadways. The establishment's location adjacent to E.Amity Road and within the Hills Century Farm North and Commercial subdivisions enhances its accessibility and supports the local commercial landscape, fulfilling the need for such amenities in the immediate and broader community. 2. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): Development of the site shall comply with the dimensional standards of the C-N zoning district in UDC Table 11-213-3. Business hours of operation shall be limited from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m in accord with UDC 11-2B-3B. Staff has reviewed the proposed plans and CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [H-024-0035] Page 6 [132] building elevations and they comply with the required standards. The hours of operation proposed by the applicant are 6:00 am to 7:00 pm which complies with the required standard. 3. Specific Use Standards (UDC 11-4-3): Drive-Through Establishment UDC 11-4-3-11 and Restaurant UDC 11-4-3-49: Drive-Through Establishment: The proposed drive-through establishment is subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-11,Drive-Through Establishment. All establishments providing drive-through service are required to identify the stacking lane, menu, and speaker location (if applicable), and window location on the site plan. The site plan is also required to demonstrate safe pedestrian and vehicular access and circulation on the site and between adjacent properties. At a minimum,the plan is required to demonstrate compliance with the following standards: 1) Stacking lanes have sufficient capacity to prevent obstruction of driveways,drive aisles, and the public right-of-way by patrons; The proposed restaurant features a drive-through lane with space to queue 8 vehicles along with an escape lane located on the west side of the site, outside of the drive- through lane. The drive-through itself starts at the south side of the building and exits at the north side,facing west. The concept plan also shows that the stacking lane is separate from the drive aisles and parking, however, staff has some concerns about peak hour stacking as it may back out into the private drive aisle and obstruct traffic impacting neighboring businesses. Staff recommends the property owner work with the neighboring property to the west to create shared access between the two properties. This will allow for additional stacking on site but parking will be reduced. Staff also recommends that the Applicant install additional signage and parking lot striping to clearly mark and guide traffic safely throughout the site.Staff has discussed these modifications but they have elected to move forward with the site plan as submitted. 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. The stacking lanes are separate from the circulation lanes for parking, however staff still has concerns that vehicles could block the main entrance waiting to enter the drive- through. Further, as demonstrated on the site plan it appears larger vehicles may have difficulty navigating the turning radius to enter the second stacking lane. 3) The stacking lane shall not be located within ten(10)feet of any residential district or existing residence; The stacking lane is not located within 10'of any residential district or residence. 4)Any stacking lane greater than one hundred(100)feet in length shall provide for an escape lane; and The stacking lane exceeds 100'in length and an escape lane is required. An escape lane is proposed on the east side of the building but shall be extended on the south side to provide clear circulation throughout the entire site. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [H-024-0035] Page 7 [133] 5) The site should be designed so that the drive-through is visible from a public street for surveillance purposes. The drive-through is located starting on the south side of the building and ending on the north side of the building. The drive-through is visible from E.Amity Road along the east side of the building for surveillance purposes. If the requested modifications are made, Staff finds the proposed drive-through complies with the specific use standards as required. Restaurant: The proposed use is also subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC II- 4-3-49 Restaurant,which requires at a minimum, one(1)parking space to be provided for every 250 square feet of gross floor area(see parking analysis below). If queuing and parking are shifted as recommended by staff, the parking will move on-site and will still meet UDC standards. The Applicant did not provide information on how many proposed indoor seats and patio seats will be provided to accommodate customers. C. Design Standards Analysis 1. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): Comprehensive plan policies related to the landscaping for this project: - "Require appropriate building design, and landscaping elements to buffer screen, beautify, and integrate commercial multifamily, and parking lots into existing neighborhoods." - "Require appropriate landscaping,buffers, and noise mitigation with new development along transportation corridors." i. Landscape buffers along streets A 25-foot wide street buffer is required along E.Amity Road and a 10-foot wide street buffer is required along S. Tavistock Avenue, an arterial and a local road. These buffers shall be landscaped per the standards in UDC 11-3B-7C. The proposed landscaping does not meet the minimum requirements. The landscape buffer along E.Amity Road shall be revised to extend the landscaping to the curb along the arterial roadway. The applicant is working with the developer to meet this requirement along Amity Road. ii. Parking lot landscaping Landscaping is required to be provided along all parking areas per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8. The proposed landscape plan does not meet the minimum requirements. The west landscape buffer shall be widened to 7 feet and the parking stall shall be reduced to 17 feet.An alternative to this is redesigning the site to abut parking with the adjacent property to the west. iii. Landscape buffers to adjoining uses Landscaping is required to meet the standards of UDC 11-3B-9. The landscape plan should be revised to ensure there is 70%vegetation coverage at maturity. iv. Storm integration Storm drainage is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-18. Drainage swales should not be within the landscape setbacks along E. Amity Road. v. Pathway landscaping CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [H-024-00351 Page 8 [134] Landscaping is required to be provided along all pathways per the standards listed in UDC 11-313-12C. The proposed landscape plan appears to meet the minimum requirements. 2. Parking (UDC 11-3C): i. Nonresidential parking analysis A minimum of one(1) off-street parking space is required per 250 square feet(s.f.) of gross floor area. Based on the 825-square-foot restaurant, a minimum of 4 parking spaces are required.A total of 8 parking spaces are proposed, exceeding UDC standards.As noted above if the plan is modified as recommended by staffparking may be reduced further on the site. ii. Bicycle parking analysis A minimum of one(1)bicycle parking space must be provided for every 25 vehicle spaces or portion thereof per UDC 11-3C-6G;bicycle parking facilities are required to comply with the location and design standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. Bicycle parking is depicted on the plans submitted with this application that meet the requirements. 3. Building Elevations (Comp Plan, Architectural Standards Manual): Goal 2.09.03A of the Comprehensive Plan highlights establishing distinct, engaging identities within commercial and mixed-use enters through design standards to integrate commercial, multifamily, and parking areas with existing neighborhoods. In response, the developer has submitted conceptual building elevations for the proposed structure as shown in Section VII.C. Building materials consist of EIFS stucco,brick, standing seam metal panels,parapet metal wall cap flashing, and glazing. Staff recommends the incorporation of more fenestration and glazing on the North fagade as this is the primary facade that is visible from E.Amity Road. The proposed conceptual elevations are not approved. The final design is required to comply with the Architectural Standards Manual for Commercial Design Guidelines. D. Transportation Analysis 1. Access (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-3, UDC 11-3H-4): Goal 6.01.0213 emphasizes reducing the number of access points onto arterial streets by utilizing strategies such as cross-access agreements, access management, and the creation of frontage and backage roads,while also improving connectivity between local and collector streets. The site plan features a single access point via a private drive aisle located on the southern part of the site (backage road). This drive aisle connects to S. Tavistock Avenue(a local street)on the eastern side of the property. Vehicles will enter from the south,with options to either park in the lot west of the building or continue east to the 12-foot drive- through lane and pick-up window, exiting back onto the same drive aisle to the south. An escape lane on the east side of the building shall be extended to the south portion to connect with the entrance/exit. Direct access from E. Amity Road is not permitted. Staff has concerns with drive-through queuing extending onto the main drive aisle during peak hours,which could conflict with other uses in the immediate area(daycare to the west). Staff recommends the applicant work with the neighboring property to the west to create shared access between the two properties or redesign the site to allow additional stacking. Additionally,there is the option to have the escape lane exit back onto the private drive aisle through the landscape buffer. This could add additional space on the site for queuing. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [H-024-0035] Page 9 [135] The Applicant is required to submit a copy of the recorded cross-access/ingress-egress easement for the adjacent property to the south(parcel#R3636010180)to the Planning Division along with the future CZC and Design Review Application, in accordance with UDC 11-3A-3A2. 2. Multiuse Pathways (UDC 11-3A-5): An existing multi-use pathway exist along E. Amity Road, this shall be preserved and protected during construction. 3. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): The proposed plan includes a pedestrian walkway from the main walkway on the east side of the building connecting to the outdoor patio across the drive-through lanes. Where pedestrian walkways cross vehicular driving surfaces,they're required to 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-I9B.4. The site/landscape plan submitted both reflect compliance with this standard—stamped concrete is proposed. E. Services Analysis I. Pressurized Irrigation (UDC 11-3A-15): Underground pressurized irrigation water is required to be provided as set forth in UDC I I- 3A-15. 2. Storm Drainage (UDC 11-3A-18): Storm drainage is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-18. Drainage swales shall not be within the street landscape buffer along E. Amity Road. 3. 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. III. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Meridian Planning Division I. Future development of this site shall comply with the previous conditions of approval and terms of AZ-15-004 (DA#2015-061375); H-2016-0092 (MDA#2016-119080);H-2018- 0127 (MDA-2nd Addendum to DA#2019-033207); H-2019-0134(MDA—3rd Addendum DA#2020-059662); H-2020-0080 (MDA 4th Addendum DA 2020-117720);H-2020-0055 Hill's Century Farm North No.I Final Plat and the conditions contained herein. 2. The site plan and/or landscape plan, as applicable, shall be revised with the certificate of zoning compliance application as follows: i. The apphea-at shall revise the plan to er-ea4e shafed aeeess be�ween Lots 1 and 2,Bleek t fulls GefA fy F.,....,NeAh e4diyisie No.i (R36360 0020 and R363601 nnnm t ii. The west landscape buffer shall be widened to 7 feet and the parking stalls shall be reduced to 17 feet.An alternative to this is redesigning the site to abut parking with the adjacent property to the west. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [H-024-00351 Page 10 [136] iii. The west landscape buffer shall include more vegetation as it currently does not meet 70%vegetation coverage at maturity in accord with UDC 11-3B-5-N iv. The landscape buffer along Amity Road shall be extended to the curbing in accord with UDC 11-3B-7. v. 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. vi. Signage shall be installed ahead of the eastern crossing warning drivers to watch out for pedestrians. 3. Compliance with the standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-49 and 11-4-3-11 is required. 4. Preserve and protect the existing landscaping on the north and east buffers of the site during construction,per UDC 11-3B-10. 5. Business hours of operation within the C-N District shall be limited from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 P.M. 6. Provide additional fenestration and glazing on the north facade facing E. Amity Road. 7. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application shall be submitted and approved for the proposed use prior to submittal of a building permit application. The design of the site and structure shall comply with the standards listed in UDC I1-3A-19;the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual and with the Development Agreement. 8. 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 as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6F. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [H-024-00351 Page 11 [137] B. Meridian Public Works NON-PLAT CONDITIONS Pum-icWoRKsDrPARrk1 ti't Site 5peciGt Conditions of Approval I. Water wnrices require 20'easements_ Exsetnent to extend lo'beyond water Meters. 2_ Water meter to come off the 9" Stub located at the Southwest corner of site. 3. No p=ancnt structures(trccs,bushes,boil-dings,Carports,trash receptacle walls, fences, infiltration trenches,light pales„etc.)to be built within the utility easement_ General Coaditions of Approval I_ Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department- 2- Per 14&dian Cily Code(MCC),the applicant skull be responsible to install sower and water mains to and through chi$develppmcmt. Applicant may be elip�ible Fora rcimbuTsument agrCen,Cnt for infrastruoiurc cnhancer eat prr MCC 8-6-5. The applicant shall provide cascmcm(s)for all public watcrlsewcr mains outside of public right of way(include all water services and hydrants). Swiverlwater easement varies depending on sewer depth.Sewer 0.20 ft deep require a 30 ft easemeni,20-25 ft a 40 Ft easement,and 25-30 fi a 45 ft easement. Ensure no perttwttent structures(Wes,bushes,buildin ,eaip,arts,trash rauptacle walls,fences,infilLm ien ircnrht-_q,light poles,etc_)art!built within tht utility 0a"On- Submit an executed Casement(oat the form available from Public Works),a legal dcscriplion Prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor,which must include the area of the easement (marked EXHIBIT A)and an 9112"x 11"map with bearings and distances(marked EXHIBIT 13) for reviow.Both exhibus must be sealed,signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor.DO NOT RECORD. 4_ The City of Mcridiun%-gUir¢s that prCs9uriMd irriu tiDn systems be supplied by a yrar-Yount) Souroc of water{URC I l 3l dwl,Tbc appl&ant should be roRuircd to use any existing surface or wel l water for the primary source_ If a surface or well source is not available,a single-point connection to(he culinary water systetu shall be required. If a single-paint omnection is utilized, the developer wi I k be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior t-0 prior to rccciving development plo-xn approval. 5. Any structures that arc al lowed io rcrnaia shall be subject to evaluation and possible rcassignnunt of street addressing to be in compliancc with MCC. 6_ All irrigation dilches,canals,lawals,or drains,exclusive of natural waterways,mtcrsecting, crossing or layIng adjacent and contiguous io the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 1 l.3A-6_ In performing such work,the applicant sEta€€comply with Idaho Code 42.1207 and arty othtr applicable lave nr regulation. 7, Any wells that will not conlinuc to be used must be properly abandoned according to Idaho Wclt Construction Standards Ralcs administcrod by the Jdaho Department of Water resources. The Developer's Eugiueer slial l provide a statetuent addressing whether there are any existing wells in the development,and if so,how they will continue to be used,or provide record of their ftbandonnwnt. 8_ Any existing Septic,systg�rnS within this pmjert shall hC Temo% d fl*M srruibe per City 0rdinnneC Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Caanact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections[ 0 )375-521 1_ CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [H-024-0035] Page 12 138 9_ A]1 improvements related io public l i fe.safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures_ 10_ ApplicanL shal l he required La pay Public WurkS development plan rrvirvw,and comiruction inspection fees,as dcwminccd during the plat review proccss,prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 11_ It sbal I be fire responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development featuiw comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Ac[_ 12_ Applicant sbal l be reSp-OnSible for application and compliance with any Srttion 404 Permiuiq that may be required by the Armv Corps of EngincerS, la, Dcveloper shall coo 4natc mailbox locations with the Meridian Past Office, 14_ Compaction test results shall be submitted to the M cridian Building Department for all bui ldiug pads receiving engineered backfil I,where footing would sit atop fill material_ 15_ The design engineer shall be required 10 coriify[1La[cite street centerline elevaticros are set a minimum 4f 3-feft ab yr the hiShesL Lsiablishrd peak Prewndwatrr rluvati0n. This i$Lp ensure that the bottom cicVation of the crawl spaces of Wrncs is at least I-foot above, 16, The applicants design cnginccr shall be responsible for inspection of al I irrigation anUor drainage facility VdIhiti this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD_The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in a€eord=c:e with the approved des ign plain-This certi(cation will be required before a cerriFeate of occupancy is issued fair any sLrucLums wiLhin Lhe pMjt!ct_ 17, At the completion of the proicct,the applicant shall be rcspnnsiblc to submit rCCprd clrawings per the City ofMcridian AutoCAP standards. These record drtwings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project, 18. A street hght plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans_Street light plan Frquuir rncmis are listed in Section 6-5 of the I mpravrment Standards for Strut Lighting,A cop} of the standards can be found AL hLtp.JIwww.mrridiancity2r e2public_wflrks.aspxNd=272_ I(Jr The City of Mcri&an mquirca that the owner post 14 the City a petformanCC surety in the amount of 125%of the total construction cost fot•all incomplete sewer_water and reuse infrastructure prior to final plat signature_This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City.The surety can be posted in ibe form of an irrevocable letter oferedit,cash dgosit car bond.ApplicarlL must file an applir2aiDn far surety,wtiirh can be found on tale Community Development Department wcbsitc. Flcusc comact Land [_lcti clopMcnt Sm iec for more information at 3R7-2211, 20_ The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20%of the total constmetiem cost for all completed sewer,water and reuse infrastructure for duration of two years_This surely will be verified by a line kem cost estimate provided by the nwner to the City.`rho surety can hr posted in the form of an irrevocable Iraer of credit,cash deposit or bond.Applicant must Filc an application for surety,which can br found on the Comraunity Development Dcpatrinn"i wcbsitc, Plcasc contact Land Devclop-mcm Service for mare information at 887.221 1. C. Irrigation Districts 1. Boise Project Board of Control CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [H-024-0035] Page 13 [139] FRED BUTI.BR WERATWO NIUGY FOR 109M Q"RMh4 CF THE P4.M Bo15E PRojEcT BOARD OF CONTROL ftORER FOR TMl raUVfflP4 RICFMRO HORG61w PiRIEl4TpM p&TRCT9 4xEcz-wK1§M Of THES-100 (FMARLYROISE UA MPUA ATION PMECTI PMEU ID.CAWrEFq 2e5 aeE;7MD Rara PPalJF4'T LVI m EPEE.IDA+L4 tVfG31-.6 NMNFMdEMEILIN pBTRk'T 8Q*F uJAGBTFICT TWOMAS FffT"LIR T&DER GSTRCT ABBISTAW PRO:ECTWLOSER NEW Y W4NUNCT 03 BEND OISTMUF APRYLQMMNER s�wTxrr.Tfeusuxa MART SLIP#LASE ANWANF KQASbRr- TEL-(2W 3".1149 TRE*"ER FM:CMP W44aF 20 August Z024 City Clerks Office 33 E Broadway Awnuc, Suite 102 Meridimrl ID,83642 RE, Ziggi's Coffcc-Watson Land Holdings 4901 $Tavistock Ave,Meridian H-2024-0035 Ncw York Irigation District NY-577-002-03 nningham Lateral 138+00 Sor- 33,T3N,RIR� RM. Nick Napoli`, Thm aim no FBolm Project or New York Irrigation District facilities Iocatcd on the above- mcntionod propbrtic5,however they do in fact passeew a valid water right. Par Idaho Slatlttes, Title 42, local irrigation/drainage ditches that crass this property, to serve neighboring properties, must irmain unubstructcd and prolcaled by arr appropriate easement by tho Iarndowner,developer and contract-ors If you have any further questions or commentq I+egarding this matter, please do not hesitate to enntact me at(208)344.1141. X , � 1710mas Ritthaler Assistant Projcct M,ariager tbrftr co: Kcvin Rcoves Watennaster,Div;2 BPBC Terri Hasson Sccrulaty-Treasurer,NY]D File CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [H-024-0035] Page 14 [140] D. Ada County Highway District(ACHD) Pa 9.P G� rti MIrenUa"id,vIC4-Pro6G9nx 3IM Hanft%ACHD Z�A� HtrR C4kfthoroe,05, im eon r Dave MoKinney,Cormkxknsr August 1, 2024 To-. Connor Lindstrom,KM Engineering LLP 5725 N Discovery Way Dolse, ID 83713 Subject: MER24-0076 J H-2024-0035 48018 Tavistock Ave Ziggi's Coffee The Ada County Highway District (ACHD) has reviewed the submitted application for the application referenced above and has determined that there are no improvements required to the adjacent street(s). The applicant shall be required to' 1, Pay a traffic impact fee,if applicable. For any questions regarding the traffic impact fee please contact ACHD's Impact Fee Administrator at impactfeesAachdidaho_org_ 2. If applicable,a traffic impact fee shall be assessed by ACHD and will be due prior to the issuance of a bullding permit by the lead agency. This is a separate review prooem and it Is the applicant's responsibility to submit plans directly to ACHD, 3. Payment can be accepted over the phone by Galling (208)387-6170 or can he sand delivered to the following address; Ada County Highway District Attn: development Services 1301 N Orchard St,Suite 200 Boise, ID 83706 + Reference the fi le number above when making the payment- * Please note: o Fees are subject to change if not paid prior Iv October 1" o All card payments are subject to a 3%processing fee o All a-check payments are subject to a$1.50 processing fee 4. Submit a driveway approach request for any proposed driveways. Driveway approach permits can be found at httos;lfwww.acMidehe.omx homelshownublisheddo-cumenU9881638245965711600000 5. Comply with all ACHD Policies and ACHD Standard Conditions of Approval for any improvements or work in the right-of-way. S. Obtain 9 permit for any work in the right-of-way prior to the construction,repair,or installation of any roadway improvements(curb. gutter, sidewalk, pavement widening,driveways,culverts,etc_)_ IV. FINDINGS A. Conditional Use(UDC 11-513-6E) The commission shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request upon the following: CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [H-024-0035] Page15 141 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. The Commission finds the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meets all dimensional and development regulations of the recommended C-Nzoning district. 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan and in accord with the requirements of this title. The Commission finds the proposed restaurant and drive through 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. The Commission finds 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. The Commission finds 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. The Commission finds 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. The Commission finds 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. The Commission finds 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. The Commission 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. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [H-024-0035] Page 16 [142] 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. IV. 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 W. and Findings in V. B. Commission: The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard this item on October Yd. 2024. At the public hearing. the Commission moved to approve the subject conditional use permit request. 1. Summary of the Commission public hearing: a. In favor: Connor Lindstrom b. In opposition:None c. Commenting: Connor Lindstrom d. Written testimony:None e. Staff presenting application:Nick Napoli £ Other Staff commenting on application: Kurt Starman 2. Kev issue(s) of public testimony: a. None 3. Key issue(s) of discussion by Commission: a. Queuing for the drive-through and whether or not there is sufficient space to prevent cars from stacking in the drive aisle. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. Commission removed staff recommendation to have a shared access with the neighboring property to the west to allow for additional queuing. V. EXHIBITS A. Project Area Maps (link to Project Overview) CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [H-024-00351 Page 17 [143] 7 , r• _ I z; = -A M I-T-Y' - l _ r. �TL gal FP vp LU IMMUNEgig m^m W err• `��J rl w • _.w MEN milli ■■ � -11 -11! w \lam \_, IN S G``-illul R 11 !1!l1�111111111111r111�1 Ilrls . • ,��111rrti■ ,Bl r111r1 ■ Ir1-C w—lrr 11111 �..I =loll will I � mi1J� III 1.11� um AMIT-Y -� ■■■� ■■I•■■�f -- .. 'e��Ilhlun�l► ,�■:Inlnr G�°� ■�'IIII!l1111 w —�--�IIIIIuIu • :�Illllllll�,r= ■lR 11a11iirijE111l1 - \III . G AR -�:C■=■-� Iu � �1', � I ��II�III �■\ � ��f11�► � It �-■ No nnn • 1 - 11 3. Future Land Use Legend O Project Location ®® Area of Impact OAnalysis �r Medium-Density a� Residential �® MU=C• - - - r MU_N Civic F7H I: T, Low bensrty Residential jJ 4. Planned Development Map Legend i1 Project Location Area of Impact City Limits �� t Planned Parcels OAnalysis I I I I I � 1 1 ® I I U � 1 FF 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [H-024-0035] Page 19 [145] B. Subject Site Photos i .. ,•-- "�-`'may, _ - _ CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [H-024-0035] Page 20 [146] CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [H-024-0035] Page 21 [147] C. Service Accessibility Report Overall Score: 28 I9th Percentile Location in City Limits Extension Sever Trunkshed mains < 500 ft.from par€el GRELN Floodplain Either not within the 100 yr floodplain or >- 2 acres GREEN Emergency Services Fire Response time < 5 min. GREEN Emergency Services Police Not enough data to report average response time RED Pathways Within 1/4 mile of current pathways Transit Not with in 1/4 of current or future transit route Arterial Road Buildout Status Ultimate configuration(#of lanes in master streets plan) matches existing #of lanes) School Walking Proximity Within 112 mile walking 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 Park within 1 mile OR a Community Park Walkability Park within 1/2 mile OR a Neighborhood Park within 114 mile walking CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [H-024-0035] Page 22 148 D. Site Plan(date: 8/14/2024) - -- -- _ - {--- -- - - - - - - 9 EBES .I _ ■ I � � .. A AN x aMEZ _ _________________L---- -- - i l _ --�-L� �_—.�--- o - — I CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [H-024-0035] Page 23 [149] E. Landscape Plan(date: 8/15/2024) 11 � A� r„..v—.r •w .v 0. in 'iii ■ ::�'�;�-.:' '. '� del .. �.,,.,�.�„ FM — an�"sar ... o km 1 2- �LAkC+SfAPC PLAN _ '��'�''��+�`S'��+•• s � unoe��.•. usi __ �S`•.• JJllll ���LLL r�srxr' 5. LL CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [H-024-0035] Page 24 11501 F. Building Elevations (date: 7/2/2024) MA" Ja— L 0 .... dl N r ^.�OVTH!1.a V ATION L � aQp U — 09 04 ehe J Q N TNELEVATION GmE ELEVAYION CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S). [H-024-0035] Page 25 11511 E K IDIAN:--- iuAn Planning and Zoning Presentations and outline Changes to Agenda: • Item#5: Pine 43 West(H-2023-0038)—Project needs to be continued due to site not being posted correctly with a public hearing notice sign—Staff recommends project is continued to Nov. 7c". Item#6&7: Treasure Valley Athletic Center—MCU, MDA(MCU-2024-0003; H-2024-0033) Application(s): ➢ Conditional Use Permit Modification ➢ Development Agreement Modification Size of property,existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 2.12-acres of land,zoned I-L(Light Industrial), located at 1251 and the southern portion of 1250 E. Piper Ct.,south of E. Franklin Rd. &west of S. Locust Grove Rd. History: This property was annexed in 1997 as part of the larger Medimont Subdivision with a DA. A CUP was later approved in 2003 for an indoor(soccer) recreation facility on the subject property in the I-L zoning district. A PBA was recently tentatively approved between the subject property and the abutting property to the north to shift the shared property line an additional 75'to the north to accommodate the proposed expansion. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: General Industrial Summary of Request: DA Modification: The Applicant proposes a modification to the existing DA to enter into a new agreement for the subject property.The following modifications are proposed to the existing DA provisions: • Remove provision#4e, which requires a 20'wide landscape buffer easement to be provided to adjacent residential uses.At the time the DA was adopted, the abutting property to the west was zoned R-40 and planned to develop with residential uses; subsequently, the property was rezoned to C-G and developed with a mix of commercial/office(non-residential) uses. Staff agrees with excluding this provision from the new DA as there is no longer a need for the buffer. • Modify the special setback requirements in#4p to reduce the minimum rear yard setback from 20'to 10'as there's no longer a need for a buffer to residential uses—the 10'buffer will ensure structures don't encroach in the irrigation pipe easement depicted on the plat. Staff recommends the minimum side yard building setback of 5-foot per story is also removed because it's not required in the I-L district. All other setbacks shall be as required in the UDC. • Remove#4s pertaining to maximum lot coverage, which limits the building footprint to no more than 50%of the building lot— Staff agrees with excluding this provision from the new DA as current code has no restrictions on lot coverage. Staff has reviewed all other provisions in the DA and does not recommend any other provisions are carried over to the new DA. Staff recommends as a provision of the DA that future development generally complies with the site/landscape plan and conceptual elevations submitted with the subject application and complies with the conditions contained herein. CUP Modification:A CUP was approved in 2003 for an indoor soccer field with accessory uses in the I-L zoning district.A modification to the CUP is proposed to expand the use to include a new 14,700 s.f. building to the north of the existing building,which will contain sand courts for beach volleyball with a weight and training room and (8)additional parking spaces on the east side of the building. No changes are proposed to the existing building or site. Compliance with the UDC specific use standards for indoor recreation facilities is required. The Applicant estimates that on a typical day and evening there will be approximately 30 patrons and two(2)employees within the primary building and 20 patrons and two (2)employees in the secondary building.The primary users of the facility will be people of all ages and the facility will be used from 9 am to 9 pm Monday-Friday and 9:00 am to 7:00 pm Saturday and Sunday.The heaviest periods of use for the facility are anticipated to be evenings and weekends.Tournaments are held in the existing building but will not be held in the new building. Off-street parking is required at a minimum of(1)space for every 2,000 s.f. of gross floor area. Based on 37,700 s.f. (14,700 s.f.for the new structure and 23,000 s.f.for the existing structure), a minimum of 19 spaces are required for the overall site; a total of 65 spaces are proposed at a ratio of 1:580 s.f., exceeding the minimum standard by 46 spaces. The Applicant is in the process of completing a shared access and parking easement agreement with the abutting property to the north (Dutchman Motorsports). This will allow cross- access between properties and provide more parking for the proposed use if needed during the heaviest periods of use in the evenings and weekends. Conceptual building elevations were submitted as shown for the proposed single-story building; building materials consist of vertical and horizontal metal panels, horizontal corrugated metal panels,fiber-cement panel accents, and glazing with a metal standing seam roof.The final design is required to be consistent with the Non-Residential design standards for the I-L zoning district listed in the ASM. Written Testimony: Erik Hagen,Applicant's Representative—in agreement with the provisions in the staff report Staff Recommendation:Approval per the conditions in the staff report Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Numbers MCU- 2024-0003& H-2024-0033, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 17, 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 Numbers MCU-2024- 0003&H-2024-0033, as presented during the hearing on October 17, 2024,for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Numbers MCU-2024-0003& H-2024-0033 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 Skyranch Subdivision (H-2024-0022) Application(s): Annexation, Rezone, Development Agreement Modification and Preliminary Plat Size of property,existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 43.82 acres of land, currently zoned R-4 and RUT, located in the S'/z of the SW'/4 of Section 31, Township 3N, Range 1 E, at 3058 E.Amity Road. History:AZ-H-2015-0019, DA Inst#2016-007088 Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Mixed Use Regional (MU-RG)/Medium Density Residential Summary of Request: The applicant requests annexation of 20.039-acres of land with R-15 zoning; rezoning of 24.53 acres of land from R-4 to R-15; modification of the existing development agreement to create a new one to develop the proposed single-family residential development and Preliminary Plat consisting of 285 building lots(284 new and 1 existing), 28 common lots and 6 common drives on 43.82 acres of land zoned R-15. In 2015,the City, at the request/consent of the property owners, annexed approximately 1,322 acres of land with the R-4, R-8, R-15 and C-G zoning districts. It was envisioned that some of the subject properties will seek re-zoning consistent with the Future Land Use Map (FLUM)designations in the future.At the time, no development was proposed with the subject annexation request and therefore a vast majority of the property(1,241 acres)was proposed to be annexed as R-4.All of the subject property owners signed a Development Agreement(DA)that was executed upon approval.Within each DA is a requirement that any proposed development plan be reviewed and approved as an amendment to the executed Development Agreement. Upon development/re-development of all these properties in the future, adherence to the characteristics of their respective land use designation described above will be required. During the annexation properties were assigned zoning districts as placeholders until the property owner came in to develop the property. Access: Access to the property is proposed from E. Lake Hazel Road. Per the Idaho Transportation Department, no direct access to the State Highway System is approved. Due to the type and proximity of this development to SH-69, ITD is requesting a Traffic Impact Study(TIS)for the proposed development.Access is also proposed from the east side of the property via the future collector road. As the property is within close proximity to SH-69, the applicant will be required to provide noise abatement per UDC 11-3H-4D. Noise abatement could include but not limited to a berm or a berm and wall combination to help reduce the traffic noise. Staff has concerns about the length of the entrance off of E. Lake Hazel Road. The potential for traffic to backup when trying to access the site is greater with the short distance. Landscaping: UDC 11-2A-6 requires a thirty-five(35)foot wide buffer along entryway corridors(N. Meridian Road and twenty-five(25) foot wide buffers are required along arterial roads(E. Lake Hazel Road).A twenty(20)foot wide buffer along all collectors is required. Open Space: An open space exhibit was submitted that depicts 17.1% (or 7.49-acres)of open space that meets the required quality and qualified open space standards. Based on the standards in UDC 11-3G-4A, a minimum of nine(9)amenity points are required to be provided. The applicant has provided 30 points worth of amenities. Building Elevations: Four(4)conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed subdivision.The applicant states the homes in the Skyranch Neighborhood will include 284 homes with a mix of different product types,two-story and single-story detached single-family homes. Buildings will need to be designed with elevations that create interest through the use of broken planes, windows, and fenestrations that produce a rhythm of materials and patterns. Design review is not required for single-family detached structures. However, because the rear and/or sides of homes facing E. Lake Hazel Road 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. Design review is required for single-family attached and townhomes. Design review will have to meet the requirements outlined in the City's Architectural Standards Manual. Waterways: The Rawson Lateral resides on a portion of the property and the applicant is proposing to keep it open. The applicant has provided a 50' ingress/egress easement to provide a future bridge crossing to connect to the parcels to the south. Mixed-Use Regional (MU-RU): The applicant's current proposal is limited to single-family residential development, occupying the majority of the mixed-use designation area, and with no internal vehicle or pedestrian connectivity between the areas,which does not align with the intent of the comprehensive plan for the area. By focusing solely on an inward facing single-family home development, the proposal fails to meet the goal of creating a mixed-use environment that would foster a vibrant, self-sustaining community with neighborhood supportive uses, employment and/or retail options nearby.This lack of compliance with the comprehensive plan could raise concerns about whether the development will contribute to traffic issues, support a balanced community,or meet long-term growth objectives. For mixed-use developments to be consistent with the plan,they need to demonstrate the following elements,which the current proposal lacks: 1. Functional Integration: Developments must show that even undeveloped parts of the area can be functionally integrated, either immediately or conceptually.The project should prove that all planned components can work together cohesively. Local connectivity is required to limit local trip impacts to the regional network, both for traditional single-family homes and in mixed- use areas. The current proposal lacks such connectivity and is located near a major regional intersection planned for expansion to seven lanes with additional access restrictions.Although the developer claims the proposal integrates with the surrounding commercial areas, no conceptual plans have been provided to support this claim. 2. Outward-Facing Design: The development should not be insular or turn its back on neighboring properties or streets. Instead, it should engage with its surroundings, promoting interaction with adjacent areas and developments. The planned development does not setup or support any future physical, visual connectivity with the remainder of the mixed- use area. 3. Physical Integration and Shared Features: There should be tangible connections between different parts of the development, such as shared amenities,walkways, or spaces. This physical integration supports local connectivity, making the area feel cohesive and accessible. 4. Support for Local Services: Developments must intentionally create opportunities for local services such as office, gyms, retail, employment, or public uses. The current single-use proposal fails to support this objective, as it does not include any local services within the development. 5. Design Integration: There should be visual corridors or clear lines of sight connecting points of interest throughout the development. This creates a sense of openness and visual connectivity, making it easier for residents and visitors to navigate the space. The proposed development, however, is essentially isolated and does not provide connections to the property to the south. It is presented as a single-use development without the commercial component required by the Comprehensive Plan. 6. Purposeful Open Space: Open spaces should not be incidental but purposefully designed to enhance connectivity and functional integration. They should serve as common areas that bring people together and provide opportunities for interaction. The open space provided is solely for the purpose of the single-family residents and is not designed to integrate. The open space was not designed to integrate with commercial. 7. Pedestrian Connectivity: Pedestrian pathways and connectivity must be prioritized. Mixed-use areas should encourage walkability, allowing residents to move easily between homes, services, and public spaces without relying on vehicles. Pedestrian connectivity is crucial in mixed-use developments to encourage walkability. The absence of such connectivity in this proposal would force residents to walk along busy arterial roads to reach services and public spaces or depend on vehicles to access them Further UDC 11-3B-9 requires pedestrian connections between residential and commercial areas. 8. Limited Reliance on Arterial Roads:Vehicle connectivity should be designed so that local traffic does not depend entirely on arterial roads. Instead, developments should incorporate internal street systems that distribute traffic more effectively within the area. Staff and the Ada County Highway District(ACHD) are concerned that the short entrance road into the development could cause traffic backups along E. Lake Hazel Road.Additionally, the proposal lacks connectivity to commercial areas without requiring residents to cross a major arterial road, effectively isolating the development as a single-use area. The applicant indicates that residential uses will comprise between 10%and 30%of the development area, with gross densities ranging from six(6)to forty(40) units per acre within the residential portion. The proposed Skyranch Neighborhood in the Mixed-Use Residential(MU-RG)area would occupy 11%of the 219 acres,providing a density of 6.5 units per acre, aligning with the Comprehensive Plan's vision. However, the applicant did not account for the Comprehensive Plan's requirement that mixed-use areas bisected by an arterial or highway are considered separate, independent areas for use and design integration, and will be evaluated as such.As a result, the applicant's approach of using their property as a single-use area does not align with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan for mixed-use development. To comply with the Comprehensive Plan,the applicant needs to redesign the proposal and incorporate a mix of housing types(e.g., multi-family units), local services (retail or office spaces), and public amenities(parks, plazas)within the Twenty-four(24)acres of the Mixed-Use Regional area. This would not only align with the FLUM designation but also enhance the functionality and integration of the development with the surrounding area. Staff recommends that the applicant provide a mix of dwelling types within the residential area such as single family attached or townhomes within Block 8(lots 2-17 and lots 19-34)and Block 9 (lots 2-17 and lots 19-34)of the proposed development as allowed by the Comprehensive Plan within the R-15 zoning district. Comprehensive Plan policy 2.01.01 C encourages the applicants to maintain a range of residential land use designations that allow diverse lot sizes, housing types, and densities. To support this policy staff recommends the applicant provide additional housing options (i.e.townhomes, single family attached) in the development. Staff finds that while the proposed lots comply with the dimensional standards for the R-15 zoning district, they do not meet the intent of the mixed-use designation due to the single-use nature of the proposal. Some block lengths exceed the 750-foot requirement and will necessitate a waiver from the Council.Additionally, the existing house that will remain as part of the proposed development abuts two streets,which is prohibited by the Unified Development Code(UDC). Furthermore,the lots to the north do not transition to align with the large estate-style lots zoned RUT within Ada County,which have a Future Land Use Map(FLUM)designation of Low Density Residential (LDR).Therefore, the applicant needs to revise their plat map to address the identified issues and demonstrate the necessary corrections. The applicant states the two parcels south of Rawson Canal are commercially viable,which are approximately nine acres and have access to HWY 69 and E Lake Hazel,will still be able to develop as commercial properties. However,the applicant failed to demonstrate how these parcels would integrate with theirs to create the mixed-use development. If the applicant wishes to develop the property as proposed,the applicant has the option of continuing the hearing and applying for a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment before the December 15th deadline. Written Testimony: None Staff Recommendation: Denial—The current proposal does not align with the intent of the comprehensive plan for the area. The proposal is limited to single-family residential development, occupying the majority of the mixed-use designation area, and with no internal vehicle or pedestrian connectivity between the areas,which by focusing solely on an inward facing single-family home development, the proposal fails to meet the goal of creating a mixed-use environment that would foster a vibrant, self-sustaining community with neighborhood supportive uses, employment and/or retail options nearby.This lack of compliance with the comprehensive plan could raise concerns about whether the development will contribute to traffic issues, support a balanced community, or meet long-term growth objectives. In order to develop the property as proposed,the applicant has the option of continuing the hearing and applying for a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment before the December 15th deadline. Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval of File Number H-2024-0022, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 17th, 2024,with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial of File Number H-2024-0022, as presented during the hearing on October 171h, 2024, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2024-0022 to the hearing date of for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item#9&10: Touchmark Office Buildings (H-2024-0045, H-2024-0046) Application(s): Conditional Use Permit Size of property,existing zoning, and location: These sites consist of 1.2 acres of land,zoned L-0, located at 3512 &3526 E. Louise Drive. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Mixed-Use Community(MU-C) Summary of Request: The applicant requests a conditional use permit to construct and operate two office buildings (4,760 square feet and 4,534 square feet) in the L-0 zoning district. Office buildings are typically permitted in the L-0 zoning however,the subject properties have an existing conditional-use permit that was approved in 2005 (CUP-05-050)for the applicant to develop the property into a mixed-use retirement community consisting of residential dwellings, medical offices, commercial/retail businesses, and a senior community center. The CUP requires all lots within the scope of the permit to receive detailed CUP approval prior to developing the property. This is the reasoning for two CUP applications for the otherwise permitted use. To align with the current development, staff recommends that the applicant enhance landscaping between the buildings and along the eastern buffer. Goal 2.09.02E of the comprehensive plan emphasizes the importance of consistent landscaping standards for developments. Therefore, staff is advising that these improvements be included with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review submission. Staff has talked with the applicant regarding the condition for additional landscaping and the applicant has proposed a slight change. Staff would like the commission's opinion as staff would like to see more effort than what is proposed to help with integration with the surrounding businesses. Written Testimony: Marcel Lopez(Applicant)—In opposition to the condition requiring additional landscaping between the buildings and on the eastern buffer. Staff Recommendation: Staff is recommending approval with conditions. Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2024-0045& H-2024-0026, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 171h, 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-2024-0045& H-2024-0046, as presented during the hearing on October 17th, 2024,for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2024-0045& H-2024-0046 to the hearing date of for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s)for continuance) Item#11: McDonalds at Firenze Plaza(H-2024-0044) Application(s): Conditional Use Permit Size of property,existing zoning, and location: This site consists of.98 acres of land,zoned C-C, located at 3058 E.Amity Road. History:AZ, CPAM, PP(H-2016-0102); DA Instr.#2017-041827; FP(2019-0067);ALT(A-2022-0086) Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Mixed Use Community(MU-C) Summary of Request: The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit to construct and operate a 4,507-square-foot restaurant with a drive-through within 300 feet of a residential district and another drive-through in the C-C zoning district. The subject site is among several commercially zoned properties surrounding the intersection of S. Eagle Road and E.Amity Road. The proposed use of a restaurant with a drive-through aligns with the desired uses specified within the Mixed-use Community designation in the Comprehensive Plan, as noted above. In conjunction with the already approved development directly to the north and west,the proposed use satisfies the general Mixed-Use Community future land use designation for this area. The proposed hours of operation are 5:00 am to 12:00 am which complies with the UDC. The site plan features two access points on the north side of the property from the internal drive aisle between the subject property and Albertsons.The internal drive aisle connects with S. Cubola Ave. on the western side of the property. The proposed restaurant features two drive-through lanes that merge into one with space to queue a total of 16 vehicles along with an escape lane located on the south side of the site, outside of the drive-through lane. Staff has some concerns about peak hour stacking as it may back out into the private drive aisle during hours that may impact neighboring businesses. However, Staff has worked with the applicant to look at data from McDonald's drive-throughs during peak hours and it has alleviated some of staff concerns. The applicant provided data discussing peak hour traffic for a McDonalds in Meridian as well as explaining that 100-feet between the order kiosk and pick up window is the most efficient layout for McDonalds. If needed, McDonalds will direct patrons to park in parking stalls to prevent stacking from extending beyond the means of their site. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed restaurant.The proposed building design includes the following materials: EIFS, brick, standing seam metal panels, parapet metal wall caps, and glazing. Staff recommends the incorporation of more fenestration,glazing, or banding on the North fagade as this is the primary fagade that is visible from E.Amity Road. Written Testimony: Raine Arimitsu, Stacy Berenger, Kevin Bradt, Kelly, Marina, Crystal Deelstra,Amyjoy Price,J.Cole, Jame Worley, Kelly Lemmons, Kyle Hal, K. Elliot, Samantha Allen, Carlie Stweart, Christina Gervais, Jill Russell,Trina Havicek, Glen Grant, Jennifer Frendt, Phillip Hurst, Lance and Linda Lamprecht, Richard Jones, Samantha Hall, and Elliot Dawson—25 in opposition and 2 in favor: The main concern is regarding the user and not the use. People have concerns about smell, property values,safety,traffic and the health of the neighborhood. Staff Recommendation:Approval with conditions. Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2024-0044, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 171h, 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-2024-0044, as presented during the hearing on October 171h, 2024,for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2024-0044 to the hearing date of for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) •anninZoni* ng Commi* ssi* on Mee i* n -•t' ���} L tif'' •r � .��•ti� _ 1 t ■ .t _jam ✓., 'y 76 ri ,W-- Glig '71 '� ���•,} _ - ` v ' ' f 'may F _�� �rt �R �y� � •++ � •k: �� �`:� .. � �,� y � .y .xis �' F - - } - V'fi - - - }e• 4 _4a # k• 19 vim' +may. •y..��•x .• '• •y ,'' . r �1 „�. }- �' •� - '' ��• ' - } ' +� �r '• v ' k •'� vn v T •1 - ham # J� - Jam= ZW Octobe 17, 2024 Item #6 & 7: Treasure Valley Athletic Center * Conditional Use Permit Modification to Expand the Indoor Recreation Facility in the I-L District; & * Modification to the Existing Development Agreement to Enter into a New Agreement for the Subject Property and Modify Certain Provisions Zoning FLUM Aerial 111111 � � k I■ - +`� REMmilli " -F loll - w I IIIN' _ ' ■ � ' 11 ■� ■ .T� �. milli t� _ _ Ilwiiil -.I !11 THIM., JIM Nit �• - 1 NINE 111 NI11111■�1�■ �1 + '!T ms4 h-mrim M- Ira 0 gg* =III = _ _ =III _ L 'R, WINi & i } ;ir _EM i ■ kip � ' ■II1111 � i11111 1 ■I11111 _ 1111 1 :� Proposed Modifications to Applicable DA provisions: The following modifications are proposed to the existing DA provisions: (Changes shown in strike-out/underline format - Staff analysis in italics) #4e - " , 20 feet wide landscaped easementalongall other- residential 44ses adiacent to rty, and allow no ennrn.nnhmen+ of this nts+ip // The Applicant proposes to remove this provision. At the time the DA was adopted, the abutting property to the west of Lot 3, Block 1, Medimont Subdivision No. 1, was zoned R-40 and planned to develop with residential uses; subsequently, the property was rezoned to C-G and developed with a mix of commercial (non-residential) uses. Because there is no longer a need for the buffer, Staff is in agreement with excluding this provision from the new DA. #4p - " . The minimum rear yard setback shall be ten 10 feet from the property line so as not to encroach in the irrigation pipe easement depicted on the Medimont Subdivision No. 1 plat. Lots 3 thfoubgh 40, Block 2, have a minimum rear- yard- setbach, of for- cr (40� f.,.,�-_ All other setbacks shall be as required in the ?^�i�� nn-� Pev-el^r M^4�- Ordin nn^ Unified Development Code." The Applicant requests the rear yard setback for the subject property is 10 feet instead of 20 feet. Because 10 feet accommodates the 10 foot wide irrigation pipe easement depicted on the plat and the 20 foot buffer to residential uses is no longer necessary, Staff is in agreement with the proposed reduced rear yard setback. Staff recommends the minimum side yard building setback of 5-foot per story is also removed because the current I-L dimensional standards do not require a minimum interior side setback. #4s - " ." Staff recommends removal of this provision as the UDC no longer has restrictions on maximum lot coverage. Note: The building footprints of the existing and future structures have a 39% lot coverage. Staff has reviewed all other provisions in the DA and does not recommend any other provisions are carried over to the new DA. Staff recommends as a provision of the DA that future development is generally consistent with the sitellandscape plans and conceptual elevations submitted with the subject application and complies with the conditions contained herein. • � � w � � / Ar A � w • w � / � w w r a � � � � w RECORD OF&RVEY- PARCEL LJ4W ADJUSTALEAfT RECORD OF SURVEY No. FOR THE Tf EASLMW VALLEY ATAHLEW GLOB LOTS 3 W 4,BLOCX I OF AiE MONT SLIOIX 4SION No- 1. .SAlO LOTS iOCA TEU 1N THE NE 114 LIP$'CC77LN 14 TOWNSWP 3 NORN. RANGE 7 EAST,MSE MTROlAN,OFY OF MERIDIAN,AOA COJNrr IOAXO 2024 P.0 C.PARCELS A e B E R4AAB12AYRO. Rw ERA,/� AGENCY REVIEW COPY — NOT FOR RECORDING NE 1/4 SECTIOR 18 k .SCALE k 0 -----------——— ———— (FELTr P QB.PAq((L B L 10• 1:xn_7a If. II z I I LEGEND 1250 E.PIPER CT. AAAIM R071AACARY LE1F g E>oST�NG BUILDING SECWH LAYS awImAr NEDIIAONT SUBOINSION No. 1 — — PLA FTEO EA21ENF LA'E,OR A NO TO �' z loan s BLOC(1 O FOX0 w1/Y"1R4EE'8&AAAR AAS$ ANf0O1£EOD TO A0llftD PARCEL 8a �F A&'NM P ON CAP, PU 122 c � Oe 4a.707SF- $ D ■ CALOAA 7ED POWF (N im'W■m) DATA OF RECORD A1R!RFFk13MOr r AdNnP D for MAWR YEm avr.sU9 Nu f P UIL PAWT OF @'LYIAWIC 5 aryQl'1r E Y41e1' Y1B.67' I potG PM, LIP CLWAKh'CELffNT MOO' P-O.B.PARCEL Alks O r I I r � 1 ZB'LAIg4CAPINO SET BACA PER PUT I CERTIFICATE OF SURVEYOR E PI8-04' '. —__E_Pd'DiCIXA7T OLD PAROD.LINE � N 8N of"' 'Ir 3W.7!' - Y OR 7,.WFS R.PRAC{,00 NENFBY CCRT�FY OIAT 1 AY A REGSR"> V IAND rt VaNSM 8r i SkRWY hE SrA 7F W*Alrq AND MAI DW$MAP M$ BE&W Aa'PARE9 FROM AN AC7UAL 9AMY MACE ON RE LJ7L1'M LWLCR MY g LIWECF SLREW9Z9 AAp AM T RP5 M,W 5AN ACCLUM IE PEPA'ESEWTA ACC Or 54D A IA WI£r AND Rr Lr AS isCLltlCl91ar,OR;Rd COR�FW PERPERLARM AW FA',RG ACE MAW COOS-r'rI QI RaPCM1L71 5E r613, �. I m N I PARCEL A ® 22 2.116 Acres S 6" r7•E OF NOTES AAQ$W.PRwcF LS rP7P2 94272 SF- rZwi -I 1. MS SLARWr ODES NOT J"PORT TO SOW ALE EASNENM °�yRPpS� ~D I $ 5 ENGWEERWC RES TI RIE"XCT✓AhV RESERVARONS APPURTENANT TO OP S^Zy.44Z� q� 2.ALL FOWIO AIWtLAQ£NTS R EL0 LOCATED AY 20P4 m I—10' 1 I CURRENTfUT.WE COLNtUNrE ONAPPLFCASEE PLANNWG AND ZOWAC OROIMANCES AND/LIR RESIT$RON5W CERTIFICATE OF ADA COUNTY RECORDER SURVEYOR NARRATIVE N'STRIATENT NO. SrAIFI COW Or OF"A1251 E-PIPER CT. THE PURPOSE OF rMS SIN71£Y IS TO AO AV A PARCEL LW ai pA10 1 EXSl BIRmw r AO.VSDAFArT APPUCATIaV RN THE OrY OF M4ROrAN W � r UOUA49MY LAVES SWOIBV BORE E'STAE SWO 8ASC0 ON FOCAO !nWirY fINTFY RIAr Ras wS7 WWmr OU FREO MLNWENFS AND TFYA7 RCLA710H TO TAT LISRO RfFEWNCE TO?&ECM AT FK REWESr OF PORTSOE LAND SLWICYW6 Lea A _AaAY/7E$ DOIAIEN7S PAST_ O[LaN_,M,WS LAZY OF 204. I � I I BASIS OF BEARING EX-OFPao RECORDER L_—————————— —J Ar 00'79•S9"EAST LIEFREEN FOLM,UOWI/M TO ENTS OV E IWSF —— L,NE OF 01E NE 014 OF 1N£ALP 014 OF SECROV 08 AS-WWN w,Ar. N anF'IY W 242.32' ON W PLAT OF L!E@WLNT WEb!lWSOV N. 1•BOOK 2'5.PAQ' O 7794.RECA4DS OF ADA COUNTY FEE 6 REFERENCES b RECORDS OF ADA COUNTY SR 0.ER NE I/a MEOINONT SUBDIVISION No. 2 $Im NE 1/4 SECBBN 1a SLUGL I (RI)PLAT OF Affp1MONT WMI45WY2 No, 1.DOW 75.PAGE 7794 PAfiTakXc LAM &#?VEYIVG 1I¢/ (R2)PLAT OF MEmMONT W9059S100V N..2, ROOK 79,PACr 8453 3626 W H144L ROAD, 80ISE, ALr 63703 .W ND.21-113 PHONE• (208) 484-6666 Existing Site Plan Proposed Site Plan s� � ��, v►i_ ��I' '�►� i`�'$ i`"►2 ��`� Sri ire ���J •ram 20 y c r�, bdjni �, • 1. rA' Idd 4,Ifj� N►g� - '1►` �� ��\ �► Jed !.►� fir �2 ► .r!_ ram,fir„ Building Elevations irt'I l -�• --- - — Floor Plan d a 1 I IlimaHl III'll ,i:l III■I '� :I �� - ftsoutn _ MEN I I. I . III 6TS O O ��O ••p o � Q Item #8: Skyranch Subdivision (H -2024-0022) AZ, RZ, MDA and PP Future Land Use Map Zoning Map Aerial Map Ed AM•I Legend -TY AM _ . _ •I-TY' Legend , ., LocationProject z ■■ Project Area of Impacta. Area of Impaca i ICI nFE11F.1111111r� ILJ Analysis Analysis i - • W o - o uuaun,�ni��i�p \ fa mi un�rr, �= i u.�nevi!���► 0 u �! n . Pik ■ ■■ _ = ' = mu- ■ . fN4l I �. LAKE'HAZEL ■.rµ H 5awtooth Lard 5arveymaj, LLC i �1 F:(206)39"104 F:(209)39"105 r-1 . y f 2030 5,Wa�hingtan Ave.,t[m:"ett.iD m 836 i 7 _ m y a Annexation Boundary Description •fir W�1P BASIS OF BEARINGS for this legal description Is North 8904340"West,between a 518w rebar with no cap marking the S114 corner of Section 31 and an aluminum cap,PLS 7323 marking the southwest corner of Section 31,T.3 N.,R.1 E.,B.M.,Ada County,Idaho. A parcel of Land being the 5112 of the SE114 of the SW 114 of Section 31,Township 3 North,Range 1 East of the Boise Median,Ada County,Idaho,more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at a 5/8"rebar with no cap marking the SIM corner of said Section 31; Thcnoc North 89'43'40"WL-A,oalncldent with the South lino of said SE114 of the SW1/4,a d15tarae,4 I VA-97 feet to a 5/8"rebar with an illegible rap marking the W1116 corner of said Section 31; Thence leaving said south line,North 0008'07"West,coincident with the west line of said SE114 of the SWI/4,a distance of 669.16 feet to a 1/2"rebar/cap PLS 5359 marking the NW corner of said S112 of the SE114 of the f SWL/4; ■ Thence South 8914822'East,roincdent with the north line of said S112 of the SE114 of the SW I/4,a distance of 1304.93 feet to the east line of said SE1/4 of the SW1/4, PRO K Thence South 0°L433"Wes[,eoincklent with said east line,670.94 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. The above descrilbed parcel contains 20.039 saes,more or less. v t_4 p lf0}.9t � f 11574 61 fa�x4 - - - - - - - - - -..J Ptor SEAU� A o1B.7: oe*IrWrar ore; 2030 S.WASHIn9GWN AVE. .Vim r AW AYATWH BOWD11RY 6*dW caoi v EMMETT,IA 83617 1200�'� ADA fX7fA COMM MTY,MAW 1?(206)398-8104 naplfCrr P 1202011 EMTt120050•WILLEMAN SUB P(200)398-810S 120050 CG%SurvaylDrawin9sVUescriptrons'.t20050•Annax Lega1.docx SMEEr Page i 1 DNe zaM WWW.S4WTO0nAS,C0M n of Thence South 00°U81)7'East,coincident with the east line of said Goverment 1-0 4,a distance of 1313.33 feet 5awtooth Land 5urveyin6j, LLC to the POINT OF BEGINNING. f� F-(206)398-8104 F:(208)395-6 105 The above described parcel contains 24.530 acres,more or less. 2030 5"Washington Ave.,1—tt,It)63617 Aurae.rsv cnwra i4A•Wmr �tin IGM0�9 1r75 Rezone Legal Description Y — — — — — — — =ter — — — — — — — GOV7 LOT 4 SEC.3) L3 N.,R I E.,S.M. BASIS OF BEARINGS for this legal description is North B9043'40"West,between the southwest corner and the RI 51/4 corner of Section 31,T.3 N.,R.1 E.,B.M.,Ada County,Idaho. A parce€of land being a portion of Government Lot 4 of Section 31,Township 3 North,Range 1 East of the Boise •I Meridian,Ada County,Idaho,mare particularly descrlbed as follows: COMMENCING at a 5/8"rebar with no cap morking the S114 corner of said Section 31; Thence North 89°43'90"West,coincident with the south line of the SW114 of said Section 31,a distance of •1 ��wta. 1300.52 feet to the W 1/16 corner of said Section 31 and the southeast comer of said Government Lot 4,marked a 1157 !!88 by a 5/8"rebar/cap illegible; Thence North 00'08'07"West,colncdent with the east line of Bald Government Lot 4,a distance of 25,00 feet to a 511Y"rebar/cap PLS 2471 and the POINT OF BEGINNING; ✓fFf BEAG�`� 4 1 Thence North 89°43'40"West,parallel with Bald south line,268.01 feet to a 518"rebar/cap PLS 11574; Thence North 00'08%7"West,pare IIL4 with said east line,207,59 feet to the centerline of the Rawson Canal, marked by a 518"rebar/cap PLS 11574 witness comer,hearing South 00108'07"East,91.63 feet; Thence coincident with said centerline the following three(3)courses and distances: Thence North S2°36'37"West,295,49 feet,marked by a 516"rebarfeap PLS 11574 reference monument which bears North 32°21'S9"Fast,33.11 feet; Thence North 62°30'36"West,403.25 feet,marked by a 5(8"rebar/cap PLS IIS74 reference monument,which s`ty bears North 27'OB'3I"East,33.00 feet; " North 6310323"West,292.73 feet to the easterly right of way of S.Meridian Road,marked by a copper plug PLS 11514; ~ o \ a 11574 Thence North OS'46'S4"West,coincident with said easterly right of way,92.41 feet to an Idaho Transportation *¢ >o Department brass cap; .p7tOF Thence North 00°06'le"West,colacident with said easterly right of way,135.61 feet to a 5/8'rebarlcap PIS �FFF BEAD d L 1574; Thence North 00°0737"West,coinckien[with said easterly right of way,380"96 feet to an aluminum cap on the .ua`'�eO �• BUIS M MRINO north line of said Government Lot 4; Thence South 89'53'03"East,coincident with said north line,1129.32 feel to the northeast corner of said Government Lot 4,marked by a found chiseled X In a stone; rrtoXCr: o"'" � 20305.WASfiINCTt7flAVE. REZONE BOUNDARY EXHIBIT EMMETT,ID SM17 P:1 2 0 2 01 1 EMT 1 1 2 0 0 5 4-W I L L E M A N SUB ADA COUNTY,IDAHO O7 (�afp P:,2A6)398.8104 FOWKIN CGl Su ry eylDrawingalDeacrip lrp ns1120050-Rezone Leg©I.docx P •.2J26,1 EMT1120050-WILLEMAN SUB F: 208 398.8105 la0at0 Page 11 CG1SurveyiOrawrngslDescr4pllons1120050•Rezone Legal doc[ '�j�y� ► Pa9 a 12 atE Lard iq.4LG WWW.S4WR70THLS.COM IGF1 — O 3/y a E PR IRIE'1'Lv;I Fi qfR ti p LowDerrify Of f Residential ♦, . LLJ S ER'VIF VI W F e yEbse.� E CRESC Eli DO Sf x E PHENOMENAL ST � w N ¢ x w a 6 WLAKE H4Ef Ra E•L•AKE-HAZEL-RD w o MU•G o c3 s � Y - •--•--- VMP tfrHORSE LN MU•RG .� ........... . . Mar#-High pensity Residential Medium Density Residential n• i I " L VLkROMPRTB-L-w I i t�i H":Ji R-4K pa�YiElL {t I ) r rV R-2 R-d R_4 TN-R 1r RUT E CRESCDW ST R-15 C-G � E PHENOMENAL ST w R-15 a w W-LAKE-HAZEL-RD E LAKE HAZEL ftD L R-4 4 G s I = � V Y R-4 RUT LLI RUT UI RR._"•• � W�RiF7T-t74R5E�N— • i ti. R•A RUT _ -RR---•---1•�-�:2r--,-- =� �•_�� E VIAR4BERTp LN 3eckdah R-4 r io+eror Low Den.ify Of f Residential ♦, . lea 51W ER'JIFW W F e k4c",� E CRESC Eli DO Sf x E PHENOY,04AL ST • � w � w a 6 W LAKE HAEf Ra E•L•AKE-HAZEL--RD L o MU•G a 2 o c3 s 'n Y -z - •--•--- VrP"ItfrHORSE LN MU•RG -- - 'pe �� +r Mer#•Fiigh Density Residential Medium Density Residential 2• L V1A&QBERTB.1�i I i t�i H":Ji Preliminary P uu o. _� mllllllllllliil� � —� ,�, • , • AG tjmlHARY RLAi FOR err •i $KYRMCH SSUBMISION �V1J "f + e in w Iw ]Owbdm PP 1 PKr11L RmgX F IM.M w 4" }tG AL1 IR YOB IYOIQ NY!•� � �� L _ '`+ +ti# �9111w.4 IbAI � a Ana IF ca,.�wr _ +ILi �`��_� E�4WD � 7LLLyL• } �i.•iY Dili �lEMF A M r4 NLIr �� i re ar m m I � ' I` 1 K---' 't..u., F I Ip .++.,1 wr r*r t++� rh�ww w i � � 4i. 7Fi o M Ill I., , 1 n,+o,l Mi MWT .4 ITT 1 IN ji 1']171 .h Landscape Plan 0 - a air. -�2 � �. i► 41a I;r NO! :* SKYRANCH wMERIDIAN, ■ r. Qualified Open Space Exhibit IIIMII IN nni� mm � .................... B. Pickleball Courts (Block 1, Lot 1)-the entrance to Skyranch will feature: Alk . Two pickleball courts • " Attractive landscaping 17. A. Park(Block 7, Lot 1}-The one-and-a-half-acre park will contain the following recreation facilities: Community Pool and Changing Rooms Fenced Play Structure , Swing Set Seating Benches _ Climbing Dome Attractive Landscaping 1,3 a�7o - C7 o yy ii p q • 4 �T Y OV C. Dog Parks(Block 4, Lot I & Block 10, Lot 1)- both parks will be over one-third of an acre and feature: ' - Fenced Area - !' - Waste Station a Sitting benches .L Attractive landscaping r• � i•Ir�'li � Mimi L z k . .. Conceptual E 11 5. CONDMONS GOVERNING DEVELOPMENT OF SUBJECT PROPERTY- 5.1 . Owner/Developer sktall develap the Property in accordance with the fallowing special canditions: 5.1.1 Future development of the site shall cornply with the ardinances in effect at the time of development. 5.1.2 Future developxxxen.t of the site shall comply with all bull, use, and development standards of the 1 -4 zoning district listed in UDC 11- A- . .1.3 Any property} or easements needed by the City oi'Meddian to provide any sever or water infrastructure needed in f Whtrance of this Agreein-ent shall be provided by the Owner/Developer at no cost to the City. The City and the wDer/Developer will rrieet and confer to fines a inutwdly acceptable location for the easement. 5.1.4. Any future development of the site will regttit an amendment to this Development Agreement to approve any proposed development plan. The first such application for this approval shall be at no cost to the Dw nerlD-tweloper 5,1 ,5 Tftbe OwnerMeveloper wishes to re-zone the subject property, the fiat. such applicatiun for this approval shail be at no cost to the Owner/Developer. This clause does not apply to any application to subdivide the property under the existing zone. 5.1 A if a rt.-zone application is submitted in the future, the C1 Ly's Comprehensive Plan and .Future Land/Use Map designation for the; subject property will be considered when determining if a rezone is appropriate. cC [ I'IiRllill Low Derrify � \ W f Residential W S�fAI Er.VII•:i psi � , S vti YEUse:~ E CRESC Eli DO Sf x �— E PHENOMENAL ST w x w a 6 E-LAKE-HAZEL--RD L MU•G fiv • 40 fiv • / , 0 c3 - • _ , - 4RSE LN MU•RG —. `� Mer#•Fiigh pensity Residential Medium Density Residential ---i — - _ - L VL4 9e]BER7B 1�i cC [ IIiAllill Low Density f Rcsidcntial F„ S�fAI Er.VII•:i psi i - • E CRESCEH60 Sf 1 —t— E PHEN Ci .EF AL ST Residential W a • � , _ Commercial E-LAKE-HAZEL--RD L MU•G 0 c3 • i • • • • - 4RSE LN MU•RG —. '� Mer#•Fiigh � • i i Penslty Residential Medium Density • • • • • • • Residential J. • • • , •__---I Mixed - Use Development For mixed-use developments to be consistent with the plan, they need to demonstrate the following elements, which the current proposal lacks : a Functional Integration a Outward-Facing Design a Physical Integration and Shared Features a Support Local Services a Design Integration a Purposeful Open Space a Pedestrian Connectivity a Limited Reliance on Arterial Roads Mixed - Use Development "In developing the Comprehensive Plan, the City has typically designated Mixed-Use in areas of hi her visibility (such as along arterial roadway s) These Mixed-Use areas identified on the Future Land Use Map vary in size, intensity (both residential and commercial), and consider the visibility of the planned transportation network, number of residences planned within mixed use designation service areas, and location relevant to other commercial opportunities. The locations are intended to provide Meridian residents with a variety of opportunities for housing, leisure, activity, and commerce. Attractive and convenient prioritized elements such as multiuse pathways are paramount to functionally reducing impacts to the transportation network throu h proximity and density of services. Contiguous Mixed-Use identified areas that are bisected by an arterial or highway are considered separate and independent areas for use and design integration and will be evaluated independently of ea her." Staff Recommendation a Denial of the project because the current proposal does not align with the intent of the comprehensive plan for the area. The proposal is limited to single-family residential development, occupying the majority of the mixed- use designation area, and with no internal vehicle or pedestrian connectivity between the areas, which by focusing solely on an inward facing single- family home development, the proposal fails to meet the goal of creating a mixed-use environment that would foster a vibrant, self-sustaining community with neighborhood supportive uses, employment and/or retail options nearby. This lack of compliance with the comprehensive plan could raise concerns about whether the development will contribute to traffic issues, support a balanced community, or meet long-term growth objectives. =�f E-P)1.ALRIEVIVW LN. f j Law Density x S1fAf ER yIEv1 pk Residential LU 40 • • • • • • • • • W-L•AKE•HAZEL RD E-LAKE-HAZEL--RD s 0 _ v �e • I • N s Y • • • I I • I • -- •� --- -----"IPAIt,;H4RSELN MU•RG — I • • • ~ Med•F#i[Jh ❑ensiiy Residential Me-dium Density F Residential I V_ • ............................... Item #9 &10: Touchmark Buildings A&B CUP (H-2024-0045 & H-2024-0046) Zoning FLUM Aerial Legend gend" �FAIRYIEW FAIRY•IEW Legend , `FAIR IEY IN r ' 'fir— :.. Project Location Project Location Project Location ■ . gyp.Area of Impact Area of Impact Area of Impact . Analysis s Analysis 1 • PINE • PINE PINE all *vw • • ■f S P•NEW - ••�" _ ""'fir,__"'. N, . -. �� •� ■ 0 b FRANKL-IN IIIIIIIIIIIIIINW—FRANKL-IN UJ ,FRA N KLI N 44 MEN n�i 1c ►ice r...=� _ I ►r..u- i.- .� •� -,a .r - 111� ���� w 11111►� �■ w ,� O � � - �( 84 84 III oo Oo NINE P OYERL--AND .,..,OVERLAND OVERLAND _ 1 SdTE DATA i IQI�EiI. T'}'`f{`•�• � •...� � #(lt71:f 17L7LR1 op I UC- 1£ 3 R�7iTA ].�„.�.. ,,i a..a , ,• r � ------------ -- �o IFITITITITIT OWNER DATA I I I FR r.nws �j_ ti wows ' ILA;I =$ Mercury Eco Alternating aalmS�+lEL6 � �F 3 t 4 9 i _ o ° I. I _ of 1 — �1I "'-- ------- ; W� J W 't'` •s -' O+ F m L1 O Q!3 I r m x[ihl � h ,• .�sxa .n iarzsllr you xu win alc �nro. 0-6 rf I ° In •� +571-•R l+T ; 1 , 1 ro L +� � F � •s �t 1F s 13uilding Elevations Am NF51 ELFVA16Fi-{:8L6R fH HEYhIION i110R �Y]UI7i�i FVhIId1.CQ317R �±'4� O Z Z� 8 E 0 mjmbl- - Y l] S} �F m FAS[FI bVAlIS3N COIS]R Yr'e aac �avw N{l IO„».�..� risi��.�xi P��vrq� eMl L[LliJ/�GI: Me�.rlwa ti�A-3_i �r.wort�..atins a+• .r�l�.r.w.,o...xro cxrtx.m.na�rcrr.mrrortvar�.,wl[tn�crrsrunus R.►,alerar lwr or.aasmw�rwrr�v�mcxl�arrx�w_wrar Condition of Approval /Analysis • "The eastern landscape buffer and area between the buildings shall be revised to incorporate vegetation coverage in the form of trees and shrubs in compliance with the Architectural Standards Manual , UDC 11 -3B-9, and Comprehensive Plan ." • Goal 2.09.02E of the comp plan discusses consistent landscaping standards for developments. The neighboring businesses provided enhanced landscaping which is the reasoning behind staffs condition. • UDC 11 -313-1 Purpose Statement: The City of Meridian recognizes that landscaping can be a significant expense to business people and residents. At the same time, high quality landscaping improves the livability of residential neighborhoods, enhances the appearance and customer attraction of commercial areas, increases property values, improves the compatibility of adjacent uses, screens undesirable views, and can reduce air, water and noise pollution. Item # 11 : McDonalds at Firenze Plaza (H-2024-0044) Zoning FLUM Aerial •Iniiioi�.��'Qr'�'-vr_Ir.�.iiiiiii illn "�q:r/1 ^i:4x-•xii•� � - " Legend i■■•::iii Win■ 0 Ns�.�■■■non rlrl :::a■x -1►�min + �••■�:::iw• d��7:. .. _ _ J,, _n■ t•, n� If■ ■• u■ l •■xnler OII Project • • - Iil iii -. ■ Location VICTORY I � Impact� VICTORY � -• • Impact •• • • • •• • •Impact•Analysis I T 'LrIyS�NINE �� ■■■■■■f�1111�.; , Tom•- ' • If`�+ r 'rll!I�-i=5:-�f�i'/I�/_ '++►�• I •tip V 1' m -• tllw ,La��i 1■O 11ln111�7 ,f; - w . �- - _ f .f rIp nu ■■ �• �ruuul■p �j+h■■ nri� W ux Iur.0 nn r wwr �-ii.....r� +4i• ■u W - A,. _LLI s - :C-lm � _�rin■■4. ti IH..� ■R r:��rrrr I uu1�:.unl '__r r r+11■-a _ - _ - _suw: •q ■nlf J��\-:rrl�Irrrrrl,- .gw�.::: � w: �_x.ux■: /Oq ■m J • ' _ Ir b (-^'�`. •,,,,�,�.; -,.� - - � `�:. ::i■I • �rR1■■.�. ��•+i:plixr �It ■�LrIR IIIIrrr��f �'r'�i'I��uun�n• i:a■ yR.n... �+,ii phllrjf � ,-�s r ��, ��. •►.Inm. � n■■:.- �► a 1 nu::: q 1{u q + - 1�IIf1 •• ,: . •�� � • ,l 6 Pn■ ♦I/ Q +.f Ilrrr f y u fI ���i♦i6 ♦�uu• + 4 � ��r■ � a �, .. .• �col ! �yiyr W :��.+`�� '• �::::-__ ♦•.4• ♦�lir � "� r�+rr ::. _•-- � d 4a■■■► III���►r :- _ ��;W q♦ 4.•.■ ���rrm !mm i W �� < NII ' Linn nr■ l �-� l_ rVnw Iunln x■nuulr• Pnl PPIrr,I - i InIN ■Iu; rlr I Plw mllllll m now '� - .— 4 `x•n11 - -- " n�� n11: unr r�+J : -• � +� nul �2�J� \ ,I --� � � :- ■1 I ill 1III11 - ,� � •Y♦i?I �� I IIII 1 ■■■ ��': T �- IIII w iuw �. 1? �+�+�y+ ♦ • � ' —~^F-� ml -•Ir,, -'� -�, �_ 'i.": ♦O�,I. .I='y'" rn1lm �.Ixxp {nuI iy,j r 4 a'♦� 1"Ge■ ;. .-' _rmm �nnnu `+��� � !!! 1 wl II J=11111111111 ■� 11 IE� � Illln•l � �♦ _ _ e 111111111 ■•/In 11� .1 . ��..--�:lIEIIIIIIIII •1►•+1\C `:Irin• _' IIIIIII.''� II �� � • - • ---1 P. ----lll111111 U1=11\: `•IIII{II: ''� � �•■ Clnn nnllllll .■IIIr1111 7111111 111 � f:i• a L•■i--'" - � . �un 1111111 {rl luu�null �`� � Inn moon �■■IIIr11x •mm�r - _ i Iona w nli{- � ►n■ '.nu� ��'♦ II:uu^ _ _ �ii . 11-.-1 •° � IIII e�,. =11.,'�•+�• _ , ` `� `_ : AMITY - = "'' AMITY• �.AMI-TY - �- ---� v�I I�lIIIlnII\ - 3-11-r1■11 ♦ --- '_ II�L_ Il�ili ti■ir ILL� -lru�G� mxl nl;l ' •�Y` •e • A{ f 1 iI 1, - ■rnnl!i♦ Ixm __ -G 'Innnn► 921II'I - _ ► -:. wnuuul ml� _ Inrrn 1 m u� nw —a � -- _ = 1 r r __ � ��j{�:� Ills r'+:n1r �i , '_• �: � r• �►� � 111 r •triry� _ f.� �. � a°�.ii. ��� � \ 11C..Iu1r,♦i q- �ij'-: !• I� \ Ilw::q■gy Gpy '? �.- > :+w �, ��i �Illniu �...01 .� ::: nu,■ 11 ii � I ♦ �1 .o �� . r .,,� ■!�� �� f%�r�l, Inn '-_' n N1111q � n:.:::�nnn8 1+ ♦ �� ■� I ,� � fry: _ �' . j � A, �`. � r,�,���d. 1{Irr ;�/� ♦ n. ��lii ii��71`iiii% ' �■� Nid - ,�.�.'::1_ iA - �. - .a� {���,�.y,, E __I■�_ � ' Jllx'+s 1�I;l IC•.m IL..•_ III w�-- r : � r.q. "bo:��! `F � ... a � a � r Q o 4 O w o - � : o � E.AI�11TYf1AINORARTERIALF — r 5. H—: ti i i mrwccc + - xea[laonsrcam r ' + " 4 II i . --- ;71 I� .fRkSiE6 �xw� # I is xoNo,ssf: f I +ISTAMIIT FY1Q+Y�90JLLMN: # tig zidh _ I -------------- III I � oijl I I 11111 wry I .. ... .�, , 2EML !EEL Lj ir; 5 n-101 a d III { .`_ ... . .." +, "..• "" ".F` "". `'s """_k""""-. . '"""s" ++ i1 _ rani 18 nca nuie s xu:l14a 1 � S.J \ 'i+ �{:""--- ?� �1 �' [ {� +. ."��.' _�-�_-�•".' ����-";""•, ilk � � [} J �.���ifT Rwu� �wu+m iuwr.n•!rF' �mwv�.rnHn�c�r O r� a�+wow�wxs fa woaa ra�'4 i! � +xJ •-T• aw�wow�wxs��woaa navy ! W "z x. } �� .•W!I f..l}c4^M a.r 4r L+F� � !J a.—�— � xrn.r .� •-F � " � ' • .c..rrp.vl �. _ . _ � . .ter...•.—.—��+�.�.t JrL Y riaaiYi ri�� YGY�� _ wy yy•��. �LLT - - Q w� X��_ R � F� ■ �1 DIIIY[TINII[L[YITDY F�■ c s r� Zro w IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Treasure Valley Athletic Center (MCU-2024-0003) by Erik Hagen Architecture, located at 1250 & 1251 E. Piper Ct. Application Materials: https://bit.ly/MCU-2024-0003 A. Request: Modified Conditional Use Permit to modify the existing Conditional Use Permit (CUP- 03-056 Meridian Soccer Center) to expand the indoor recreation facility use in the I-L zoning district. 152 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : October 17j 2024 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 6 & 7 PROJECT NAME : Treasure Valley Athletic Center ( MM2024 - 0003 ) & ( W2024 = 0033 ) Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify ( Please Print ) HOA ? ( mark X if yes ) If yes, please provide HOA name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 E IDIAN -- STAFF REPORT .►a H o COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 10/17/2024 Legend DATE: f 1 ILI Pr, jeat Lorca fior TO: Planning&Zoning Commission " FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 �® SUBJECT: Treasure Valley Athletic Center— MCU,MDA MCU-2024-0003 IT H-2024-0033 LOCATION: 1250& 1251 E. Piper Ct., in the NE 1/4 of Section 18,T.3N.,R.IE. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Modification to the existing Development Agreement for Medimont Subdivision(Inst. #97072405)to enter into a new agreement for the subject property,remove the requirement for a buffer to adjacent residential land uses, and modify the dimensional standards and any other applicable provisions; and modification to the existing Conditional Use Permit(i.e. CUP-03-056 Meridian Soccer Center)to expand the indoor recreation facility use in the I-L zoning district. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 2.12-acres Future Land Use Designation General Industrial Existing Land Use Indoor recreation facility Proposed Land Use(s) Same(no change proposed) Current Zoning Light Industrial(I-L) Physical Features(waterways, NA hazards,flood plain,hillside) Neighborhood meeting date;#of 5/13/24 attendees: History(previous approvals) Annexation(Ord.#755—Properties West),preliminary plat and final plat was approved for Medimont Subdivision in 1997(DA Inst.#97072405); CUP-03-056(Meridian Soccer Center);PBA-2024-0009 Page 1 153 OWE PINE - •� �w�_ �� � war... JN ■�I rmo _ � ♦ � �;� ,mil FR# 'K .I --111 FRANKLIN J ., • ; ,j ■1 'k 99 =xuull pion ' J` 511 IN loom 1111111 �""' � rni I■ H I■ ■H ■L mill 1■ �I■�� IIIr! IN I miss Ellin MEN .CY�~ illl � illl �_ �'+ _■III _��'+ _■III 1111111 i..... U113; a:1:71. 11 �1111 . 1. C. Representative: Same as Applicant IV. NOTICING Planning& Zoning Posting Date Newspaper Notification 10/1/2024 Radius notification mailed to 9/26/2024 properties within 300 feet Site Posting Date 10/9/2024 Next Door posting 9/24/2024 V. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN(HTTPS://WWW.MERIDIANCITY.ORGICOMPPLAN): FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION: This property is designated General Industrial on the Future Land Use Map(FLUM). This designation allows a range of uses that support industrial and commercial activities. Industrial uses may include warehouses, storage units, light manufacturing, flex, and incidental retail and office uses. PROPOSED USE:The Applicant proposes to continue the previously approved indoor recreation facility use and expand the use/facility. The previous approval was for an indoor soccer center; the new use is an indoor beach volleyball and weight training facility. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES(hyps://www.meridiancibV.or /g compplan): Goals,Objectives,&Action Items: Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this application and apply to the proposed use of this property(staff analysis in italics): • "Require all new and reconstructed parking lots to provide landscaping in internal islands and along streets."(2.01.04B) All new parking lot landscaping is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11- 3B-8C. • "Permit new development only where urban services can be reasonably provided at the time of final approval and development is contiguous to the City."(3.01.01F) City water and sewer service is available to be extended to the proposed addition with development. • "Increase year-round recreational programming and activities that encourage education, health and wellness, community involvement, and multi-sensory play."(4.03.01) The proposed indoor volleyball and weight training facility will provide year-round recreational opportunities for area residents. Page 3 155 VI. STAFF ANALYSIS A. Development Agreement Modification(MDA): A Development Agreement(DA) (Inst. #97072405)was approved in 1997 with annexation of the subject property,which is part of the larger Medimont Subdivision(aka Stonebridge Business Park). Some,but not all,of the provisions in the DA apply to the subject property. The Applicant proposes a modification to the existing DA to enter into a new agreement for the subject property and remove the requirement for a buffer to adjacent residential land uses to the west,modification to the dimensional standards and other applicable provisions. Only the DA provisions applicable to the subject property are included below; all other provisions are not applicable. A legal description of the property subject to the new DA is included below in Section VIII.E. The following modifications are proposed to the existing DA provisions: (Changes shown in strike-out/underline format-Staff analysis in italics) • e—"PlapAing Strip West e-a pemaneR,�2n feet�de landscaped easement a4efig all other-residential uses adjaeen4 to the pr-epei4y, and allow fie efier-eaehment of this strip." The Applicant proposes to remove this provision. At the time the DA was adopted, the abutting property to the west of Lot 3, Block 1, Medimont Subdivision No. 1, was zoned R-40 and planned to develop with residential uses;subsequently, the property was rezoned to C-G and developed with a mix of commercial(non-residential) uses. Because there is no longer a need for the buffer, Staff is in agreement with excluding this provision from the new DA. • #4p—"Speeial Sethaek Requirements.As presented at p4he hearings, building sethaeks shall be fiNe(5) feet per-stefy from the pr-epefty 1 -_- The minimum rear yard setback shall be twenty(20)ten 10 feet from the property line so as not to encroach in the irrigation pipe easement depicted on the Medimont Subdivision No. 1 plat. 10,Bleek 2, shall have a minimum rear-yard sethaek of fiqfty(4 . All other setbacks shall be as required in the Zoning and Development Or-d mane Unified Development Code." The Applicant requests the rear yard setback for the subject property is 10 feet instead of 20- feet. Because 10 feet accommodates the 10 foot wide irrigation pipe easement depicted on the plat and the 20 foot buffer to residential uses is no longer necessary, Staff is in agreement with the proposed reduced rear yard setback. Staff recommends the minimum side yard building setback of 5-foot per story is also removed because the current I-L dimensional standards do not require a minimum interior side setback. • #4s—" ° of the build rg i t» Staff recommends removal of this provision as the UDC no longer has restrictions on maximum lot coverage. Staff has reviewed all other provisions in the DA and does not recommend any other provisions are carried over to the new DA. Staff recommends as a provision of the DA that future development is generally consistent with the site/landscape plans and conceptual elevations submitted with the subject application and complies with the conditions contained herein. Page 4 156 B. Conditional Use Permit Modification (MCU): A conditional use permit(CUP-03-056)was approved in 2003 for Meridian Soccer Center for a 20,000 square foot(s.£)indoor soccer field and 3,000 s.f, office,restrooms and a small pro shop for the sale of soccer merchandise in the I-L zoning district. A modification to the existing Conditional Use Permit(CUP-03-056) is proposed to expand the previously approved indoor recreation facility use in the I-L zoning district in accord with UDC 11-5B-6G.A new 14,700 square foot(s.£)building is proposed to the north of the existing building,which will contain sand courts for beach volleyball, a mezzanine with a weight and training room and offices, a waiting area,restrooms and a mechanical/utility room; eight(8) additional parking spaces are also proposed on the east side of the building.No additions to the existing building or changes to the existing site are proposed. The Applicant estimates that on a typical day and evening there will be approximately 30 patrons and two(2)employees within the primary building and 20 patrons and two(2) employees in the secondary building. The primary users of the facility will be people of all ages and the facility will be used from 9 am to 9 pm Monday through Friday and 9:00 am to 7:00 pm Saturday and Sunday. The heaviest periods of use for the facility are anticipated to be evenings and weekends. Tournaments are held in the existing building but will not be held in the new building. A property boundary adjustment(PBA-2024-0009 TVAC Beach Volleyball&Weight Training Facility)was recently tentatively approved between the subject property and the abutting property to the north to shift the northern property line an additional 75-feet to the north to accommodate the new building and parking, subject to completion of several tasks within one(1)year(i.e. by 9/23/2025) (see Record of Survey in Section VIII.D below). As a provision of the new DA, Staff recommends the Applicant receive final approval of the property boundary adjustment application prior to submittal of the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. Specific Use Standards: There are specific use standards in the UDC that apply to the proposed use,as follows: (Staff analysis in italics) 11-4-3-2—Arts, Entertainment or Recreation Facility, Indoors and Outdoors: A. General standards. 1. All outdoor recreation areas and structures that are not fully enclosed shall maintain a minimum setback of one hundred(100) feet from any abutting residential districts. The playing areas of golf courses, including golf tees, fairways, and greens,are an exception to this standard. No outdoor recreation areas are proposed; all activities will take place within the building. 2. No outdoor event or activity center shall be located within fifty(50)feet of any property line and shall operate only between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m.No outdoor events or activities are proposed. 3. Accessory uses including,but not limited to,retail, equipment rental,restaurant and drinking establishments,may be allowed if designed to serve patrons of the use only. The Applicant shall comply with this standard. 4. Outdoor speaker systems shall comply with section 11-3A-13, "outdoor speaker systems", of this title.No outdoor speaker systems are proposed. B. Additional standards for swimming pools. Any outdoor swimming pool shall be completely enclosed within a six-foot non-scalable fence that meets the requirements of the building code in accord with title 10, chapter 1,of this Code.A swimming pool is not proposed. Page 5 157 C. Additional standards for outdoor stage or musical venue.Any use with a capacity of one hundred(100) seats or more or within one thousand(1,000) feet of a residence or a residential district shall be subject to approval of a conditional use permit. No outdoor stage or musical venue is proposed. D. [Outdoor lighting.] Outdoor lighting, including lighted fields,designed for the site shall comply with Section 11-3A-11, 'outdoor lighting," of this title. These standards may be modified through the approval of a conditional use permit. The Applicant shall comply with these standards. Dimensional Standards: Future development should be consistent with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2C-3 for the I-L zoning district, except as otherwise restricted in the DA. The proposed plans demonstrate compliance with the minimum dimensional standards in the UDC and in the DA. Access: Access is provided to the site via E. Piper Ct., an existing local street. Staff recommends a cross-access easement agreement is required with the abutting property to the north to facilitate cross- parking. Parking: Off-street parking is required in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-6B.2, which requires one (1) space for every 2,000 s.f. of gross floor area. Based on 37,700 s.f. (14,700 s.f. for the new structure and 23,000 s.f. for the existing structure), a minimum of 19 spaces are required for the overall site; a total of 65 spaces are proposed at a ratio of 1:580 s.f., exceeding the minimum standard by 46 spaces. A shared parking agreement was required with neighboring businesses in the Medimont Business Park with the previous CUP application;however,the Applicant does not have a copy of the agreement and believes one may never have been executed. The Applicant is in the process of completing a shared parking and access easement agreement with the abutting property to the north (Dutchman Motorsports). This will allow cross-access between properties and provide more parking for the proposed use if needed during the heaviest periods of use in the evenings and weekends. Staff recommends as a provision of the new DA that a copy of the executed access and parking easement agreement(or the existing agreement if applicable)is submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. Per UDC Table 11-3C-5,the required dimensions for 90-degree parking spaces are 9' x 19'— where a bumper overhangs onto a sidewalk or landscape area,the parking stall dimensions may be reduced 2-feet in length if 2-feet is added to the width of the sidewalk or landscaped area planted in ground cover.The site plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application for the proposed improvements should be revised to depict a minimum 7-foot wide sidewalk on the south side of the new building. A bicycle rack capable of holding at least one(1)bicycle is required per UDC 11-3C-6G;bicycle parking facilities are required to comply with the location and design standards listed in UDC 11-3C- 5C. Staff recommends a bicycle rack is provided for the new building in accord with these standards and should be depicted on the site plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application along with a detail that demonstrates compliance with the aforementioned design standards. Landscaping: A 10-foot wide street buffer is required along E. Piper Ct., landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. A detailed landscape plan should be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application that demonstrates compliance with these standards. Parking lot landscaping is required to be provided for the new section adjacent to E. Piper Ct. in Page 6 158 accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C. Landscaping should be depicted on the plans submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application in accord with these standards. There are no residential uses abutting this site;therefore, a buffer to residential uses is not required. There are existing trees along the(existing)northern boundary of the site that will be removed with development. Mitigation is required for existing trees removed from the site as set forth in UDC I I- 3B-IOC.S.Additional trees for mitigation should be depicted on the plans submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application in accord with these standards. Sidewalks: An attached sidewalk exists along E. Piper Ct. at the east boundary of the site in accord with UDC 11-3A-17. A minimum 5-foot wide pedestrian walkway is required to be provided from the perimeter sidewalk to the main building entrance and should be distinguished from the vehicular driving surface through the use of pavers,colored or scored concrete,or bricks in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19.B.4. The proposed site plan depicts a walkway,however it appears to be painted striping on the pavement—the plans submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance should comply with the aforementioned standard. Pathway: There are no multi-use pathways depicted on the Pathways Master Plan across this site. Fencing:No new fencing is depicted on the plans. Any fencing constructed on the site should comply with the standards for such in UDC 11-3A-7. Mechanical Equipment: All mechanical equipment on the back of the building or on the rooftop and all outdoor service and equipment 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. The plans submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application should depict the location of all mechanical equipment. Trash Enclosure: A trash enclosure exists along the west side of the existing building,which will serve both buildings. Building Elevations: Conceptual building elevations were submitted as shown in Section VIII.0 for the proposed single-story building with a mezzanine;building materials consist of vertical and horizontal metal panels,horizontal corrugated metal panels, fiber-cement panel accents, and glazing with a metal standing seam roof. The final design is required to be consistent with the Non- Residential design standards for the I-L zoning district listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. Certificate of Zoning Compliance&Design Review: A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application is required to be submitted for the proposed use prior to submittal of a building permit application to ensure consistency with the conditions in Section IX,UDC standards and design standards for the site design and design of the building. VII. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed MCU and MDA applications with the provisions included in Section IX per the Findings in Section X. Page 7 1 91 VIII. EXHIBITS A. Existing Approved Site/Landscape Plan a uewWeH ul117­ a w c /4111oeA IIegA9110A 4310e9 OVAL pp s 0 c ' d _ Z - ---- --—--—-- s - y °d ---- -�- --- - sQ" I LLI CL LU U - WJJ 2� T I z� i it €a - -- p - r,--------------- - Page 8 160 B. Proposed Site/Landscape Plan (dated: 6/28/24) a F11113eJ I1egA9110A PBeg 9VA1 Q o a A IL s .. 8 _ 3 I 5 �wiwxi� &d o x - snvis Ana mv.s���mre I g g aaam aasu�oaam 7 I srodptle wl � [3 O O=U a�I N wW�' III F 0 p" W J m Iq X > J d IL a ❑w � w wJJ II� I s J _ ON ❑(y I _ s-rlr�s�Hireva cs �'��'I� 9" II �w a — �" r --------------- Page 9 161 C. Building Elevations&Floor Plan (dated: 6/28/24) f o /gllpe=j IlegAe11OA goeaO 3Vnl g M w �S, e Q O w a � �ry 3 I� Y Iry B 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! II I I is .f I I I I I I I I I I I �I 6 t 1= I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Z1 mrC-7 I a I as I 9 I I I I I I .q I I I I I I I I y4 I wp I I I Page 10 162 &IlE WL2-I Il IO�'x� � N T � /gploe_A IlegAalICA 40e99 OHAlLL _ a Q °o Law I JI I s l w -0 -i Qi I T — 9 q —p o e._ k /1.\ L% I I I i I I 1IJ- ---III I II i I � II I I I i I I I I I I I I III a I I I I I l � f I I I 9 J},gg =4 T Page 11 Fl 63 D. Record of Survey—Tentatively Approved(PBA-2024-0009) a � 14 g °m ` bl Cbl . 3 in ��"�3-: a �y3n� 111►���� ,p ��k� lL p o M o o • . ?tD � i w �� �� W h� � LO �$ z �' �� � � o �� �• � ti >s as i y Ln En 8� w 4! 4 a 5 sn xays I W i I � z I . p O I alvoa •,tr,xoo s 1 M � O � �. .00l1Gf ]n,esOQ r PO G[ aO GL 4 I S- I m9stm I .. . ----------- J .eevel a ercanoN ------------- ----- n�\ m f1NJ'�wr ea sn� 3.K K00 N lS i XZME ' 1'OR 901SY4a9�S 3DWId ZPUWS I g� I xome'1 ion n MMMOBn5-OQV 37YId]U7VS Page 12 F164] E. Legal Description of Property Subject to the New Development Agreement PDRTSIDE LAND SURVEY-ING , LLC EXHIBIT A Parcel A A pafcel of nand being all of Lot 4,Block 1 and a portion of Lot 3,BIack 1 of Medimont Subdivision No. 1,Book 75,Page 7794,ReCords pf Ada County,said pa reel being located iin the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 18,Township 3 North,Range 1 East,Boise Meridian,more particularly described as follows. Commencing atthe Northwest cornerof the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarterof said Section 18,thence along the West line of said Northeast Quarter,South 00'29'39"West a distance of 80.00 feet to the Northwest corner of said Lot 3;Thence along the West Ilne of said Lot 3,South OWZY39" West a distance of 194.99 feet to the True Point of Beginning; Thence leaving said West line,South 89'01'17"East a distance of 216.57 feet to a point on the East line of said Lot 3; Thence along said East line,South 00"58'43"west a distance of 75.00 feet to the Northeast corner of said Lot 4, Thence along the East line of said Lot 4,South 00'58'43"West a distance of 75.00 feet an angle point in the boundary of said Lot 4; Thence along the boundary line of said Lot 4,South 89°01'17"East a distance of 29.00 feet to an angle paint boundary of said Lot 4; Thence along the East line of said Lot 4,South 00'58'49"West a distance of 246.00 feet the Southeast corner of said Lot 4; Thence along the South line of said Lot 4,North 89'01'17"West a distance of 242.32 feet to the Southwest cornerof said Lot 4; Thence along the west line of said Lot 4,Nortft 00529'39"East a distance of 321.01 feet to the Northwest corner of said Lot 4,also being the Southwest corner of said Lot 3; Thence along the West line of said Lot 3, North 00'29'39"East a distance of 75.00 feet to the True Faint of Beginning, Said Parcel containing 2.118 Acres,(92,272 s.f.)more or less. r o ' er End Description Project No.24-113 722 Prepared May 22,2024 1P O OF 3626 PP� ffUl Rd. Rv se.ID83703 r2M)4?4-6666 jrrnril xtr�srleivrro y.cuw Page 13 F165] c--,] 7 P.U.C. PARCELS A 3 B FFRAWtf)V RO 0c) \'N CORNER NE 1/4 � c NE 1/4 SECTION 18CD i 3 m '] I _ �J v __ _L B_ _ — — —— — — — — — — P.0.6, PARGE s f (D ° z Q UZ , 1250 E. PIPER CT- `• N a EXISTING BUILDING LJJ ; 0 + MEOPAONT SUBOIVISICH No. 1 N L O " BLOCK 1 L-C) Ldm � } U) PARCEL B v 1.118 Acres 48,707 S.F- �3 ff S U9'0?'17'E 245.457' 2 f I- 7' 29.W' P-O-B- PARCEL A 8 � 8 I 20'LANDSCAPING SET BACK PER PLAT a n ._.I_�. 5 8g'Oi'17"E 21b,04' _ _ _ w FPffwRC6URT.-..-.._. -.-.._..-. _215.._.._.._. ' Clp PARCEL LINE N 8961'T7"INCL 4 h � J a I v x h PARCEL A 7 �► p�p LY.7 2.118 Acres 5 84'Oi'i 7"E w ¢ m 42,272 S.F. 29'00 SITE w a r 4 q J F 9 F 4 10 � ' � f 3 IO � I I 1251 E. PIPER CT- I EXISTING BUILDING r 70 f 0 L— — — — — — — — — — — — — — -- ~ cc N M 59'01'17"19 242.32' � w o 6 5W CORNER NE 1/4 MELAMONT SUBLAMSION No, 2 O o�NE 1/4 SECTIOR 18 BLOCK 1 L x IIL_Jn\VlI]J�II I Page 14 F166] IX. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING 1. A new Development Agreement(DA) shall be required as a provision of the MDA application for Parcel A shown on the Record of Survey in Section VIII.D,which consists of Lot 3 and a portion of Lot 4, Block 1,Medimont Subdivision No. 1. The previous DA(Inst. #97072405) for Medimont Subdivision shall no longer be in effect for the subject property. A new DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian,the property owner(s), and the developer. 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 subject application. The DA shall,at minimum, incorporate the following provisions: i. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the site/landscape plan and conceptual building elevations submitted with the conditional use permit modification(MCU-2024-0003) and shall comply with the associated conditions of approval. ii. The minimum rear yard setback shall be ten(10) feet from the property line so as not to encroach in the irrigation pipe easement depicted on the Medimont Subdivision No. 1 plat. All other setbacks shall be as required by the Unified Development Code. iii. A copy of the executed shared parking and cross-access agreement with the abutting property to the north at 1250 E. Piper Ct. shall be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. iv. The Applicant shall receive final approval of the property boundary adjustment application(PBA-2024-0009)prior to submittal of the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. 2. The site plan and landscape plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application shall be revised as follows: a. Depict a bicycle rack for the new structure that complies with the location and design standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C; include a detail of the bicycle rack. b. Depict landscaping within the 10-foot wide street buffer along E. Piper Ct. in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. c. Depict landscaping within the new planter areas in the parking area on the east side of the new building adjacent to E. Piper Ct. in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B- 8C. d. Include mitigation information for existing trees that are removed from the site in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-10C.5. e. Depict a minimum 5-foot wide pedestrian walkway from the perimeter sidewalk to the main building entrance of the new building distinguished from the vehicular driving surface through the use of pavers, colored or scored concrete, or bricks in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19.B.4. f. Depict a minimum 7-foot wide sidewalk on the south side of the new building to allow for 2-feet of vehicle overhang in accord with UDC 11-3C-5B.4. g. Depict all mechanical equipment on the plans.All mechanical equipment on the back of the building or on the rooftop and all outdoor service and equipment should be Page 15 167 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. 3. Any fencing constructed on the site shall comply with the standards for such in UDC 11-3A- 6C and 11-3A-7. 4. All outdoor lighting shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-11. These standards may be modified through the approval of a conditional use permit. 5. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application shall be submitted and approved for the proposed structure and associated site improvements prior to submittal of a building permit application. The design of the proposed structure shall comply with the Non- Residential design standards for the I-L zoning district in the Architectural Standards Manual. 6. 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. Please see the project files(H-2024-0033&MCU-2024-0003) included in the public record for other City Department and Agency comments. X. FINDINGS Conditional Use(UDC 11-5B-6) Findings: The commission shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request upon the following: I. 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 development and meet all dimensional and development regulations of the I-L zoning district. 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan and in accord with the requirements of this title. Staff ,finds the proposed the expansion of the indoor recreation facility use will be harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with applicable UDC standards with the conditions noted in Section IX 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 will 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 if the applicant complies with the conditions noted in Section IX of this report. 4. That the proposed use,if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Page 16 168 Staff ,finds the proposed use will not adversely affect other properties in the vicinity if it complies with the conditions in Section IX 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. Staff ,finds 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. Staff ,finds 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. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) 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: a. 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. b. 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. Page 17 169 W IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Treasure Valley Athletic Center (H-2024-0033) by Erik Hagen Architecture, located at 1250 & 1251 E. Piper Ct. Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2024-0033 A. Request: Modified Development Agreement to modify the existing development agreement for Medimont Subdivision (Inst. #97072405) to enter into a new agreement for the subject property and remove the requirement for a buffer to adjacent residential land uses and modify dimensional standards and any other applicable provisions. 170 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : October 17j 2024 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 6 & 7 PROJECT NAME : Treasure Valley Athletic Center ( MM2024 - 0003 ) & ( W2024 = 0033 ) Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify ( Please Print ) HOA ? ( mark X if yes ) If yes, please provide HOA name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 E IDIAN -- STAFF REPORT .►a H o COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 10/17/2024 Legend DATE: f 1 ILI Pr, jeat Lorca fior TO: Planning&Zoning Commission " FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 �® SUBJECT: Treasure Valley Athletic Center— MCU,MDA MCU-2024-0003 IT H-2024-0033 LOCATION: 1250& 1251 E. Piper Ct., in the NE 1/4 of Section 18,T.3N.,R.IE. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Modification to the existing Development Agreement for Medimont Subdivision(Inst. #97072405)to enter into a new agreement for the subject property,remove the requirement for a buffer to adjacent residential land uses, and modify the dimensional standards and any other applicable provisions; and modification to the existing Conditional Use Permit(i.e. CUP-03-056 Meridian Soccer Center)to expand the indoor recreation facility use in the I-L zoning district. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 2.12-acres Future Land Use Designation General Industrial Existing Land Use Indoor recreation facility Proposed Land Use(s) Same(no change proposed) Current Zoning Light Industrial(I-L) Physical Features(waterways, NA hazards,flood plain,hillside) Neighborhood meeting date;#of 5/13/24 attendees: History(previous approvals) Annexation(Ord.#755—Properties West),preliminary plat and final plat was approved for Medimont Subdivision in 1997(DA Inst.#97072405); CUP-03-056(Meridian Soccer Center);PBA-2024-0009 Page 1 171 OWE PINE - •� �w�_ �� � war... JN ■�I rmo _ � ♦ � �;� ,mil FR# 'K .I --111 FRANKLIN J ., • ; ,j ■1 'k 99 =xuull pion ' J` 511 IN loom 1111111 �""' � rni I■ H I■ ■H ■L mill 1■ �I■�� IIIr! IN I miss Ellin MEN .CY�~ illl � illl �_ �'+ _■III _��'+ _■III 1111111 i..... U113; a:1:71. 11 �1111 . 1. C. Representative: Same as Applicant IV. NOTICING Planning& Zoning Posting Date Newspaper Notification 10/1/2024 Radius notification mailed to 9/26/2024 properties within 300 feet Site Posting Date 10/9/2024 Next Door posting 9/24/2024 V. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN(HTTPS://WWW.MERIDIANCITY.ORGICOMPPLAN): FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION: This property is designated General Industrial on the Future Land Use Map(FLUM). This designation allows a range of uses that support industrial and commercial activities. Industrial uses may include warehouses, storage units, light manufacturing, flex, and incidental retail and office uses. PROPOSED USE:The Applicant proposes to continue the previously approved indoor recreation facility use and expand the use/facility. The previous approval was for an indoor soccer center; the new use is an indoor beach volleyball and weight training facility. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES(hyps://www.meridiancibV.or /g compplan): Goals,Objectives,&Action Items: Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this application and apply to the proposed use of this property(staff analysis in italics): • "Require all new and reconstructed parking lots to provide landscaping in internal islands and along streets."(2.01.04B) All new parking lot landscaping is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11- 3B-8C. • "Permit new development only where urban services can be reasonably provided at the time of final approval and development is contiguous to the City."(3.01.01F) City water and sewer service is available to be extended to the proposed addition with development. • "Increase year-round recreational programming and activities that encourage education, health and wellness, community involvement, and multi-sensory play."(4.03.01) The proposed indoor volleyball and weight training facility will provide year-round recreational opportunities for area residents. Page 3 173 VI. STAFF ANALYSIS A. Development Agreement Modification(MDA): A Development Agreement(DA) (Inst. #97072405)was approved in 1997 with annexation of the subject property,which is part of the larger Medimont Subdivision(aka Stonebridge Business Park). Some,but not all,of the provisions in the DA apply to the subject property. The Applicant proposes a modification to the existing DA to enter into a new agreement for the subject property and remove the requirement for a buffer to adjacent residential land uses to the west,modification to the dimensional standards and other applicable provisions. Only the DA provisions applicable to the subject property are included below; all other provisions are not applicable. A legal description of the property subject to the new DA is included below in Section VIII.E. The following modifications are proposed to the existing DA provisions: (Changes shown in strike-out/underline format-Staff analysis in italics) • e—"PlapAing Strip West e-a pemaneR,�2n feet�de landscaped easement a4efig all other-residential uses adjaeen4 to the pr-epei4y, and allow fie efier-eaehment of this strip." The Applicant proposes to remove this provision. At the time the DA was adopted, the abutting property to the west of Lot 3, Block 1, Medimont Subdivision No. 1, was zoned R-40 and planned to develop with residential uses;subsequently, the property was rezoned to C-G and developed with a mix of commercial(non-residential) uses. Because there is no longer a need for the buffer, Staff is in agreement with excluding this provision from the new DA. • #4p—"Speeial Sethaek Requirements.As presented at p4he hearings, building sethaeks shall be fiNe(5) feet per-stefy from the pr-epefty 1 -_- The minimum rear yard setback shall be twenty(20)ten 10 feet from the property line so as not to encroach in the irrigation pipe easement depicted on the Medimont Subdivision No. 1 plat. 10,Bleek 2, shall have a minimum rear-yard sethaek of fiqfty(4 . All other setbacks shall be as required in the Zoning and Development Or-d mane Unified Development Code." The Applicant requests the rear yard setback for the subject property is 10 feet instead of 20- feet. Because 10 feet accommodates the 10 foot wide irrigation pipe easement depicted on the plat and the 20 foot buffer to residential uses is no longer necessary, Staff is in agreement with the proposed reduced rear yard setback. Staff recommends the minimum side yard building setback of 5-foot per story is also removed because the current I-L dimensional standards do not require a minimum interior side setback. • #4s—" ° of the build rg i t» Staff recommends removal of this provision as the UDC no longer has restrictions on maximum lot coverage. Staff has reviewed all other provisions in the DA and does not recommend any other provisions are carried over to the new DA. Staff recommends as a provision of the DA that future development is generally consistent with the site/landscape plans and conceptual elevations submitted with the subject application and complies with the conditions contained herein. Page 4 174 B. Conditional Use Permit Modification (MCU): A conditional use permit(CUP-03-056)was approved in 2003 for Meridian Soccer Center for a 20,000 square foot(s.£)indoor soccer field and 3,000 s.f, office,restrooms and a small pro shop for the sale of soccer merchandise in the I-L zoning district. A modification to the existing Conditional Use Permit(CUP-03-056) is proposed to expand the previously approved indoor recreation facility use in the I-L zoning district in accord with UDC 11-5B-6G.A new 14,700 square foot(s.£)building is proposed to the north of the existing building,which will contain sand courts for beach volleyball, a mezzanine with a weight and training room and offices, a waiting area,restrooms and a mechanical/utility room; eight(8) additional parking spaces are also proposed on the east side of the building.No additions to the existing building or changes to the existing site are proposed. The Applicant estimates that on a typical day and evening there will be approximately 30 patrons and two(2)employees within the primary building and 20 patrons and two(2) employees in the secondary building. The primary users of the facility will be people of all ages and the facility will be used from 9 am to 9 pm Monday through Friday and 9:00 am to 7:00 pm Saturday and Sunday. The heaviest periods of use for the facility are anticipated to be evenings and weekends. Tournaments are held in the existing building but will not be held in the new building. A property boundary adjustment(PBA-2024-0009 TVAC Beach Volleyball&Weight Training Facility)was recently tentatively approved between the subject property and the abutting property to the north to shift the northern property line an additional 75-feet to the north to accommodate the new building and parking, subject to completion of several tasks within one(1)year(i.e. by 9/23/2025) (see Record of Survey in Section VIII.D below). As a provision of the new DA, Staff recommends the Applicant receive final approval of the property boundary adjustment application prior to submittal of the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. Specific Use Standards: There are specific use standards in the UDC that apply to the proposed use,as follows: (Staff analysis in italics) 11-4-3-2—Arts, Entertainment or Recreation Facility, Indoors and Outdoors: A. General standards. 1. All outdoor recreation areas and structures that are not fully enclosed shall maintain a minimum setback of one hundred(100) feet from any abutting residential districts. The playing areas of golf courses, including golf tees, fairways, and greens,are an exception to this standard. No outdoor recreation areas are proposed; all activities will take place within the building. 2. No outdoor event or activity center shall be located within fifty(50)feet of any property line and shall operate only between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m.No outdoor events or activities are proposed. 3. Accessory uses including,but not limited to,retail, equipment rental,restaurant and drinking establishments,may be allowed if designed to serve patrons of the use only. The Applicant shall comply with this standard. 4. Outdoor speaker systems shall comply with section 11-3A-13, "outdoor speaker systems", of this title.No outdoor speaker systems are proposed. B. Additional standards for swimming pools. Any outdoor swimming pool shall be completely enclosed within a six-foot non-scalable fence that meets the requirements of the building code in accord with title 10, chapter 1,of this Code.A swimming pool is not proposed. Page 5 175 C. Additional standards for outdoor stage or musical venue.Any use with a capacity of one hundred(100) seats or more or within one thousand(1,000) feet of a residence or a residential district shall be subject to approval of a conditional use permit. No outdoor stage or musical venue is proposed. D. [Outdoor lighting.] Outdoor lighting, including lighted fields,designed for the site shall comply with Section 11-3A-11, 'outdoor lighting," of this title. These standards may be modified through the approval of a conditional use permit. The Applicant shall comply with these standards. Dimensional Standards: Future development should be consistent with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2C-3 for the I-L zoning district, except as otherwise restricted in the DA. The proposed plans demonstrate compliance with the minimum dimensional standards in the UDC and in the DA. Access: Access is provided to the site via E. Piper Ct., an existing local street. Staff recommends a cross-access easement agreement is required with the abutting property to the north to facilitate cross- parking. Parking: Off-street parking is required in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-6B.2, which requires one (1) space for every 2,000 s.f. of gross floor area. Based on 37,700 s.f. (14,700 s.f. for the new structure and 23,000 s.f. for the existing structure), a minimum of 19 spaces are required for the overall site; a total of 65 spaces are proposed at a ratio of 1:580 s.f., exceeding the minimum standard by 46 spaces. A shared parking agreement was required with neighboring businesses in the Medimont Business Park with the previous CUP application;however,the Applicant does not have a copy of the agreement and believes one may never have been executed. The Applicant is in the process of completing a shared parking and access easement agreement with the abutting property to the north (Dutchman Motorsports). This will allow cross-access between properties and provide more parking for the proposed use if needed during the heaviest periods of use in the evenings and weekends. Staff recommends as a provision of the new DA that a copy of the executed access and parking easement agreement(or the existing agreement if applicable)is submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. Per UDC Table 11-3C-5,the required dimensions for 90-degree parking spaces are 9' x 19'— where a bumper overhangs onto a sidewalk or landscape area,the parking stall dimensions may be reduced 2-feet in length if 2-feet is added to the width of the sidewalk or landscaped area planted in ground cover.The site plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application for the proposed improvements should be revised to depict a minimum 7-foot wide sidewalk on the south side of the new building. A bicycle rack capable of holding at least one(1)bicycle is required per UDC 11-3C-6G;bicycle parking facilities are required to comply with the location and design standards listed in UDC 11-3C- 5C. Staff recommends a bicycle rack is provided for the new building in accord with these standards and should be depicted on the site plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application along with a detail that demonstrates compliance with the aforementioned design standards. Landscaping: A 10-foot wide street buffer is required along E. Piper Ct., landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. A detailed landscape plan should be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application that demonstrates compliance with these standards. Parking lot landscaping is required to be provided for the new section adjacent to E. Piper Ct. in Page 6 176 accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C. Landscaping should be depicted on the plans submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application in accord with these standards. There are no residential uses abutting this site;therefore, a buffer to residential uses is not required. There are existing trees along the(existing)northern boundary of the site that will be removed with development. Mitigation is required for existing trees removed from the site as set forth in UDC I I- 3B-IOC.S.Additional trees for mitigation should be depicted on the plans submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application in accord with these standards. Sidewalks: An attached sidewalk exists along E. Piper Ct. at the east boundary of the site in accord with UDC 11-3A-17. A minimum 5-foot wide pedestrian walkway is required to be provided from the perimeter sidewalk to the main building entrance and should be distinguished from the vehicular driving surface through the use of pavers,colored or scored concrete,or bricks in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19.B.4. The proposed site plan depicts a walkway,however it appears to be painted striping on the pavement—the plans submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance should comply with the aforementioned standard. Pathway: There are no multi-use pathways depicted on the Pathways Master Plan across this site. Fencing:No new fencing is depicted on the plans. Any fencing constructed on the site should comply with the standards for such in UDC 11-3A-7. Mechanical Equipment: All mechanical equipment on the back of the building or on the rooftop and all outdoor service and equipment 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. The plans submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application should depict the location of all mechanical equipment. Trash Enclosure: A trash enclosure exists along the west side of the existing building,which will serve both buildings. Building Elevations: Conceptual building elevations were submitted as shown in Section VIII.0 for the proposed single-story building with a mezzanine;building materials consist of vertical and horizontal metal panels,horizontal corrugated metal panels, fiber-cement panel accents, and glazing with a metal standing seam roof. The final design is required to be consistent with the Non- Residential design standards for the I-L zoning district listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. Certificate of Zoning Compliance&Design Review: A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application is required to be submitted for the proposed use prior to submittal of a building permit application to ensure consistency with the conditions in Section IX,UDC standards and design standards for the site design and design of the building. VII. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed MCU and MDA applications with the provisions included in Section IX per the Findings in Section X. Page 7 177 VIII. EXHIBITS A. Existing Approved Site/Landscape Plan a uewWeH ul117­ a w c /4111oeA IIegA9110A 4310e9 OVAL pp s 0 c ' d _ Z - ---- --—--—-- s - y °d ---- -�- --- - sQ" I LLI CL LU U - WJJ 2� T I z� i it €a - -- p - r,--------------- - Page 8 178 B. Proposed Site/Landscape Plan (dated: 6/28/24) a F11113eJ I1egA9110A PBeg 9VA1 Q o a A IL s .. 8 _ 3 I 5 �wiwxi� &d o x - snvis Ana mv.s���mre I g g aaam aasu�oaam 7 I srodptle wl � [3 O O=U a�I N wW�' III F 0 p" W J m Iq X > J d IL a ❑w � w wJJ II� I s J _ ON ❑(y I _ s-rlr�s�Hireva cs �'��'I� 9" II �w a — �" r --------------- Page 9 179 C. Building Elevations&Floor Plan (dated: 6/28/24) f o /gllpe=j IlegAe11OA goeaO 3Vnl g M w �S, e Q O w a � �ry 3 I� Y Iry B 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! II I I is .f I I I I I I I I I I I �I 6 t 1= I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Z1 mrC-7 I a I as I 9 I I I I I I .q I I I I I I I I y4 I wp I I I Page 10 180 &IlE WL2-I Il IO�'x� � N T � /gploe_A IlegAalICA 40e99 OHAlLL _ a Q °o Law I JI I s l w -0 -i Qi I T — 9 q —p o e._ k /1.\ L% I I I i I I 1IJ- ---III I II i I � II I I I i I I I I I I I I III a I I I I I l � f I I I 9 J},gg =4 T Page 11 Fl 81 D. Record of Survey—Tentatively Approved(PBA-2024-0009) a � 14 g °m ` bl Cbl . 3 in ��"�3-: a �y3n� 111►���� ,p ��k� lL p o M o o • . ?tD � i w �� �� W h� � LO �$ z �' �� � � o �� �• � ti >s as i y Ln En 8� w 4! 4 a 5 sn xays I W i I � z I . p O I alvoa •,tr,xoo s 1 M � O � �. .00l1Gf ]n,esOQ r PO G[ aO GL 4 I S- I m9stm I .. . ----------- J .eevel a ercanoN ------------- ----- n�\ m f1NJ'�wr ea sn� 3.K K00 N lS i XZME ' 1'OR 901SY4a9�S 3DWId ZPUWS I g� I xome'1 ion n MMMOBn5-OQV 37YId]U7VS Page 12 F182] E. Legal Description of Property Subject to the New Development Agreement PDRTSIDE LAND SURVEY-ING , LLC EXHIBIT A Parcel A A pafcel of nand being all of Lot 4,Block 1 and a portion of Lot 3,BIack 1 of Medimont Subdivision No. 1,Book 75,Page 7794,ReCords pf Ada County,said pa reel being located iin the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 18,Township 3 North,Range 1 East,Boise Meridian,more particularly described as follows. Commencing atthe Northwest cornerof the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarterof said Section 18,thence along the West line of said Northeast Quarter,South 00'29'39"West a distance of 80.00 feet to the Northwest corner of said Lot 3;Thence along the West Ilne of said Lot 3,South OWZY39" West a distance of 194.99 feet to the True Point of Beginning; Thence leaving said West line,South 89'01'17"East a distance of 216.57 feet to a point on the East line of said Lot 3; Thence along said East line,South 00"58'43"west a distance of 75.00 feet to the Northeast corner of said Lot 4, Thence along the East line of said Lot 4,South 00'58'43"West a distance of 75.00 feet an angle point in the boundary of said Lot 4; Thence along the boundary line of said Lot 4,South 89°01'17"East a distance of 29.00 feet to an angle paint boundary of said Lot 4; Thence along the East line of said Lot 4,South 00'58'49"West a distance of 246.00 feet the Southeast corner of said Lot 4; Thence along the South line of said Lot 4,North 89'01'17"West a distance of 242.32 feet to the Southwest cornerof said Lot 4; Thence along the west line of said Lot 4,Nortft 00529'39"East a distance of 321.01 feet to the Northwest corner of said Lot 4,also being the Southwest corner of said Lot 3; Thence along the West line of said Lot 3, North 00'29'39"East a distance of 75.00 feet to the True Faint of Beginning, Said Parcel containing 2.118 Acres,(92,272 s.f.)more or less. r o ' er End Description Project No.24-113 722 Prepared May 22,2024 1P O OF 3626 PP� ffUl Rd. Rv se.ID83703 r2M)4?4-6666 jrrnril xtr�srleivrro y.cuw Page 13 F183] c--,] 7 P.U.C. PARCELS A 3 B FFRAWtf)V RO 0c) \'N CORNER NE 1/4 � c NE 1/4 SECTION 18CD i 3 m '] I _ �J v __ _L B_ _ — — —— — — — — — — P.0.6, PARGE s f (D ° z Q UZ , 1250 E. PIPER CT- `• N a EXISTING BUILDING LJJ ; 0 + MEOPAONT SUBOIVISICH No. 1 N L O " BLOCK 1 L-C) Ldm � } U) PARCEL B v 1.118 Acres 48,707 S.F- �3 ff S U9'0?'17'E 245.457' 2 f I- 7' 29.W' P-O-B- PARCEL A 8 � 8 I 20'LANDSCAPING SET BACK PER PLAT a n ._.I_�. 5 8g'Oi'17"E 21b,04' _ _ _ w FPffwRC6URT.-..-.._. -.-.._..-. _215.._.._.._. ' Clp PARCEL LINE N 89'6T'T7"INCL 4 h � J a I v x h PARCEL A 7 �► p�p LY.7 2.118 Acres 5 84'Oi'i 7"E w ¢ m 42,272 S.F. 29'00 SITE w a r 4 q J F 9 F 4 10 � ' � f 3 IO � I I 1251 E. PIPER CT- I EXISTING BUILDING r 70 f 0 L— — — — — — — — — — — — — — -- ~ cc N M 59'01'17"19 242.32' � w o 6 5W CORNER NE 1/4 MELAMONT SUBLAMSION No, 2 O o�NE 1/4 SECTIOR 16 BLOCK 1 L x IIL_Jn\VlI]J�II I Page 14 F184] IX. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING 1. A new Development Agreement(DA) shall be required as a provision of the MDA application for Parcel A shown on the Record of Survey in Section VIII.D,which consists of Lot 3 and a portion of Lot 4, Block 1,Medimont Subdivision No. 1. The previous DA(Inst. #97072405) for Medimont Subdivision shall no longer be in effect for the subject property. A new DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian,the property owner(s), and the developer. 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 subject application. The DA shall,at minimum, incorporate the following provisions: i. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the site/landscape plan and conceptual building elevations submitted with the conditional use permit modification(MCU-2024-0003) and shall comply with the associated conditions of approval. ii. The minimum rear yard setback shall be ten(10) feet from the property line so as not to encroach in the irrigation pipe easement depicted on the Medimont Subdivision No. 1 plat. All other setbacks shall be as required by the Unified Development Code. iii. A copy of the executed shared parking and cross-access agreement with the abutting property to the north at 1250 E. Piper Ct. shall be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. iv. The Applicant shall receive final approval of the property boundary adjustment application(PBA-2024-0009)prior to submittal of the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. 2. The site plan and landscape plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application shall be revised as follows: a. Depict a bicycle rack for the new structure that complies with the location and design standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C; include a detail of the bicycle rack. b. Depict landscaping within the 10-foot wide street buffer along E. Piper Ct. in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. c. Depict landscaping within the new planter areas in the parking area on the east side of the new building adjacent to E. Piper Ct. in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B- 8C. d. Include mitigation information for existing trees that are removed from the site in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-10C.5. e. Depict a minimum 5-foot wide pedestrian walkway from the perimeter sidewalk to the main building entrance of the new building distinguished from the vehicular driving surface through the use of pavers, colored or scored concrete, or bricks in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19.B.4. f. Depict a minimum 7-foot wide sidewalk on the south side of the new building to allow for 2-feet of vehicle overhang in accord with UDC 11-3C-5B.4. g. Depict all mechanical equipment on the plans.All mechanical equipment on the back of the building or on the rooftop and all outdoor service and equipment should be Page 15 185 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. 3. Any fencing constructed on the site shall comply with the standards for such in UDC 11-3A- 6C and 11-3A-7. 4. All outdoor lighting shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-11. These standards may be modified through the approval of a conditional use permit. 5. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application shall be submitted and approved for the proposed structure and associated site improvements prior to submittal of a building permit application. The design of the proposed structure shall comply with the Non- Residential design standards for the I-L zoning district in the Architectural Standards Manual. 6. 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. Please see the project files(H-2024-0033&MCU-2024-0003) included in the public record for other City Department and Agency comments. X. FINDINGS Conditional Use(UDC 11-5B-6) Findings: The commission shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request upon the following: I. 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 development and meet all dimensional and development regulations of the I-L zoning district. 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan and in accord with the requirements of this title. Staff ,finds the proposed the expansion of the indoor recreation facility use will be harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with applicable UDC standards with the conditions noted in Section IX 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 will 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 if the applicant complies with the conditions noted in Section IX of this report. 4. That the proposed use,if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Page 16 186 Staff ,finds the proposed use will not adversely affect other properties in the vicinity if it complies with the conditions in Section IX 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. Staff ,finds 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. Staff ,finds 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. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) 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: a. 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. b. 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. Page 17 187 W IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Skyranch (H-2024-0022) by Laren Bailey, Conger Group, located at in the S1/2 of the SW1/4 of Section 31, Township 3N, Range 1E Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2024-0022 A. Request: Annexation of 20.039 acres from RUT in Ada County to the R-15 zoning district. B. Request: Rezone of 24.53 acres of land from R-4 to R-15 zoning district. C. Request: Modified Development Agreement to create a new development agreement for the construction of the proposed single-family residential development. D. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 285 (284 new and 1 existing) and 36 commons lots on 43.82 acres in the proposed R-15 zoning district. 1811 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : October 17 , 2024 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 8 PROJECT NAME : Skyranch ( W2024 = 0022 ) 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 ( I 5 o S . -rams &�s4 Lv AA/ ge. drAA1 L � � � � � Z� 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C��fEPIDIAN*,­, DEPARTMENT REPORT HEARING 10/17/2024 Legend DATE: I L ® Project Location RUT TO: Planning&Zoning Commission Area of Impact O Analysis R1 FROM: Linda Ritter,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 R 2 R-8 lritter@meridiancity.org " APPLICANT: Laren Baily, Conger Group C-G R-15 C-C SUBJECT: H-2024-0022 ZRF S@anch AZ,RZ,PP and MDA R-4 LOCATION: Located in the S%2 of the SW 1/4 of Section 31,Township 3N,Range IE, RUT parcels: S1131336050, S1131336031, C-2—A - S1131346925, S1131346935, S1131346941, S1131347001, S1131347101 1. PROJECT OVERVIEW A. Summary Annexation of 20.039-acres of land with R-15 zoning; rezoning of 24.53 acres of land from R-4 to R-15; modification of the existing development agreement to create a new one to develop the proposed single-family residential development and Preliminary Plat consisting of 285 building lots(284 new and 1 existing), 28 common lots and 8 common drives on 43.82 acres of land zoned R-15. B. Issues/Waivers Applicant is proposing a single use development which is not consistent with the Mixed-Use Regional FLUM designation. The proposed development lacks key design elements required by the Comprehensive Plan such as: • Function integration • Outward-facing design • Physical integration and shared features • Support for local services • Design integration,purposeful open space • Pedestrian connectivity and • Limited reliance on arterial roads The applicant is suggesting they utilize the property to the south as the commercial component of the mixed-use development,while their own proposed development would provide some of the residential units. However,the issue is that there are currently no conceptual plans illustrating City of Meridian I Department Report 1. Project Overview 189 how these two properties would be integrated to create a cohesive mixed-use development. This lack of detailed planning makes it unclear how the two sites would work together to meet the requirements and function as a single,unified project. The applicant has the option of applying for a Comprehensive Plan Map amendment in order to develop the property as proposed. C. Recommendation Staff. Denial D. Decision City of Meridian I Department Report I. Project Overview F-19ol I1. COMMUNITY METRICS Table 1: Land Use Description Details Map Ref. Existing Land Use(s) Vacant/Residential - Proposed Land Use(s) Residential - Existing Zoning R-4,RUT VII.A.2 Proposed Zoning R-15 Adopted FLUM Designation MU-RG,Med-High Density Residential VII.A.3 Table 2: Process Facts Description Details Preapplication Meeting date 5/28/2024 Neighborhood Meeting 5/28/2024 Site posting date 10/4/2024 Table 3: Community Metrics Agency/Element Description/Issue Reference Ada County Highway District IV.G • Comments Received Comments were not received prior to issuance of this staff - report • Commission Action Required No - • Access E. Lake Hazel Road - • Traffic Level of Service Better than"E" - ITD Comments Received Yes,Letter IV.I Meridian Public Works Wastewater IV.B • Distance to Mainline Sewer available from the east along the future collector street • Impacts or Concerns No- Must provide stub to S 1131346650 Meridian Public Works Water IV.B • Distance to Mainline Water available at the site • Impacts or Concerns Yes o Only the first phase of the development can be constructed with a single connection to east.Before any additional phase are developed a second water connection is required. o Ensure no permanent structures(trees,bushes, buildings,carports,trash receptacle walls,fences, infiltration trenches,light poles,etc.)are built within the utility easement. o Engineer to verify if there is a well onsite.If a well is located on the site it must be abandoned per regulatory requirements and proof of abandonment must be provided to the City. o Each phase of the development will need to be modeled to verify minimum fire flow pressure is maintained -Locate meters and fire hydrants so they are at least 5' from trees or other permanent structure. School District(s) West Ada School District IVY • Capacity of Schools Mary McPherson Elementary—550 - Victory Middle School— 1,000 Mountain View High School—2,175 "niber of Students Enrolled Mary McPherson Elementary—494 i Victory Middle School— 1,079 City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics 191 1 Mountain View High School—2,512 Note: See City/Agency Comments and Conditions Section and public record for all department/agency comments received. Skyranch AZ,MDA,RZ,PP H-2024-0022 (copy this link into a separate browser). Figure 1: One-Mile Radius Existing Condition Metrics Reference Parcel:S1131336031 Date Retrieved:2024/10/1 Parcel Count Parcel Acreage Infill Indicator: 246 1,007 Surrounding Area 47% vot city 3fi8 ® City Limits ■ Not City Household Household& Population Growth Households 02020 Population Change:84.1°I° Population ■Growth (Household and Population Change since 2010 Decennial) 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 Use Types Residential Addresses All Addresses 0% ■ Single-family 25% Multi-family ISO% 75% ® Commercial Preliminary Plats (last 5-years) Conditional Use Permit(last 5-years) Proposed Proposed Pending Pending Approved Approved 0 1000000 2000000 0 0.5 1 1.5 ■ Single-family Multi-family City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics 192 2.00 500 Single-family y 01 1.50 (AResidential Parcel Diversity H 1.00 U 0 Parcel Count 0.50 L m Q.09 a Average Acres 0.00 0.00 16 0 R-2 R-4 8 R-15 Average Single-family Density by Zoning Average 15.00 Residential Net Density 111.49 10.00 5.00 06.18 6.93 2.6Q 0.00Q.aQ Dwelling Units I Acre R-2 R-4 R-8 R-15 Figure 3:ACHD Summary Metrics 0 S. Meridian Rd Existing Lanes © Planned Lanes m Existing Level of Service Notable r Comments Q (Primary roadway impact} Programmed IFYP Programmed CIP *Traffic counts are from October 2023. a E. Lake Hazel Rd Existing Lanes © Planned Lanes 3: Existing Level of Service INV Notable r Comments Q (Primary roadway impact} Programmed IFYP im Programmed CIP *E.Lake Hazel Road is currently under construction and is being widen to 5 lanes from S.Meridian Road to S.Apex Avenue. The level of service listed above is for the existing 2-1ane road. Traffic counts are from June 2018. Figure 4: Service Impact Summary ImpactService . . ls Ready Marginal Caution ocye 2��t °°a Fite q �a a��'•� �_0 ,e �rq Qa Notes: See VIII.Additional Notes&Details for Staff Report Maps,Tables,and Charts. City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics 193 III. STAFF ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code(UDC) A. General Overview The Future Land Use Map(FLUM)designates the area proposed to be rezoned as "Mixed-Use Regional," which is intended to encourage a balanced blend of employment opportunities,retail,residential dwellings, and public uses,particularly in areas near major arterial intersections. This designation supports a diverse and integrated community where residents can live,work, and shop without needing to travel far. The area being annexed is designated as Medium Density High Residential. This designation allows for a mix of dwelling types including townhouses,condominiums, and apartments. Residential gross densities should range from eight to twelve dwelling units per acre. These areas are relatively compact within the context of larger neighborhoods and are typically located around or near mixed use commercial or employment areas to provide convenient access to services and jobs for residents. Developments need to incorporate high-quality architectural design and materials and thoughtful site design to ensure quality of place and should also incorporate connectivity with adjacent uses and area pathways, attractive landscaping and a project identity. However,the applicant's current proposal is limited to single-family residential development, occupying the majority of the mixed-use designation area, and with no internal vehicle or pedestrian connectivity between the areas,which does not align with the intent of the comprehensive plan for the area. By focusing solely on an inward facing single-family home development,the proposal fails to meet the goal of creating a mixed-use environment that would foster a vibrant, self-sustaining community with neighborhood supportive uses, employment and/or retail options nearby. This lack of compliance with the comprehensive plan could raise concerns about whether the development will contribute to traffic issues, support a balanced community, or meet long-term growth objectives. For mixed-use developments to be consistent with the plan,they need to demonstrate the following elements,which the current proposal lacks: 1. Functional Integration: Developments must show that even undeveloped parts of the area can be functionally integrated, either immediately or conceptually. The project should prove that all planned components can work together cohesively. Local connectivity is required to limit local trip impacts to the regional network,both for traditional single-family homes and in mixed-use areas. The current proposal lacks such connectivity and is located near a major regional intersection planned for expansion to seven lanes with additional access restrictions.Although the developer claims the proposal integrates with the surrounding commercial areas, no conceptual plans have been provided to support this claim. 2. Outward-Facing Design: The development should not be insular or turn its back on neighboring properties or streets. Instead, it should engage with its surroundings,promoting interaction with adjacent areas and developments. The planned development does not setup or support any future physical, visual connectivity with the remainder of the mixed-use area. 3. Physical Integration and Shared Features: There should be tangible connections between different parts of the development, such as shared amenities,walkways, or spaces. This physical integration supports local connectivity,making the area feel cohesive and accessible. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 194 4. Support for Local Services: Developments must intentionally create opportunities for local services such as office,gyms,retail, employment,or public uses. The current single-use proposal fails to support this objective, as it does not include any local services within the development. 5. Design Integration: There should be visual corridors or clear lines of sight connecting points of interest throughout the development. This creates a sense of openness and visual connectivity, making it easier for residents and visitors to navigate the space. The proposed development, however, is essentially isolated and does not provide connections to the property to the south. It is presented as a single-use development without the commercial component required by the Comprehensive Plan. 6. Purposeful Open Space: Open spaces should not be incidental but purposefully designed to enhance connectivity and functional integration. They should serve as common areas that bring people together and provide opportunities for interaction. The open space provided is solely for the purpose of the single-family residents and is not designed to integrate. The open space was not designed to integrate with commercial. 7. Pedestrian Connectivity: Pedestrian pathways and connectivity must be prioritized. Mixed-use areas should encourage walkability, allowing residents to move easily between homes, services, and public spaces without relying on vehicles. Pedestrian connectivity is crucial in mixed-use developments to encourage walkability. The absence of such connectivity in this proposal would force residents to walk along busy arterial roads to reach services and public spaces or depend on vehicles to access them Further UDC II- 3B-9 requires pedestrian connections between residential and commercial areas. 8. Limited Reliance on Arterial Roads: Vehicle connectivity should be designed so that local traffic does not depend entirely on arterial roads. Instead, developments should incorporate internal street systems that distribute traffic more effectively within the area. Staff and the Ada County Highway District(ACHD) are concerned that the short entrance road into the development could cause traffic backups along E. Lake Hazel Road.Additionally, the proposal lacks connectivity to commercial areas without requiring residents to cross a major arterial road, effectively isolating the development as a single-use area. The applicant indicates that residential uses will comprise between 10%and 30%of the development area, with gross densities ranging from six(6) to forty(40) units per acre within the residential portion. The proposed Skyranch Neighborhood in the Mixed-Use Residential(MU-RG) area would occupy 11%of the 219 acres,providing a density of 6.5 units per acre, aligning with the Comprehensive Plan's vision. However, the applicant did not account for the Comprehensive Plan's requirement that mixed-use areas bisected by an arterial or highway are considered separate, independent areas for use and design integration, and will be evaluated as such.As a result, the applicant's approach of using theirproperty as a single-use area does not align with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan for mixed-use development. It should also be noted that there are no discrete office or commercial areas left for development in south Meridian. All of these future uses now or later(with more roof tops) are intended to be provided within mixed use areas. The proposed project disproportionately impacts the ability for future services to be provided to local residents. Staff very regularly have trouble finding places for many of these users outside of industrial areas as they are not preserved for within the intended mixed-use areas. The area preserved for non-residential uses and the access and connectivity to these future uses fall well short of the text and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Given these requirements,the current proposal for predominantly and disproportionately large single- family residential development does not meet the intent of the mixed-use designation.The developer City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 195 would need to revise the project to introduce more uses, foster greater physical and functional integration, and prioritize connectivity for both pedestrians and vehicles in order to comply with the Comprehensive Plan or submit for a Comprehensive Map Amendment to move forward with the plan as submitted. Examples of an integrated mixed-use development below are Bown Crossing,Boise and Bethany Village, Oregon. 1 I 1 C'. 1 1 1 - �i 1 1 11 111 9 11 1 rr LEGEND 1. Points of Interest Primary Local Corridor (Visual and Physical) Secondary Local _ r, • Corridor(Visual and Physical) City of Meridian Department Report III. Staff Analysis 196 Building modulation with --- Shared additional outdoor spaces Outdoor space r ---' Mufti-story _ structures _ --_-}F Eastsid._ Y _ LLI ISN �� Landscaped s Median is Pedestrian scale architecture and features irr On-street Parking - Street Furnishings Nib Connected 1 Amenities {1' �r-r- j Commercial Anchor r Backage Road ,..' . Hold the Corners Central Commons I I Street View, r , an. Reference , LaCti0 �! " Local"Main Street" Dedicated Pedestrian 'Connectivity air• ty of non�42side'ntial' :. ., building types Secondary Tier Commercial (e.g.-day cares,karate ' Essential studios,spa,etc.) • 'Services grocer} -Y ® E 1 1 ! 1 1 1 Ag 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Per the Comprehensive Plan `In developing the Comprehensive Plan, the City has typically designated Mixed-Use in areas of higher visibility(such as along arterial roadways). These Mixed-Use areas identified on the Future Land Use Map vary in size, intensity(both residential and commercial), and consider the visibility of the planned transportation network, number of residences planned within mixed use designation service areas, and location relevant to other commercial opportunities. The locations are intended to provide Meridian residents with a variety of opportunities for housing, leisure, activity, and commerce.Attractive and convenient prioritized elements such as multiuse pathways are paramount to functionally reducing impacts to the transportation network through proximity and density of services. Contiguous Mixed-Use identified areas that are bisected by an arterial or highway are considered separate and independent areas for use and desi,-n integration and will be evaluated independently of each other." Again, the applicant's proposal does not meet the intent of the Comprehensive Plan for mixed-use development as it does not provide a mix of uses. Table 4: Proiect Overview Description Details History AZ-H-2015-0019,DA Inst#2016-007088 Phasing Plan 6 phases Residential Units 284 detached single-family residents i Open Space 7.49 acres/17.1%/0.72 non-qualifying Amenities Required: 9/Proposed: 30 - Physical Features Rawson Lateral Acreage 43.82 Lots 284 Buildable Lots/28 Common Lots/6 Common Drives Density 6.50 dwelling units per acre City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 198 B. History In 2015, the City, at the request/consent of the property owners, annexed approximately 1,322 acres of land with the R-4, R-8, R-1 S and C-G zoning districts. It was envisioned that some of the subject properties will seek re-zoning consistent with the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designations in the future.At the time, no development was proposed with the subject annexation request and therefore a vast majority of the property(1,241 acres) was proposed to be annexed as R-4.All of the subject property owners signed a Development Agreement(DA) that was executed upon approval. Within each DA is a requirement that any proposed development plan be reviewed and approved as an amendment to the executed Development Agreement. Upon development/re-development of all these properties in the future, adherence to the characteristics of their respective land use designation described above will be required. During the annexation properties were assigned zoning districts as placeholders until the property owner came in to develop the property. C. Site Development and Use Analysis 1. Existing Structures/Site Improvements (UDC 11-1): The current use of the property is agricultural with one (1) residential properties existing. The existing structure will remain but will be required to hook up to the city's water and sewer system. The existing well and septic system will be abandoned as required. 2. Proposed Use Analysis (UDC 11-2): The applicant is proposing single-family detached dwellings which are listed as a principal permitted use in the R-1 S zoning districts in UDC Table 11-2A-2. The future land use map identifies this area as medium-high density. This designation allows for dwelling units at gross densities of eight(8) to twelve (12) dwelling units per acre. Per UDC 11-2A-7, R-1 S is considered Medium High Density. Per the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, this designation allows for a mix of dwelling types including townhouses, condominiums, and apartments. Residential gross densities should range from eight to twelve dwelling units per acre. These areas are relatively compact within the context of larger neighborhoods and are typically located around or near mixed use commercial or employment areas to provide convenient access to services and jobs for residents. Developments need to incorporate high-quality architectural design and materials and thoughtful site design to ensure quality ofplace and should also incorporate connectivity with adjacent uses and area pathways, attractive landscaping and a project identity. The proposal covers forty-three (43) acres, of which twenty-four(24) acres are designated as Mixed-Use Regional under the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). However, the current design proposes a single-use development of single family detached residential homes across the site. This approach disregards the Mixed-Use Regional designation, which is intended to promote a blend of residential, commercial, and public uses, rather than focusing solely on one type of development. By limiting the development to single-family homes, the proposal fails to meet the objectives of the Mixed-Use Regional designation, which aims to create dynamic, interconnected communities where residents can live, work, and access services in the same area. This mixed-use concept encourages economic growth, reduces reliance on external roadways, and supports walkability and community cohesion. Comprehensive Plan policy 3.06.02B encourage and support mixed-use areas that provide the benefits of being able to live, shop, dine,play, and work in close proximity, thereby reducing vehicle trips, and enhancing overall livability and sustainability. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 199 1 To comply with the Comprehensive Plan, the applicant needs to redesign the proposal and incorporate a mix of housing types (e.g., multi family units), local services (retail or office spaces), and public amenities (parks,plazas)within the Twenty-four(24) acres of the Mixed- Use Regional area. This would not only align with the FL UM designation but also enhance the functionality and integration of the development with the surrounding area. Staff recommends that the applicant provide a mix of dwelling types within the residential area such as single family attached or townhomes within Block 8(lots 2-17 and lots 19-34) and Block 9 (lots 2-17 and lots 19-34) of the proposed development as allowed by the Comprehensive Plan within the R-15 zoning district. 3. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): The preliminary plat and future development are required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-7 and 11-2B-1 Commercial District for the Mixed-Use Regional and the R-15 zoning districts. The proposed lots and public streets for the R-15 zoning district appear to meet UDC dimensional standards per the submitted preliminary plat. However, the proposal does not comply with Mixed-Use Regional designation. As mentioned above, the applicant needs to redesign the proposal to comply with the Comprehensive Plan. Eight(8) common driveways are proposed with this subdivision. The applicant has provided common drive exhibits which demonstrate no more than three (3) units are served whereas a maximum of 4 units are allowed. The common driveway meets the minimum width of twenty (20)feet and does not exceed the maximum length of one hundred and fifty(150)feet. Solid fencing adjacent to common driveways is prohibited, unless separated by a minimum five(5) foot wide landscaped buffer. D. Design Standards Analysis The proposed plat and subsequent development are required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in 11-2A-7 for the R-15 zoning district. Stafffinds that while the proposed lots comply with the dimensional standards for the R-15 zoning district, they do not meet the intent of the mixed-use designation due to the single-use nature of the proposal. Some block lengths exceed the 750 foot requirement and will necessitate a waiver from the Council.Additionally, the existing house that will remain as part of the proposed development abuts two streets, which is prohibited by the Unified Development Code(UDC). Furthermore, the lots to the north do not transition to align with the large estate-style lots zoned RUT within Ada County, which have a Future Land Use Map (FL UM)designation of Low Density Residential(LDR). Therefore, the applicant needs to revise their plat map to address the identified issues and demonstrate the necessary corrections. 1. Structure and Site Design Standards (Comp Plan 3.07.00, Comp Plan 3.07.01A, UDC 11-3A- 19): The current use of the property is agricultural with two (2) residential properties existing. The 6285 S. Tarrega Lane house will remain and potentially redevelop at a later date. The structures at 520 E. Lake Hazel Road will be removed and existing wells and septic systems will be abandoned as required. Per UDC 11-6C-3A.1, through properties are prohibited except where it is shown that unusual topography or other conditions make it impossible to meet this requirement. Through properties shall be limited to one(1)street access on one (I)frontage, designated by a note on the final plat. The applicant needs to revise the plat to remove one of the frontage roads for Lot 40, Block 5. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 200 Comprehensive Plan policy 3.07.0 encourages compatible uses and site design to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land. Comprehensive Plan policy 3.07.OIA requires all new development to create a site design compatible with surrounding uses through buffering, screening, transitional densities, and other best site design practices. 2. Qualified Open Space &Amenities (Comp Plan 2.02.00, Comp Plan 2.02.01B, UDC 11-3G): Based on the standards in UDC Table 11-3G-3, a minimum of 15%(or 12.05-acres) of qualified open space is required to be provided within the development. An open space exhibit was submitted as shown in Section VIT F, that depicts 17.1%(or 7.49-acres) of open space that meets the required quality and qualified open space standards. Based on the standards in UDC 11-3G-4A, a minimum of nine (9) amenity points are required to be provided. The amenities proposed are a park with a community pool,play structure, seating benches, climbing dome, swing set; two (2)pickleball courts; dog park with waste station and sitting benches; and pathways. All common open space areas are required to be landscaped with one deciduous shade tree for every 5,000 square feet of area and include a variety of trees, shrubs, lawn or other vegetative groundcover per UDC 11-3G-5B.3. Although the applicant is proposing a berm, landscaping and fencing around the sports court, stafffeels the location would be better if relocated to Lot I Block 10 or Lot 1 Block 7 away from the primary entrance to the subdivision which is supported by the Comprehensive Plan polices below. Comprehensive Plan policy 2.02.00 requires the applicant to plan for safe, attractive, and well-maintained neighborhoods that have ample open space, and generous amenities that provide varied lifestyle choices. Comprehensive Plan policy 2.02.0IB requires the applicant to evaluate open space and amenity requirements for consistency with community needs and values. 3. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): i. Landscape buffers along streets UDC 11-2A-6 requires a thirty-five (35)foot wide buffer along entryway corridors (N. Meridian Road and twenty-five (25)foot wide buffers are required along arterial roads (E. Lake Hazel Road). A twenty(20)foot wide buffer along all collectors is required. ii. Tree preservation Per UDC 11-3B-10,the applicant shall preserve existing trees four-inch caliper or greater from destruction during the development. Mitigation shall be required for all existing trees four-inch caliper or greater that are removed from the site with equal replacement of the total calipers lost on site up to an amount of one hundred(100)percent replacement(Example: Two(2)ten-inch caliper trees removed may be mitigated with four 5-inch caliper trees, five(5)four-inch caliper trees, or seven(7)three-inch caliper trees).Deciduous specimen trees four-inch caliper or greater may count double towards total calipers lost,when planted at entryways,within common open space, and when used as focal elements in landscape design. The applicant shall add a mitigation section to the landscape plan for trees meeting the criteria above that are removed. iii. 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 City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 201 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. iv. Pathway landscaping Landscaping for pathways shall meet the requirements outlined in UDC 11-3B-12. 4. Parking (UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required to be provided for each home based on the total number of bedrooms per unit as set forth in UDC Table 11-3C-6. On-street parking is also available on the proposed streets. i. Residential parking analysis The proposal will be required to meet the standards,for parking as set,forth in UDC I I- 3C-6. 5. Building Elevations (Comp Plan 2.01.01 C,Architectural Standards Manual): Four(4) conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed subdivision as shown in Exhibit VII.I. The applicant states the homes in the Skyranch Neighborhood will include 284 homes with a mix of different product types, two-story and single-story detached single-family homes. Buildings shall be designed with elevations that create interest through the use of broken planes, windows, and fenestrations that produce a rhythm of materials and patterns. Design review is not required for single-family detached structures. However, because the rear and/or sides of homes facing E. Lake Hazel Road 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. Design review is required for single-family attached and townhomes. Design review will have to meet the requirements outlined in the City's Architectural Standards Manual. Comprehensive Plan policy 2.01.01 C encourages the applicants to maintain a range of residential land use designations that allow diverse lot sizes, housing types, and densities. To support this policy staff recommends the applicant provide additional housing options (i.e. townhomes, single family attached) in the development. 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. 7. Parkways (Comp Plan 3.07.01 C, UDC 11-3A-17): Comprehensive Plan policy 3.07.01 C requires appropriate landscaping, buffers, and noise mitigation with new development along transportation corridors (setback, vegetation, low walls, berms, etc). Per the UDC the minimum width of parkways planted with Class II trees shall be eight(8) feet. The width can be measured from the back of curb where there is no likely expansion of the street section within the right-of-way; the parkway width shall exclude the width of the sidewalk. Class II trees are the preferred parkway trees. The applicant is proposing parkways along the entrance to Street A, Street F, Street N and Street P of the subdivision. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 202 E. Transportation Analysis 1. Access (Comp Plan 6.01.02B, 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. Comprehensive Plan policy 6.01.02B requires the reduction in 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. Access to the property is proposed from E. Lake Hazel Road. Per the Idaho Transportation Department, no direct access to the State Highway System is approved. Due to the type and proximity of this development to SH-69, ITD is requesting a Traffic Impact Study(TIS)for the proposed development. Access is also proposed from the east side of the property via the future collector road. As the property is within close proximity to SH-69, the applicant will be required to provide noise abatement per UDC 11-3H-4D. Noise abatement could include but not limited to a berm or a berm and wall combination to help reduce the traffic noise. Staff has concerns about the length of the entrance off of E. Lake Hazel Road. The potential for traffic to backup when trying to access the site is greater with the short distance. 2. Pathways (Comp Plan 3.07.02A, Comp Plan 4.04.OIA, UDC 11-3A-8): All pathways should be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-8. Pedestrian connectivity is crucial in mixed-use developments to encourage walkability. The absence of such connectivity in this proposal would force residents to walk along busy arterial roads to reach services and public spaces or depend on vehicles to access them Further UDC 11-3B-9 requires pedestrian connections between residential and commercial areas. The only pathway required for this development is along S. Meridian Road. Other pedestrian connectivity is limited except along the arterial roads which does not meet the Comprehensive Plan policies list below. Comprehensive Plan policy 3.07.02A requires pedestrian circulation plans to ensure safety and convenient access across large commercial and mixed-use developments. Comprehensive Plan policy 4.04.01A ensure that new development and subdivisions connect to the pathway system. 3. 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. 4. Private Streets (UDC 11-3F-4): There are no private streets proposed for this development. 5. Subdivision Regulations (UDC 11-6): i. Dead end streets No streets or series of streets that ends in a cul-de-sac or a dead end shall be longer than five hundred(500)feet except as allowed in subsection(b)of this section. The City Council may approve a dead-end street up to seven hundred fifty(750)feet in length where an emergency access is proposed; or where there is a physical barrier such as a steep slope,railroad tracks,an arterial roadway,or a large waterway that prevents or City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 203 makes impractical extension; and where a pedestrian connection is provided from the street to an adjacent existing or planned pedestrian facility. Cul-de-sac streets may serve a maximum of thirty(30) dwelling units. The applicant is proposing a cul-de-sac that exceeds the maximum five hundred(500) feet in length. The applicant needs to request a waiver from counsel for exceeding the maximum length for dead end streets. ii. Common driveways Per UDC 11-6C-3D, common driveways shall serve a maximum of four(4) dwelling units. In no case shall more than three(3)dwelling units be located on one(1) side of the driveway. The applicant is proposing six(6) common driveways that meet the dimensional requirements as outlined in the UDC. iii. Block face UDC 11-6C-3-regulates block lengths for residential subdivisions. Staff has reviewed the submitted plat for conformance with these regulations. The intent of this section of code is to ensure block lengths do not exceed 750 ft,although there is the allowance of an increase in block length to 1,000 feet if a pedestrian connection is provided. In no case shall a block face exceed one thousand two hundred(1,200)feet,unless waived by the City Council. It appears that some of the block lengths exceed the 750 feet. The applicant did not submit a revised block face length exhibit for review as requested. F. Services Analysis 1. Waterways (Comp Plan 4.05.OID, 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 residential, commercial and industrial designs. When piping and fencing is proposed, the standards outlined in UDC 11-3A-6B shall apply. The applicant needs to request a waiver from City Council to keep the canal open. Comprehensive Plan policy 4.05.OID requires improving and protecting creeks and other natural waterways throughout commercial, industrial, and residential areas. 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. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 204 4. Utilities (Comp Plan 3.03.03G, 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. Comprehensive Plan policy 3.03.03G require urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments, including curb and gutter, sidewalks, water and sewer utilities. IV. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Meridian Planning Division Staff is recommending denial,therefore there are no conditions of approval. B. Meridian Public Works See public record(copy the link into a separate browser) https:llweblink.meridiancity.orglWebLink/Browse.aspx?id=351919&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCit X C. Meridian Park's Department See public record(copy the link into a separate browser) https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=351919&dbid=O&repo=MeridianCit X D. Irrigation Districts I. Nampa&Meridian Irrigation District See public record(copy the link into a separate browser) https:llweblink.meridianciLy.orglWebLink/Browse.aspx?id=351919&dbid=O&Mpo=Meridia nCi 2. Boise Project Board of Control See public record(copy the link into a separate browser) https:llweblink.meridiancioy.orglWebLink/Browse.aspx?id=351919&dbid=0&repo=Meridia nCi E. Idaho Department of Environmental Quality(DEQ) See public record(copy the link into a separate browser) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=351919&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCit X F. West Ada School District(WASD) or Other District/School See public record(copy the link into a separate browser) hgps://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=351919&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCit X G. Ada County Development See public record(copy the link into a separate browser) https://weblink.meridiancit .00rg/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=351919&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCit X H. Ada County Highway District(ACHD) Staff report issued prior to final ACHD report was submitted to the City. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments & Conditions 205 I. Idaho Transportation Department(ITD) See public record(copy the link into a separate browser) https:llweblink.meridiancity.orz/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=351919&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCit Y V. FINDINGS A. Annexation and/or 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: I. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Staff finds the Applicant's request to annex and rezone the subject property to R-15 zoning for single-family detached dwellings does not align with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan, specifically the Mixed-Use Regional(MU-RG)designation. The MU-RG designation is intended to foster a balanced blend of uses, including employment opportunities, retail, residential dwellings, and public uses,particularly in high-traffic areas near major arterial intersections. By proposing only single-family detached residential development, the applicant's plan misses the mark on providing the necessary commercial and public uses that would support a mixed-use environment. This lack of commercial and employment spaces contradicts the goal of creating a self-sustaining, integrated community where residents can live, work, and access services locally, reducing the need for long commutes and external traffic reliance. To meet the intent of the Comprehensive Plan, the applicant would need to incorporate a more diverse mix of uses, including commercial spaces for businesses and public amenities, that would foster job creation and provide essential services. This would bring the development into alignment with the MU-RG objectives of functional integration, connectivity, and the provision of local services near key intersections. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; The Future Land Use Map (FL UM) designates the area as "MU-RG"which is intended to provide a balanced blend of employment opportunities, retail, residential dwellings, and public uses,particularly in areas near major arterial intersections. This designation supports a diverse and integrated community where residents can live, work, and shop without needing to travel far. However, the applicant's current proposal is limited to single-family residential development, which does not align with the intent of the comprehensive plan for the area. By focusing solely on single-family homes, the proposal fails to meet the goal of creating a mixed-use environment that would foster a vibrant, self-sustaining community with employment and retail options nearby. The applicant needs to revise the proposal to incorporate a wider variety of uses as identified above to better align with the vision for the MU-RG designation. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Staff finds the proposed map amendment is considered detrimental to public health, safety, and welfare because it fails to align with key planning and design principles that safeguard the well-being of the community. City of Meridian I Department Report V. Findings 206 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 without the design elements such as a balanced mix of residential, commercial, and public uses,functional and physical integration, and prioritized pedestrian connectivity, the development does not align with the Comprehensive Plan's standards for creating vibrant, integrated communities. The absence of these features can lead to missed opportunities for economic growth, inadequate infrastructure, and poor local connectivity, which are essential for the City's overall development strategy. For the annexation to be considered, the applicant needs to revise the development plan to incorporate the design elements listed above, thereby ensuring it meets the City's objectives for mixed-use, sustainable, and well-connected neighborhoods. 5. The annexation(as applicable) is in the best interest of city. Stafffinds the annexation is not in the best interest of the City because the proposed development lacks key design elements (function integration, outward facing design,physical integration and shared features, support for local services, design integration,purposeful open space,pedestrian connectivity and limited reliance on arterial roads) required by the Comprehensive Plan. These missing elements are critical for ensuring that new developments contribute to the City's long-term vision and goals, especially in areas designated for specific uses like Mixed-Use Regional. B. Preliminary Plat and Short 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 that the plat is not in conformance with the comprehensive plan as a portion of the plat is designated as MU-RG on the FLUM. MU-RG is intended to provide a balanced blend of employment opportunities, retail, residential dwellings, and public uses,particularly in areas near major arterial intersections. This designation supports a diverse and integrated community where residents can live, work, and shop without needing to travel far. However, the applicant's current proposal is limited to single-family residential development, which does not align with the intent of the comprehensive plan for the area. By focusing solely on single-family homes, the proposal fails to meet the goal of creating a mixed-use environment that would foster a vibrant, self-sustaining community with employment and retail options nearby. The applicant needs to revise the proposal to incorporate a wider variety of uses as identified above to better align with the vision for the Mixed-Use Regional designation. 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Stafffinds public services can be made available to the subject property and will be adequate to accommodate the proposed development. 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the city's capital improvement program; Stafffinds the proposed plat is in substantial conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's Capital Improvement Program. City of Meridian I Department Report V. Findings 207 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Staff finds the primarily single-family residential nature of the proposed development may not generate sufficient tax revenue to offset the costs ofpublic services. Mixed-use developments that include commercial and employment opportunities generally provide a better balance of revenue and service costs, something this proposal lacks. The development could also put a strain on existing services (e.g., schools, emergency response)without providing additional funding or resources to accommodate the increased demand. 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and Stafffinds the proposed development is considered detrimental to public health, safety, and welfare because it fails to align with key planning and design principles that safeguard the well-being of the community. This could include several potential risks: • Increased Traffic and Congestion: Without proper mixed-use integration or necessary commercial services, the development may generate more traffic than the current infrastructure can handle. This could lead to unsafe road conditions and strain on the local transportation network,particularly if the area is heavily reliant on arterial roads. • Lack of Local Services: The absence of commercial and public uses in the development means that residents would need to travel farther for essential services such as groceries, healthcare, and employment. This not only increases reliance on vehicles but also reduces access to daily needs, negatively impacting public welfare. In light of these concerns, approving the development could undermine the city's efforts to promote safe, healthy, and well-balanced growth. A more integrated development plan would be necessary to ensure it meets the standards for protecting public health, safety, and welfare. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. Staff finds the development is preserving the Ransom Lateral by keeping it open as a natural feature. VI. ACTION A. Staff: Staff is recommending denial of the project because the current proposal does not align with the intent of the comprehensive plan for the area. The proposal is limited to single-family residential development, occupying the majority of the mixed-use designation area, and with no internal vehicle or pedestrian connectivity between the areas,which by focusing solely on an inward facing single-family home development,the proposal fails to meet the goal of creating a mixed- use environment that would foster a vibrant, self-sustaining community with neighborhood supportive uses, employment and/or retail options nearby. This lack of compliance with the comprehensive plan could raise concerns about whether the development will contribute to traffic issues, support a balanced community, or meet long-term growth objectives. In order to develop the property as proposed,the applicant has the option of continuing the hearing and applying for a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment before the December 15t'deadline. B. Commission: Pending C. City Council: Pending City of Meridian I Department Report VI. Action 208 ' 1 1 ct Location •of Analysis E P 4�, • -_ _ LAKE HAZE! Legend Project Location jig Area of Impact N't 1 nn ■ ■ Analysis uJ RUT NOR I nnnl ■ IIIAAM ��r�t��'1 •,11111,�I L,pHi I � �� 111111111111:- ■ ■■� :11111»1»17�= 7�� ,1�,� r IElllil p i - �UC! LM1:J `1111� • , NO "111'llx LAKE HAZEL oil _. 11111 11111E S �11111 1111lL 11RZ 1• 3. Future Land Use Legend * MU-C Project Location D Area of Impact -_ Low Density Residential O Analysis am Ilium Density . Residential --------- -High Density MU-1R f Residential I D ,Med-High Density Residential. 4. Planned Development Map Legend rt Project Location Area of Impact --- __ -1_' City Limits ; Planned Parcels � u O Analysis ® ILJLJ RED I � EBEB I � I r I ' F D� r 1 I City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 210 5. Map Notes [Kearby Recent Preliminary Plats(within last 5-years) H-2021-0020 H-2023-0041 Nearby Recent Conditional Use Permits within last 5-years) H-2020-0009 H-2020-0057 H-2020-0117 H-2021-0021 H-2021-0036 H-2021-0087 H- 2020-0056 H-2019-0097 H-2022-0050 H-2023-0041 H-2024-0014 City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ B. Subject Site Photos r a. r '5 City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 212 it •a City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 213 5 k f �+ City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ C. Service Accessibility Report PARCEL S1131336031 SERVICE ACCESSIBILITY Overall Score: 19 8th Percentile Description Location In City Limits REEK Extension Sewer Trunkshed mains 500-2,000 ft. from parcel YELLOIV Floodplain Either not within the 10C yrfloodplain or > 2 acres GREEN r Emergency Services Fire Response time < 5 min. GREEN Emergency Services Police Meets response time goals some of the time YELLOIV Pathways Within 1/4 mile of future pathways YELLOIV Transit Not within 1/4 of current or future transit route M Arterial Road Buildout Status Ultimate configuration (#of lanes in master streets YELLOW plan) > existing (4 of lanes) & road IS in 5 yr work plan School Walking Proximity From 1/2 to 1 mile walking YELLOIV School Drivability Not within 2 miles driving of existing orfuture school IRED Either a Regional Park within 1 mile OR a Community Park Walkability Park within 1/2 mile OR a Neighborhood Park within GREEN 1/4 mile walking City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 215 A Preliminary Plat(date: 5/22/2024) �y FREUN INARY PFAr FOR LEMD — �/i17J11 ZY N,CH SUBDIVISION s xn - . . o m raw�sMssnsm.wxni .mse 3 mr n Mnswx,aw[wxiv.oun Boa v r vaevm sums. a �••�'•• SFO Hx Sul I.� dl Fes' 'R' Mw *9F"�lRt1� 1111111 filli PP1.0 City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 216 E. Landscape Plan(date: 5/24/2024) 1+14-ki OaM I o 0 L --- - - - - - - - -- SKYRANCH SUBDIVISION E',FEUT ' y PRELIMINARY PLAT LANDSCAPE PLAN MERIDIAN, ID nAl u.you tk e SKYRANCH SUBDIVISION ,E SENBELTS PRELIMINARY PLAT LANDSCAPE PLAN MERIDIAN, ID City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ F. Phasing Plan PRLLI PLAT SI -- SKYRANC"CH SH661VISION s iR LTnc�i��Q�i�px 3i, IIOCIIL Rill¢I ---- gym¢ g um3 &e ii 3 s_ a z L-- -- -- --- - PP1.0 G. Qualified Open Space Exhibit(date: 6/6/2024) I SKYRANCH SUMN610H ..r •�A, ----- - .—SPACES IF IT 1 TOTI1 MEA.x03.82 Ai Il QIIAUFYING CWFN SiAl1=.t7.39 AC 11].110 wR-QlLwmnc ortn svn[[-an.n Ac ••�•�.� - [+Iw iMNG LPFH SPRLf VW - IMiN�IMLi11NG OPLII EIWL .._.�. City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 218 H. Site Amenities A. Park (Block 7, Lot 1)-The one-and-a-half-acre park will contain the following recreation facilities: Community Pool and Changing Rooms Fenced Play Structure Swing set - Seating Benches � Climbing Dome Attractive Landscaping �„ ',� , , v '1Y• i CC _. 4 !s -+ t AF I i� I aR.=+14Y EFF Ir?r. L I City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 219 B. Pickleball Courts (Block 1,Lot 1) the entrance to 5kyranch - will feature: Two pickleball courts Attractive landscaping — iL - C.Dog Parks jelock 4, Lot 1 &Block 10,Lot 1)- both parks will be over ore-third of an acre and , 4 { feature. Fenced Area Waste Station -t I P, Sitting benches. J -Attractive landscaping �kG - City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 220 D. Pathways—The Skyranch Neighhorhood will include the following pedestrian pathways. 10`Regional Pathways will be constructed along lake hazel(1,200 ft),S.Meridian Road(5DD ft),and Future Collector(600 ft)for approximately 2,300 L.F.total. t. City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 221 I. Common Drive Exhibit(date: 6/6/2024) LOT 3 TAKES DIRECT STREET ACCESS. DRIVEWAY LOCATED ON NORTH SIDE OF LOT, 12.00P REAR Typ SFrIBACK TYP 5.00' LSCP SUFFER BLOCK 11 20.00 fRDNT 10 g I SETBACK TM , LOT $ TAKES DIRECT STREET 2040 COMMON ACCESS. DRIVEWAY LOCATED Dprvc ON WEST SIDE OF LOT. c,,i L—————-- —— • - ------------------------------ y T V F0 Box 6U39 SKYPANCH SUBDIVISION 20 .0 20 40 801SE.IDMM7 LOTS 3—&BLOCK 1 COMMON DRIVE EXH IIRIT SMUM I' 4GI Ph: (209a'1"-3974 1 c9-h—kl—"lr—drq— I I City of Meridian I Department Report V11. Exhibits 222 22] I I LOT ,0 TAKES DIRECT STREET I I I ACCESS. DRIVEWAY LOCATED I 3.00'SIDE x ;n ON WEST SIDE OF LOT. I SETBACK TYP I I r, I I I ID UTDIL FSETBACK SI T K I 1 01 I 6 JJ I ———————— I a 12.00' REAR SETBACK TYP I 8m s LOT 5 TAKES DIRECT STREET i' 00. F%osI ACCESS DRVEWAY LOCATED SETBACK VP ON SOUTH SIDE OF LOT. I C-�� SKYRANCH SUBDIVISION eo42m7o M7 LOTS 5-10 B LOCK 2 COMMON DRIVE EXHIBIT iraic �ehemsmrmginemng-mn City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 223 og x< 23 26 27 x6 x5 ;° 3t 33 33 34 Ji--i II x I � I z9ev EBapir I $ �3s rrrs dnlrcr rnrtrr S -------I _,Y9V__61'AR____-- 2°'0poarYpN I 3L1PM6 rry I I } I ___ ms,:ma('malr I I 13 I iercK —- --- rn 'm�lmdn I zo.ar mover I 3x I -- 1 1-- sLrs.c.r+T 1x�m.Rcw I z°o BDw rn• —1 �'----- gg I � I � � I Bla I �.�sr mce or�.wurtn aN g zo:oRlv6°m I z ��26.00•cauuou 1 � I ��.. ,°. . .. VW a SKYRANCH SUBDIVISION LOTS 12-21 AND 35-39 BLOCK 5 COMMON DRIVE EXHIBIT City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 224 4 LOT 46 TAKES DIRECT STREET i ACCESS.BRNEIMAY LOCATED ON I a3 I 42 WEST SIDE OF LOT. I I I I- I 1.20.00'FRDR 8--c 5 1 I 46 I SETBACK TYP————— 47 ————————1 i I $ 5.00 L",w I f— L� BVFFER I V \' I 45 m 44 I 41 \ I 20A0' COY•rA7N 1 REAR MA I \l OR1VE �T�K TYP-4 d LOT 43 TAKES DIRECT STREET ACCESS TO THE EAST. 40 c�viL SITE �•a 20 0 20 40 SKYRANCH SUBDIVISION eoLa,�o 8370, LOTS 4346 BLOCK 5 COMMON DRIVE EXHIBIT WAX: �ahemdnv�mg�nemng.m n City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 225 1.7 3,00' SIDE LOT 43TAKES DIRECT STREET 1 D.DO' SETBACK ACCESS DRIVEWAY LOCATED UllL eWT r(P ON EAST SIDE OF LOT. KWOK 6 39 I 40 I I 41 I 42 1 41 44 45 39 7. LOT 36 TAXES DIRECT STREET ACCESS. DRIVEWAY LOCATED ON SOUTH SIDE OF LOT- SEFRACK TYP C-9w 15 30 SKYRANCH SUBDNOON e6&k.�b 61'.1 LOTS 36-43 BLOCK 6 COMMON DRIVE EXHIBIT City of Meridian Department Report V11. Exhibits 226 26] LOT 8 TAKES PRECT STREET I od ACCESS. DRIVEWAY LOCATED I I 26 w I 4N WEST SIPS OF LOT. a I n I 12Q.O4' FRONT I r I SETBACK TYP o II— ——— ------ 17 i 1S I r---- - - w I 12.W REAR 19 BLOCK 11 21 SEMACK TYP I g I I I 5.00' LSCPI ---` —J CufFER 2o-.aa' 4ouu4N ———————— — DR(VE 22 p 4 k------------ --� 23 LOT 3 TAKES DIRECT STREET ACCESS. ORrYEWAY LOCATED ON SOUTH SIDE OF LOT. -————————————— 24 c—cw C Iw IoL��=TE 15 8 15 34 1Oam6051� SKYRANCH SUBDIVISION 86AE,1on767 LOTS 18-23 BLOCK 1 1 COMMON DRIVE EXHIBIT E V N' Ph:(269)966--U74 [1f R WYIY�✓S W!f 1�M1!lY7119.tb11 City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 227 J. Building Elevations(date: Click here to enter a date.) Skyranch Elevations AWL t _ i� L r ieq-:. City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 228 K. Annexation Legal Description& Exhibit Map 4L5awtooth Land 5urvoymej, I -` - - � F- (206)a$"104 F; (2O8)3a8-5105 2030 5. Wa5hingtom Ave,.Emmett,ra 53C 17 Annexation Boundary Description BASIS OF BEARINGS for this legal erhtrlption Is North 89°43'40"1Ne5t,I etwetn a 5f8"r mr with no rip marking the 51J4 corner of Section 31 and an aluminum cap,PLS 7323 marking the m�uthwest corner of Section 31,T-3 N., R- 1 E., 9-M.,Ad&CourYLy,Idaho. A parcel of land being the 5112 of the SE114 of the SW 114 of Section 31,TOWShlp 3 North,flange i East of the Boisa Meridian,Ada County,Idaho, more particularly dewibed as follows; BEGINNING at a 51R"reber with no tap marking the SSJ4 corner of said Section 31; Thcngc North 84°134t7"wtJt,coincident with the south ling of said SEV4 of the SW114,a dirt ++f t vm--q� feet to a 5}R'r,eyar wtl on il"Ible cap tmking fire WIJ16 corner of said Section 31; Thence Ieaal ng shld south line, h#orth 0°08'07"West cDinddiwt with the viest line of said SE 1J4 of tite 54'IN a distance aP 669-16 f4mA to a if2"rebarirap PLS 5359 marking the NW Darner of Bald 5112 of the SEiJ4 of the S1N119; Thence south 89"8'22"East,aoincldent with the north line of saki 5112 of the SE114 of the 5 iJa,a distance of 1304.93 feet to the exalt Iim2 of said 5E114 of the SWI/4; Thence South b"14'33"tiYM coincident with sand east line,670-94 feet to the POINT OF BEGINPUNG. The above descnbed oar❑ei wntans W.039 acres, more or less- L ` � yl 11574 +{0� }+1F P 'ti2020kl EMTkt2DO50-wILLEMAN SUB CG',Survinyk0rawingskDescr+jiIipnuk120G50-Af1P5ex LegBl.dvcx Page City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 229 � 4/(iAJ01'Ati RC e rn I x�o'OItl�K dW.ns' �I a i i col ' I 8013 � f e- -s ar�•vru w ► 41WEX4TICUY BOUNDARY allLUr � EMME7T,ID83617 FZd6 398.8185 tadsd _ sir DAM i f �o- L fJ yVW4V.SA4S7kmT-huc� City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 230 L. Rezone Legal Description&Exhibit Map A;%k 5awtooth Land 5urvey,ng, LLC 57-1 F:(208)398-8104 P;(208)398-6 105 1.-�—a 2030 S. Washington Ava„ Cmmca. ID 836 17 Rezone Legal Description BASIS OF BEARINGS for this legal description Is North 89°43'40"West,between the southwest corner and the 51/4 comer of Section 31,T.3 N.,R.1 E.,B.M.,Ada County,Idaho. A parcel of land being a portion of Government Lot 4 of Settlen 31,Township 3 North,Range 1 East of the Boise PHeridian,Ada County,Idaho,more particularly desarlbed as.feilows: COMMENCING at a 5/8"rebar with no cop marking the S114 corner of said Section 31; Thence North 89043'4D"West,coincident with the south line of the 5W114 of said Section 31,a distance of 1300.52 feet to the W1/16 corner of said Section 31 and the southeast comer of said Government Lot 4,marked by a 5/8"rebar/cap illegible; Thence North 0010"r West,calnddent with the east line of Bald C,avemrnent Lot 4,a distance of 25.00 feet to a 510"rebar/cap PLS 2471 and the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence North 89°434D"West, parallel with said south sine,268,01 feet to a 5!9"rebarlcap PLS 11574; Thence North 00108'07"West, parallel with said east liner 2C7.59 feet to the centerline of the Rawson Canal, marked by a 5/8"rebaricap PLS 11574 witness comer, bearing South C01108'07"East,41,63 feet; Thence c❑incident with said centerline the fallowing three(3)course$and distances: Thence North 52"36'37"Westr 295.49 feet,marked by a 5/r r0aricap PLS 11574 reference monument,which bears North 32"21r59"East,3111 feet;; Thence North 62113016"Westr 403.26 feet,marked by a 5/8"rebar/cap PLS 11574 reference monument,whkh bears North 27108'31"Last,33.00 feet; North 631303123"West,292.73 feet to the easterly right of way of S.Meridian Road,marked by a capper plug PLS 1194; Thence North OS114854"West,coincident wlth said easterly right of way,92.41 feet W an ldaha Transpprtati❑n Department brass cap; 7bence North OV.06'16"Wesk,coincident with said easterly right of way, 135.61 feet to a 518"rebarfcap PLS 1L574; Thence North 00'9737"West,mincident with said easterly right of way, 380.98 feet to an aluminum cap on the ' north line of said Government Lot 4; Thence South 891153'03"East,culncident with said north line, L129.32 feet to the northeast miner of said Government Lot 4,marked by a found chiseled X in a stone; P:%202p11 EMTt120D50-WiLLEMAN SUB CG%Survey%Drawin.3s1bescrlplrons1l2005a-Rezone Leg al.docx Page 11 City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 231 Thence South 00°48T07"East,coincident with the east line of said Government Lot 4,a distance of 1313.33 feet to the P'oIrfT OP BEGINNING. The above described parcel contains 24.530 acres, more or less. o 1157 G EAG� P �2i720ti1 EMT'5124450-VV6LLi= MAN SUE CG'•SurveylDrawingF;�.Ue3cripi ions tiI26450-Rezone teyigi CIO" Page 12 City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 232 !Yf1 wyrme aBVYR KRk a rs ar„r PM �ID x N S GOV'TLOr4 ISEC.31 r.3 IV,R!E.,Sm. . 1 1 f # CL- 11574 X.6 if 11�.9f' N!1'@4F YF d@IDI' �N Wa'oN N I�LQ b 2 i R!1�Hi SlL Im i'r'aww 1V,11!' $efilh GF Aff';MNG NLEE318ff AWN Praoxaer I O VMEIUEVEWMa 20.W S.WASNINGT NAVE. Dt0 JF REZCWE 9OLlN 3�EKHTOrr ENNE7' IP$36I7 QfzS C016ER GROUP P: 208139"1004 PROAX70 �VD4{:OLINTY,IDAHO O P.ic;30-8105 u0m � 612U24 ad n rylr L CG WWW.5,4WTCCTHLS.COM City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits F233] VIII. ADDITIONAL NOTES & DETAILS FOR STAFF REPORT MAPS,TABLES,AND CHARTS (link to Community Metrics) A. One-Mile Radius Existing Condition Notes This data is automatically derived from enterprise application and GIS databases, and exported dynamically. Date retrieved notes generally reflect data acquired or processed within the last 30- days. Analysis is based on a one-mile radius from the centroid of the identified parcel. Parcel based data excludes certain properties and represents land as it exists now. Properties considered are only those with a total assessed value greater than 0(i.e. excludes most HOA area,transitional development, government, and quasi government facilities). The following values also constrain included property acreage to reduce outliers and non-conforming instances from distorting averages: R-2< 5.0; R-4<2.0; R-8 < 1.0; R-15 <0.5; R-40<0.25. Conditional Use Permits and Preliminary plat data likely include duplicate project submittals as they may be for the same project, approved at different times through multiple application types. Consider each independently or review prior application approvals. Some approved entitlements, and particularly older ones,may be constructed. Decennial population counts and household counts are based on the most recent Decennial Census. Current population and current household values are COMPASS estimates,usually for the year previous, and are based on traffic analysis zone boundaries(TAZ's). B. Mixed Use Analysis Notes This data is derived from enterprise application and GIS databases, and exported dynamically. Data considered for analysis are only those areas overlapping the overall Mixed Use boundary area. Mixed Use areas across arterial roadways are distinct, separate, and not considered as they do not meet the mixed use principles in the Comprehensive Plan(e.g.pedestrian safety, transportation efficiency, etc.). Mixed Use parcel areas may be greater or smaller than the future land use area designation boundary due parcel size, configuration,right-of-way, and other factors. Conditional Use Permits and Preliminary plat data likely include duplicate project submittals as they may be for the same project, approved at different times through multiple application types. Consider each independently or review prior application approvals. C. Service Assessment Notes This data represents existing conditions derived from our enterprise application and GIS database, exported through dynamic reporting. The system references the most recent available data from various sources, including sewer main lines, sewer trunksheds, floodplain, fire service areas and response times,police crime reporting,pathway information, existing and planned transit, roadway improvements, school and park proximity, and other resources. The tool provides context for project review,using multiple indicators consistently. Data from similar topics may vary based on different levels of review. The overall score is based on weighted criteria(not a ranked order), and the percentile score compares the parcel to others in the city(higher is better). This tool was developed as a City Council priority and outcome of the 2019 Comprehensive Plan. Scores,whether high or low, are just one data point and should not be the sole basis for decisions. D. ACHD Roadway Infographic Notes The Ada County Highway District utilizes a number of planning and analysis tools to understand existing and future roadway conditions. • Existing Level of service(LOS).LOS indicator is a common metric to consider a driver's experience with a letter ranking from A to F.Letter A represents free flow conditions, and on the other end Level F represents forced flow with stop and go City of Meridian I Department Report V1II. Additional Notes&Details for Staff Report Maps,Tables, and Charts 234 conditions. These conditions usually represent peak hour driver experience. ACHD considers Level D, stable flow,to be acceptable. The LOS does not represent conditions for bikes or pedestrians, nor indicate whether improvements: are possible; if there are acceptable tradeoffs; or if there is a reasonable cost-benefit. • Integrated Five Year Work Plan (IFYWP).The IFYWP marker(yes/no) indicates whether the specified roadway is listed in the next 5-years. This work may vary, from concept design to construction. • Capital Improvement Plan(CIP).The CIP marker(yes/no)indicates whether the specified roadway is programmed for improvement in the next 20-years. City of Meridian I Department Report VIII. Additional Notes&Details for Staff Report Maps, Tables, and Charts 235 E IDIAN;--- Applicant Presentation F I SKYRANCH MERIDIAN , IDAHO I I Allure chafer View Terrace � Briar chafer View estates � -- - - l,a�ce Haael Read a: Proposed Medical•'Office � Apex Zenith 10�,U4Q s,F. Prapased Apex Zenith I R-15 i MDR JAL 4 MHDR I ` Low Density R sidential Z LDR 0 Mediu Densiky Resid ntial MDR MURMixed Use Regional MUR edium:Hlgh Density esidential MHDR L _ P .7ta F ull G1351 el � - - — - .� vic Ch,ir h MUR MUR MHDR lLDR MDR Annexations -lip r 'ti ■ y MAMA _ u � Annexed i id and • Rezoned i o J .151 r� 4 Transportation Network Site Plan • 284 Single- family homes • Rezone to R-15 0 till IIII OHIO aI • Density of 6.5 VAPif ;; D U/AC ._ I� Minimum Density is 6 - 1 i+�. Open Space - City Code Requires: ! 6 .49 Acres rlf Skyranch Provides: KM 7.49 acres Pedestrian Connectivity -mom Mill 40 c Approximately 2,300 L.F. total of Regional Pathways Amenities .: r 30 Amenity Points ,3 (Only 9 Required) Community Pool and Changing Rooms , N, �I n lop _ a'°JI 111111111111111111111111111111111 IIIIIII 4!I I III III < ; I11III Fenced Play Structures ��'�� ��- �lllilllllll �: �� - Climbing Domes - Two Pickleball Courts Two Fenced Dog Parks lii�•iil�� l:y �:, _ ,a�, ::: �,/ Regional and Internal Pathways -�•••• �••••� = 11 `=1== `=sue y M — — — — Home Elevations n� 'AW � Visa eY T�ay k c - .E?.r. �41�:: - _ — �.c. ,5 ""o j r i. c• T`n,�-AL r ^'t Home Elevations AY _ �" ',> � � r `^ - 't •..+ � �, tie. " "%4\�� .�,r• ��rr A� 'ems �. r - •,_W�7 ,iNd _ ti...•rr®\ �� - CW.. 4*H'i R r t�Y ran �. f'a � H�m�s 10� Hames 180 H�m�s �0 H�rr�es �� h�m�s 14� Hames 0 H�m�s 84 H�m�s Staff Report Issues What does the Comprehensive Plan require for this site? What impact should site constraints have on that evaluation? Site Constraints - Access �I r Mom 9L ME El . , . . MIAllll o - . - . . MIN ME MINNOW do hL memo Comp Plan Flexibility "The Plan is not a set of standards or a means to enforce City Code. Instead, it indicates, in a general way, how the community should develop:' -Comprehensive Plan, 1 -4 Comp Plan Flexibility " Individual projects within a large mixed use designation area may not warrant a mix of uses, provided compliance with a larger vision and integration of uses:" -Comprehensive Plan, 3-16 Comp Plan Flexibility " Conditions may exist within some mixed use areas that influence these metrics. For example, significant grade and access limitations may better support reduced intensities:" -Comprehensive Plan , 3-20 Site Constraints - Rawson Canal Fr�i Site Constraints - Access �I r Mom 9L ME El . , . . MIAllll o - . - . . MIN ME MINNOW do hL memo Site Constraints - Access UDC Restricts Access onto State Highways "No new approaches directly accessing a state highway shall be allowed. "Public street connections to the state highway shall only be allowed at: (1 ) The section line road; and (2) The half mile mark between section line roads. These half-mile connecting streets shall be collector roads:" -UDC 11 -3H-4. B.2. b (emphasis added) Site Constraints - Access �I r Mom 9L ME El . , . . MIAllll o - . - . . MIN ME MINNOW do hL memo Site Constraints Access 0 0 9 0 0 a epor urt er estric s ccess an ISI I I y s the p rop erty is w ith in close 1)1-ox iinin- to S - 69, the liC( t Willb e i{e ui e to pi-ovi e not sre abate en t per UDC I I-3H-4D. Noise atement co uld inchidc? b lit 110t IiW ited to (7 berm or a berm anti wall eom b iii Lion to help reduce the traffic noise. Comp Plan Flexibility " Conditions may exist within some mixed use areas that influence these metrics . For example, significant grade and access limitations may better support reduced intensities:" -Comprehensive Plan , 3-20 (emphasis added) Respo nse to Staff Repo rt What we have provided : ��1��11���1�! ��I�e�llllllll���l� o • Internal gathering spaces • Orientation of : , �IIIII o open spaces �I11M11111110111�N toward neighbor • �.,.; ��16�i1111���91d� o ; �o Easement for OMEN potentialfuture connectivity Pedestrian Connectivity woo" � 01111 P111111IIII mm IIII - UNION � — � �� -1-- Ofnnue limul HIM � 5kyranch 25 A 1 1 .5°l0 f#Miff ` f##f��f##ffffll 9 AC rty#a# Future Commerc a ` 'tt#,� Lake Hazel Rd Lake Hazel Rd 1 Propose Apex Zenith, -G R 15 1 Big Box 308,0000 st Medium-High Gen Retail 100,00 sf Density Multi-family TBD Residential Mixed Use Regional 219 Acres b. 44 acres of residential remaining after Skyranch and Apex Zenith I I w Summary a'. 284 single-family homes bows Highly Amenitized Neighborhood w traddles the (Sometimes Competing) olicies of the Comprehensive Plan FF 40 Housing Types For Sale House (Not Rental) ➢Single Story buyers Empty Nesters, Divorced singles _ Two Story buyers h r Families PTI'TLEILFT- - Street F is I,080 ft in length i It complies with City Code because it has two inlersecting streel,Street D and I Street C,[Code 11-6C-F1]. II It complies with City Cade because it has a 90 degree turn in tha raadway and an iaddition pedestrian eonneclion,Street D and the pedestrian pathway,(11-K�-F3d). Street F Is parallel to Lake Hazel and ACHD won't allow an aocess point. 1 City Cade 11.6C•F3d allows the Gity Council to approve a block up to 1,20D feet it the site is constra ned by a arterial street(Lake Hazel Rd). MPQ Y �} I II SKi'RANCH SUBDIVISION I _,•. .a,>r ------ -- -- --- PL4CkLEHG71H EMHiair i I — — -- Lake Hazel Rd — _ ----- — _- — — y,asa,-s.. aWLWMc aPO SPACE Street F # I oow,„w �IMN W Yw iMwhwxyMhl� Emergency Response Times _ I Lr _ �f - ° � Ao . - - Li � \,w . . ( ,t _ . E. ; 2 2. . E / /[En aa±i dr • -- - e ° IN , ■ ) - ■ ® a - ! � _ Comp Plan is a Big Picture Document "The FLUM is not a zoning map and differs in that the FLUM describes the character and type of use that is desired in the futu re . . . :' - Comprehensive Plan 3- 10 "Future Land Use designations are not parcel specific:" -Comprehensive Plan, 3- I I (emphasized added) Comp Plan Flexibility 49 " " [r]esidential uses are expected to comprise between 10% and 30% of the development area ... Sample zoning includes : R-1 5000" -Comprehensive Plan, 3-22 to -23 (emphasis added) One Story Abutting Two Stories R • i J 4m IDA Transition - East ** I / I f �+ � _. . *�. � �. ;� x ��{�I A �� � r ' '� .� � �� +�i aka � � � R���f��r _.i ■ ■ ■r Y .�_. ., .l� ,#, '.yi fi� f y�yy�� �, +; - - a _ _ - � . CompPlan Flexibility ..r r. "An adjacent, abutting ; designation, when appropriate ro riate and approved as part of a public hearing with a land � Mixed Use a ' ` development application, * Regional be used...and may not apply to MUR more than 50% of the land L ' ' ' ' • ' - MHDR being developed." dd Section 3-11 (p.53) MAM.W.1 �-r*� e • � _ r (emphasized added) i a 0 Transition Prevail Neighborhood ! Annexed into the City in 2021 �" 5.fi3 DUTAC Proposed Apex Farr � Shafer View Terraces • � Annexed into the City in 2�21 a '� 1.�� Du�►ac . existing Shafer View • Vacant Land that should he rezone similar to �. Shafer View Terraces 1' Proposed Skyranch • s.� Dur�ac Transition - North Proposed Densities are Proportionate to -` Transition on North 4 s -_ Incoming Buyers ' Aware of What - - Densities are l Approved to South Parking Access to Future Commercial M IWO � .. . z1:� �. o r - • rr r � rr - +�_• • GIs F�. �� �� � I� rr r. ®7• r ■ � r * y . -* w r � r � • • I / I Source: West Ada School District Data www.westada.org//age/district-data WASD Schools Distance Current Official (miles) enrollment as of Capacity 10/3/24 Mary McPherson ES 1.5 494 675 Victory Middle 3. 1 1079 1000 RPM* Mountain View High 4.4 2512 2175 Source: West Ada School District Data www.westada.org/Tge/district-data Middle Schools WASDSchools Distance Current enrollment Official Capacity (miles) as of 10/3/24 Victory Middle 3. 1 1079 1000 Lake Hazel Middle 3.9 987 1495 (2015-16) middleIt West Ada . . otherVictory and Star have lost . - No new middle schools planned at this time, despite WASD • property . . - Source: West Ada School District Data https://www.westada.org/page/attendance-areas Cherry Lane Meridian rn High School «a a WASD Distance Current Official Schools (miles) enrollment as of Capacity 10/3/24 Meridian Overland Rd Mountain View High 4.4 2512 2175 Mountain Viewer High School ex CL YfciOry Rd Meridian High 5.7 1793 2075 Skyranch Motnl$in Vie Lake Hazel Rd t Declining Enrollment Source: West • . . School District Data West Ada SD Historic Enrollment Idaho News2 - Boise Area School Districts explain why enrollment 40000 is declining 39500 9/24/24 39000 "Boise, Idaho (CBS2) — Some school districts across the state are reporting 38500 declines in enrollment. 38000 During the recently completed school year, an average of 35,667 students 37500 attended school each day in West Ada School District. It's the lowest daily 37000 attendance since the 2015-2016 school year when the average daily 36500 attendance was 35,388 students." 36000 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21* 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 ■Students Student Pipeline Reduced Source: West • . . School District Data Student Grade Fewer students in elementary schools = increased capacity in future years EOO 2024 -2025 Enrollment I St 29419 5t" 2,896 8t" 39210 ifloo 12t" 3,484 0 F Other Options than Assigned Neighborhood Schools fm Five WASD Schools of Two Public Charter Schools WASD has a generous Choice under capacity (both under capacity) open enrollment policy for neighborhood schools Gem Prep (K-12) less than one mile from Skyranch Valor Academy opens in 2026 Skyranch Source: West Ada School District Data WASD www.westada.org/�age/district-data Student 0 Homes 100 Homes 180 Hamel 60 Homes GenerationRate 10 tuder�ts 50 students Students 1�0 students for this DeveLopment Area Zone 0.49 per singLefamiLy 0709 2Q31 Q3 60 homes 140 Haynes 20 Homes 8� Homes �students 70 students 11� students 140 students Increased State Funding �n 4 , 4 Idaho EdNews — May 5, 2024 Governor Hands West Ada ` $ 150 million for Facilities s �• map � 1 goo ti f w IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Touchmark Office Building A (H-2024-0045) by Conger Group, located at 3526 E. Louise Dr. Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2024-0045 A. Request: Conditional Use Permit to construct an office building on 0.504 acre(s) in the L-O zoning district. 236 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : October 17v 2024 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 9 & 10 PROJECT NAME : Touchmark Office Building ( W2024 - 0045 ) & ( W2024- 0046 ) Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify ( Please Print ) HOA ? ( mark X if yes ) If yes, please provide HOA name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 g 10 11 12 13 14 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C��fEPIDIAN*,,--, DEPARTMENT REPORT HEARING 10/17/2024 Legend DATE: Project Location TO: Planning&Zoning Commission Area of impact ;E �= City Limits -- FROM: Nick Napoli, Associate Planner O Analysis ; 1 208-884-5533 I nnapoli@meridiancity.org A APPLICANT: Marcel Lopez SUBJECT: H-2024-0045 and H-2024-0046 = Touchmark Office Buildings A&B LOCATION: Located at 3512 E. Louise Drive and 3526 E. Louise Drive in the north'/4 of --- Section 16, T.3N.,R.IE. (R8509140100 and R8509140090) I. PROJECT OVERVIEW A. Summary The applicant requests a conditional use permit to construct and operate two office buildings (4,760 square feet and 4,534 square feet)on 1.2 acres in the L-O zoning,by Conger Group. B. Recommendation Staff: Approval with conditions. C. Decision Select: Pending. City of Meridian I Department Report 1. Project Overview 237 IL COMMUNITY METRICS Table 1: Land Use Description Details Map Ref. Existing Land Use(s) Vacant - Proposed Land Use(s) Office - Existing/Proposed Zoning L-O V.A.2 Future Land Use Designation MU-C(Mixed Use Community) V.A.3 Table 2: Process Facts Description Details Preapplication Meeting date 8/6/2024 Neighborhood Meeting 8/21/2024 Site posting date 10/4/2024 Table 3: Community Metrics Agency/Element Description/Issue Reference Ada County Highway District • Comments Received Yes - • Commission Action Required No - • Access Private Drive Aisle - ITD Comments Received No - Meridian Public Works Wastewater III.B • Distance to Mainline Available at site • Impacts or Concerns No Meridian Public Works Water III.13 • Distance to Mainline Available at site • Impacts or Concerns No Note: See section III. City/Agency Comments & Conditions for comments received or see the public record: (https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=362259&dbid=0&repo=MeridianQtX). City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics 238 III. STAFF ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code (UDC) A. General Overview This property is designated as Mixed-Use Community(MU-C)on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The proposed use for office buildings is consistent with prior approvals and the comprehensive plan for the MU-C designation. The subject sites are among several commercially zoned properties surrounding the corner of S. Touchmark Way and E. Franklin Road. The proposed office buildings align with the desired uses specified within the Mixed-Use Community designation. In conjunction with the existing office buildings,proposed future residential, and existing residential the proposed use satisfies the mix of uses desired in the MU-C designation. Table 4: Proiect Overview Description Details History AZ-05-022;PP-05-054;CUP-05-050 Acreage 1.2 acres B. History and Process The subject property was annexed in May 2001 (Ordinance No. 01.917)and approved a conditional use permit(CUP-05-050)for the applicant to develop the property into a mixed-use retirement community consisting of residential dwellings,medical offices, commercial/retail businesses, and a senior community center. The CUP requires all lots within the scope of the permit to receive detailed CUP approval prior to developing the property. C. Site Development and Use Analysis 1. Proposed Use Analysis (UDC 11-2): The proposed use of office buildings aligns well with the Mixed-Use Neighborhood(MU-C) future land use designation, which supports a blend of residential, commercial, and recreational uses. Office buildings are typically principally permitted in the L-O zoning, however, due to a provision in the CUP from 2005, all properties require a detailed CUP approval. By offering service options within proximity to both residential areas and existing commercial developments,this project contributes to the community's overall livability and sustainability. Specifically, it adheres to Policy 3.06.02B,which encourages and supports mixed-use areas that provide the benefits of living, shopping, dining, and working nearby, thereby reducing vehicle trips. To align with the current development, staff recommends that the applicant enhance landscaping between the buildings and along the eastern buffer. Goal 2.09.02E of the comprehensive plan emphasizes the importance of consistent landscaping standards for developments. Therefore, staff is advising that these improvements be included with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review submission. 2. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): Development of the site hall comply with the dimensional standards of the L-O zoning district in UDC Table 11-2B-3. Staff has reviewed the proposed plans and building elevations and they comply with the required standards. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 239 D. Design Standards Analysis 1. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): i. Parking lot landscaping Landscaping is required to be provided along all parking areas per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8. The proposed landscape plan shall be revised to include a tree in the planter island to the west of the trash enclosure on the northern property the minimum requirements. ii. Landscape buffers to adjoining uses Landscaping is required to meet the standards of UDC 11-313-9. The landscape plan meets the minimum requirements. iii. Storm integration Storm drainage is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-18. 2. Parking (UDC 11-3C): i. Nonresidential parking analysis A minimum of one(1) off street parking space is required per 500 square feet of gross floor area. Based on the buildings ranging between 4,534 and 4,760 square feet, 19 parking stalls are required between the two (2) sites.A total of 37 parking stalls are provided exceeding the required parking. ii. Bicycle parking analysis A minimum of one(1)bicycle parking space must be provided for every 25 vehicle spaces or portion thereof per UDC 11-3C-6G;bicycle parking facilities are required to comply with the location and design standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C.Bicycle parking is depicted on the plans submitted with this application that meet the requirements. 3. Building Elevations (Comp Plan,Architectural Standards Manual): Goal 2.09.03A of the Comprehensive Plan highlights establishing distinct, engaging identities within commercial and mixed-use enters through design standards to integrate commercial, multifamily, and parking areas with existing neighborhoods. In response,the developer has submitted conceptual building elevations for the proposed structure as shown in Section VII.C. Building materials consist of EIFS stucco, craft chop ledge panels, standing seam metal panels, steel canopies, and glazing. The proposed conceptual elevations are approved. The final design is required to comply with the Architectural Standards Manual for Commercial Design Guidelines. E. Transportation Analysis 1. Access (Comp Plan, UDC I1-3A-3, UDC 11-3H-4): Goal 6.01.0213 emphasizes reducing the number of access points onto arterial streets by utilizing strategies such as cross-access agreements, access management, and the creation of frontage and backage roads,while also improving connectivity between local and collector streets. The site plan features a single access point via a private drive aisle located on the western part of the site. This private drive aisle connects to S. Touchmark Way and E. Louise Drive(collector streets). Staff has concerns with the location of the trash enclosure,however,Republic Services has approved these locations. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 240 2. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): The proposed plan includes a pedestrian walkway from the main sidewalk on the north side of the buildings connecting to the front of each building. Pedestrians do not need to cross driving surfaces to connect with these building so delineation from the drive aisle is not required. The site/landscape plan submitted both reflect compliance with this standard. F. Services Analysis 1. Pressurized Irrigation (UDC 11-3A-15): Underground pressurized irrigation water is required to be provided as set forth in UDC I I- 3A-15. 2. Storm Drainage (UDC 11-3A-18): Storm drainage is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-18. 3. 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. III. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Meridian Planning Division 1. Future development of this site shall comply with the previous conditions of approval and terms of AZ-05-022; PP-05-054; CUP-05-050; and FP-06-012 and the conditions contained herein. 2. The site plan and/or landscape plan, as applicable, shall be revised with the certificate of zoning compliance application as follows: - The eastern landscape buffer and area between the buildings shall be revised to incorporate vegetation coverage in the form of trees and shrubs in compliance with the Architectural Standards Manual,UDC 11-313-9, and Comprehensive Plan. - A tree shall be depicted in the planter island to the west of the trash enclosure on the northern property. 3. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application shall be submitted and approved for the proposed use prior to submittal of a building permit application. The design of the site and structure shall comply with the standards listed in UDC I1-3A-19;the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual and with the Development Agreement. 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. City of Meridian I Department Report III. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 241 B. Meridian Public Works Pl{NfPIXF C:ONU17'1{1NS Wastewater • drstancetoSewer Sewer AwaYableatsite 5erwices Sewer shed • kstimated Project see application Sewer ILRLJrs • WKHI Ueclinmg Balance r PFWctcansisteat Yes with WW Master F1anJF acilifty Plan • Imps CtS{CBiLCeFIFS • • See Public works Srte specific Condrtmons Water lhstance to Water Wi ter Avadahle at Site Services • PFesscre 2nne w Unmated Project see applieaLmn water LKU's • WatertLkU" None • ProlectCansistent Yes wrth Water Master Plan ImpaeWiancerns I None-Please see Public Works me Specific C:ondrtions NON-PLAY CONDITI ONS PUm.IC.44'i1ws DIRAwmi--ir She Spaeifle Conditions of Approval 1. There i;an existing Auh leeatrdal the SW corner ofthc wile-Water roster mc&to connect within V from end ofAulk Call"mnwval ofthe Blnw-off.Water nxim ncod to be locatod in Im bdwaping arcs 2. Water services rcquirc a 21Y eascraca up to the water niter.The city roqueA that the i-mernent r.ncnd4 IQ'paxt tic water ffaerbut only S is FegtdFcd. 3. Single xtnx1 ue multi-tiuml unit,that am for rerdal Holy slwuld have a-angle City nxiw.Ifthe unity wil I he craned individually,then each needs a wat x meter. 4. Caup w6jnd other permaneni Anxfiarq(trace,huyhcx,buildings,irayh rouyAwla walLz,fcneea, infiltration trendius,light pole ems)cannot he hudt withk the utility Ea crncnt 5- Emmire no Scwersewices crass infiltratiantrcnchcs.kwer service lima through undtvg xmund gwjycbcai {n swatles MM MPI zdlawtxi ko-rlmms UpMoVtd by dw Cicy P,rtigincer. 6. Water swAoea squire a 21Y eaurncni up in and LC'bcyond the meter or as Aorta to ICY i;poxxible- City of Meridian Department Report III. City/Agency Comments &Conditions ■ General C_andil;onx of Approws] I. Applicant xhAl 4x"dia"watcrarud seven main size and routing with the Public Works TAcparlrnrnL 2. PerMcridiart City Cade(MCC� the appLieant Rhall be rutpen LNc in kstall.RmW rand water mains to and through this deveLoprncnL AppliewA may he eligible for a reimbwsmw u agrocment for infrastruclurc enhwmin eni per MCC 9--Cr5. 3. The applicant;hall provide eascnwmt(s)for all public vwatalscwcr mains outside of public eight of way(includeMl.water vcraiccs and hydrants). Sewcrhwaicrcam uau varies depcndlrg an sewer depth.Sewer 420 fl deep require a 30 ft ca-%mcnft,2425 ft a 4U ft c m"nent,and 25-30 Ji a 45 ft casement- Ensure no pmronent-AnL&ures(trF bushee,wilding.auporK tra_;h romptacle walix,Cenem infiltration trencher:,light poles,etc.)arc hulk within the utility cavement_ Submii an execWed ca_w afar t(on the forni available from Public WorUy a legal du:cripiion prgnrcd by an Tdabo Iiccitwed Prof min onal Iand Surveyor,which must i ncludc the area of the cascmwl (mahad EXH I B F A)and an 8 J fit"a I I"reap with bearings suA diaisuees(marked EXHIBIT B) for review_Both exhihin mkLqi be sealed,signed and dated by a Prafed4enal band Smvcyee_DO N07 REMR]D. 4. The City oC Meridian requires that prexxurized i rrigatinn systcros he suppl icd by a year-round -A"cc of wwcr(IJDC L L-313-6).71he appLicaru should he rcquircdto use any cxistifng yurfaacor well water for the primary vimire. Tf a surface ar wdL ruwuce is fiat avaLLahiC asiFtgjcIXoifut connection lathe ckdinary wwersystera shall he required.If singLo-point conneetUm is ulilLmd, the developer will he rcypram- le far the paymcnt ofays.s r is far the caraff u areas prier to prior to receiving dcvclapmcnt plan apprewaL 5. Any sirtrlums that are allrwrod to remain shrill.he auhjeeito evaluation and pissiblc r aU1gnrncni of sweet addreskang to he in a mpLianec with MCC. G. All ird"ian ditchcx.canals,laterals,ordraim,cxdusivc-of natural waicrway�intcrsafiing, crossing or laying adj accart and eooi.igwcrus to the area heing subdi vidod shall.he addreimed pa TTDC l I-3A#ti In perforrni ng:weh work,&a appLic=xhall comply with Idaho Cade 42-1207 and any other applicable law err regulatiorL 7. Any wdLs that will.not cnNinue to be used must be properly ahandmcd according to Idaho WeLL Ccm.4mdion Standards Rulcs admi nisicred by the Idaho Departmcni of Water Ruwouram The J3cvclolxr's rngiucer�aLL proYidc astatomcinaddrerx�ing wbethtt there arc any ewisung wclLs in the dcvclnpmcrct,and Lfse,how they wLLI continue to he used,or provide reeaxd of their abandonrncnL R. Any cxLRUag Rq*c system~within this project shall he rmoycd from service F"C'rty{7r1inanar Seeiion 4-L-4 and9 4 R_ CorctactCrntral DLsirict]3ealth fix abandonment proeedrursand inspcetmam(208)37--5211_ 9. All imprcwcrnentc rdated to public Life,aafcty and hcalth d uLl he completed prinrto oearpancy of the 4ngtares. 10. Applicant shall be roquired to pay Publie Wcwb&%.cicgmmrrt plan review,and eonshtrciien inslwciian Fecm,asdelermincddwingthe pLan review prouyr,priorw Ose issuanoeofa plan approval letter- Ill. It shall he the responsibility of the appLie"to ensure that all dcvcLopnxnt features compLy with the Arncrieans with Diaahilitin Act and the Fair Hmuw ng Act. 12. AppLicant shall be nespon_ciNc for application wJ oornpl iarxe with any Section 41N Permitting that Fray he roquirid by the Arnr}Corpsof FjLgjne 13. Dcvcloper shall crwudinme Fnailhox Locatim%with the Meridian Post(Hrim. 14. Caupaclion test rcsuLts~hall be suhmitied to the Meridian BuiLdl ng Depautnwni for all bui Iding pads fewiuingengjnceredbackfFLl,where footing would sit atop FiLl material_ City of Meridian Department Report III. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 243 15. The deM p enginoer:shall he required t0 certify drat the strut centurlinc cJcvauow arc sct a minimum of 3-fecl ahma the highest etitahlishad peak grmrwtwaicrcicuation. This is I6 ensure that the hcaarn elevationofthe crawl spaces of horncs is at Least l-foot abow- I& The applimeantu design cnginear shell he rmpoasihla for inmpedion of al.L irrigation arxViar drainage facility within this payees that do not fall.under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or AC.WF)_The design engineer shall pri vide certification that Ibc fwjhtics have been insraLlod in acconiwNx withthe approved,design plank This maification will be rcquircd befcwc a oertifreatC of occupancy is issual for any stntawiy,within Oic Fina oct 17. At the completion of the preyecC the applicant shall.he mFwwLsihlc to Fmhmit rcoord drawings per the City of Meridian AutnCAD standards- 7bew nemcd drawing mum be r=lvai and approved prior to the iwwnoa ofa eartification cnf nocupaney f w any smeftiru with in the penjxt 18. A suca I ight plan will nocd to Inc inelud3d in the civil consu=tion plans_Stmx Light plan requirarMnls are Iistad in saet m 6-5 ofthe Impmvcment%ULDC aids for Streit 1_12hting.A crquy of Ohe sianderds mn be fatwd a!http:r7uvrw.rncridianeLty.crrg+publiti_wcwlrs.mpx?id-272_ 19. The City of Meridian requires that the owner past to the City a perfarmanee marry in the anuaL u of 125%cf tho total czirtsui kern skit for all.inwmpLae sewer,water and reuse i.nfra_evuchue prior to final plat signamm-This surety will he verified by a Line item cost esLimuz provided by the owner is the City.The surety can be p4*"in the farm ofan irFevocable Lewf of credit,cash dcpnsit at bond_AppLicartt roust file an appLickan frrr surety,which can be frwid Lon the Community Dcvelopmer t DeparW nt wcbsite. Picric erwrtack I-and f}eatlnprreait Service fix miwre Lnfixmation at 887-22L L. W. The City of Mesidian rcquims chat the owner post in the City a warranty surety in the amrwiniof 20%of the Ic"L fi{KL9nrCtiori cost for all.oompk%ed mwa,water and mm:c infiragr+ct rc far duration oftwo yrars.This surety wil.l.be vaified by a line item aku cdlinvW prrn idad by the owner lit the City.Ths surety can ho Fnujid in the form-afar irrcvomW Ldtar of creaks,cash dcpnsit err bond_AppLieant must file an appLieatirwi frrr surcry,which can be found nit the Community Dcvelopmcnt Departnxru wchsite. Picric erwrtaet I-and Deatlnprr mt Service fix maw infcwmation at 897-22L L. IV. 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 meets all dimensional and development regulations of the recommended L-O zoning district. 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan and in accord with the requirements of this title. Staff finds the proposed office 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. Staff finds 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. However, staff recommends that the applicant enhance landscaping between the buildings and along the eastern buffer to align with the neighboring properties to the south. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. Findings 244 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. IV. 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 City of Meridian I Department Report IV. Action 245 ' 1 � _ _ � _ _�_ FA•IRYIEW - - - .. ; _ O • --- ' -WM .-. .. PINE y V w _ {. -- - M. .FRANKLIN � 44 84 ,OVERLAND- .E maim : -FAIRVIEW '511", L - PINE H • V Illl 11�� J F�RA_NKtI�N -0 son ' - s on.IIisign � r r.•r.b...P L�VJ emu. OEM �± W $4 1 J ' Q up m RI■ W i0 : OVERLAND Y�fBf _1:::. _ • I�SIa t 3. Future Land Use FAIRUIEW _Legend MM r6al Project Location Highr - -sidential Area of Impact 'I 0 AnalysisQ W Medium Density ene al Low ,VInIIR W FRANKL-IN Density .. Residential us Off C Q.�'1�1111� MU- 4. =�J g Planned Development . r Legend ,rr� rrFAIRVI'EW 'tion 'P"Area of Impact •I --�--■rV ��lf.l n..uy 111.1111111� City Limits Planned Parcels 0 Analysis .��.■ �is wJ�,,.,,; ��;�1 _ _sir.l.... �u.-nnrru..��i.lu�:inilll 11111111111� -PINE II`-;•IIIIiI pHl,}..rturin./lal II1�I��IIIP is � �FRAN�KL-INN ' N � V - Ei �� OVERLAND DepartmentCity of Meridian Report Exhibits B. Service Accessibility Report Description r � Location In City Limits GREEN Extension Sewer Trunkshed mains < 500 ft.from parcel GREEN Floodplain Either not within the 140 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 Within 1/4 mile of current transit route GREEN 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 DrivaElity Middle or Elementary School within 1 mile driving GREEN (existing or future) Park Walkability No park within walking distance by park type RED City of Meridian I Department Report V. Exhibits 248 C. Site Plan (date: 5/17/2024) ME DATA '.� � L AD •.awe=.tee I I I ry/ I CWHER DATA 1 fi ��;� Mercury Eco Alternating .o a _ n V W � n 2 6 0 n wvn �rn e�147.0 City of Meridian Department Report V. Exhibits 249 D. Landscape Plan (date: 9/19/2024) '43' Pi `33 52 S 99 34 43" w 1 h" S 87394 w t5-,'Q3 lIIIFI � �+ �klkFll7 d� ¢ UVf:RALL �[ltil"APF I.LD City of Meridian Department Report V. Exhibits F250] E. Building Elevations (date: 4/17/2023) n n F- e' 07 U a 71 �n �g o o� � o op � YPm City of Meridian Department Report V. Exhibits 251 E IDIAN;--- Applicant Presentation Touchmark Offices October 17, 2024City of Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission April 27, 2006April 18, 2024 Building ABuilding B Revised Landscape Plan submitted to staff Oct. 15, 2024 Original Conditional Use Permit application was a condition of the platting process for variances or waivers to the requires under this zoning.We are not asking for any uses not allowed in the limited office zone, any Touchmark Center Subdivision No. 1. Request modification of the conditions of approval to remove of the following condition:14, 2024.landscape plan submitted to staff on October 15, 2024 dated October exclusion of Condition III., A., 2., and approval of the revised 0046 for the Touchmark Offices with the -2024-0045 and H-2024-Respectfully request approval of conditional use permit application H 9, and Comprehensive Plan.-3B-11shrubs in compliance with the Architectural Standards Manual, UDC revised to incorporate vegetation coverage in the form of trees and The eastern landscape buffer and area between the buildings shall be -with the certificate of zoning compliance application as follows:2. The site plan and/or landscape plan, as applicable, shall be revised A. Meridian Planning DivisionIII. City/Agency Comments & Conditions Staff Report: Thank you. w IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Touchmark Office Building B (H-2024-0046) by Conger Group, located at 3512 E. Louise Dr. Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2024-0046 A. Request: Conditional Use Permit to construct an office building on 0.514 acre(s) in the L-O zoning district. 252 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : October 17v 2024 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 9 & 10 PROJECT NAME : Touchmark Office Building ( W2024 - 0045 ) & ( W2024- 0046 ) Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify ( Please Print ) HOA ? ( mark X if yes ) If yes, please provide HOA name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 g 10 11 12 13 14 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C��fEPIDIAN*,,--, DEPARTMENT REPORT HEARING 10/17/2024 Legend DATE: Project Location TO: Planning&Zoning Commission Area of impact ;E �= City Limits -- FROM: Nick Napoli, Associate Planner O Analysis ; 1 208-884-5533 I nnapoli@meridiancity.org A APPLICANT: Marcel Lopez SUBJECT: H-2024-0045 and H-2024-0046 = Touchmark Office Buildings A&B LOCATION: Located at 3512 E. Louise Drive and 3526 E. Louise Drive in the north'/4 of --- Section 16, T.3N.,R.IE. (R8509140100 and R8509140090) I. PROJECT OVERVIEW A. Summary The applicant requests a conditional use permit to construct and operate two office buildings (4,760 square feet and 4,534 square feet)on 1.2 acres in the L-O zoning,by Conger Group. B. Recommendation Staff: Approval with conditions. C. Decision Select: Pending. City of Meridian I Department Report 1. Project Overview 253 IL COMMUNITY METRICS Table 1: Land Use Description Details Map Ref. Existing Land Use(s) Vacant - Proposed Land Use(s) Office - Existing/Proposed Zoning L-O V.A.2 Future Land Use Designation MU-C(Mixed Use Community) V.A.3 Table 2: Process Facts Description Details Preapplication Meeting date 8/6/2024 Neighborhood Meeting 8/21/2024 Site posting date 10/4/2024 Table 3: Community Metrics Agency/Element Description/Issue Reference Ada County Highway District • Comments Received Yes - • Commission Action Required No - • Access Private Drive Aisle - ITD Comments Received No - Meridian Public Works Wastewater III.B • Distance to Mainline Available at site • Impacts or Concerns No Meridian Public Works Water III.13 • Distance to Mainline Available at site • Impacts or Concerns No Note: See section III. City/Agency Comments & Conditions for comments received or see the public record: (https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=362259&dbid=0&repo=MeridianQtX). City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics 254 III. STAFF ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code (UDC) A. General Overview This property is designated as Mixed-Use Community(MU-C)on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The proposed use for office buildings is consistent with prior approvals and the comprehensive plan for the MU-C designation. The subject sites are among several commercially zoned properties surrounding the corner of S. Touchmark Way and E. Franklin Road. The proposed office buildings align with the desired uses specified within the Mixed-Use Community designation. In conjunction with the existing office buildings,proposed future residential, and existing residential the proposed use satisfies the mix of uses desired in the MU-C designation. Table 4: Proiect Overview Description Details History AZ-05-022;PP-05-054;CUP-05-050 Acreage 1.2 acres B. History and Process The subject property was annexed in May 2001 (Ordinance No. 01.917)and approved a conditional use permit(CUP-05-050)for the applicant to develop the property into a mixed-use retirement community consisting of residential dwellings,medical offices, commercial/retail businesses, and a senior community center. The CUP requires all lots within the scope of the permit to receive detailed CUP approval prior to developing the property. C. Site Development and Use Analysis 1. Proposed Use Analysis (UDC 11-2): The proposed use of office buildings aligns well with the Mixed-Use Neighborhood(MU-C) future land use designation, which supports a blend of residential, commercial, and recreational uses. Office buildings are typically principally permitted in the L-O zoning, however, due to a provision in the CUP from 2005, all properties require a detailed CUP approval. By offering service options within proximity to both residential areas and existing commercial developments,this project contributes to the community's overall livability and sustainability. Specifically, it adheres to Policy 3.06.02B,which encourages and supports mixed-use areas that provide the benefits of living, shopping, dining, and working nearby, thereby reducing vehicle trips. To align with the current development, staff recommends that the applicant enhance landscaping between the buildings and along the eastern buffer. Goal 2.09.02E of the comprehensive plan emphasizes the importance of consistent landscaping standards for developments. Therefore, staff is advising that these improvements be included with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review submission. 2. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): Development of the site hall comply with the dimensional standards of the L-O zoning district in UDC Table 11-2B-3. Staff has reviewed the proposed plans and building elevations and they comply with the required standards. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 255 D. Design Standards Analysis 1. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): i. Parking lot landscaping Landscaping is required to be provided along all parking areas per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8. The proposed landscape plan shall be revised to include a tree in the planter island to the west of the trash enclosure on the northern property the minimum requirements. ii. Landscape buffers to adjoining uses Landscaping is required to meet the standards of UDC 11-313-9. The landscape plan meets the minimum requirements. iii. Storm integration Storm drainage is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-18. 2. Parking (UDC 11-3C): i. Nonresidential parking analysis A minimum of one(1) off street parking space is required per 500 square feet of gross floor area. Based on the buildings ranging between 4,534 and 4,760 square feet, 19 parking stalls are required between the two (2) sites.A total of 37 parking stalls are provided exceeding the required parking. ii. Bicycle parking analysis A minimum of one(1)bicycle parking space must be provided for every 25 vehicle spaces or portion thereof per UDC 11-3C-6G;bicycle parking facilities are required to comply with the location and design standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C.Bicycle parking is depicted on the plans submitted with this application that meet the requirements. 3. Building Elevations (Comp Plan,Architectural Standards Manual): Goal 2.09.03A of the Comprehensive Plan highlights establishing distinct, engaging identities within commercial and mixed-use enters through design standards to integrate commercial, multifamily, and parking areas with existing neighborhoods. In response,the developer has submitted conceptual building elevations for the proposed structure as shown in Section VII.C. Building materials consist of EIFS stucco, craft chop ledge panels, standing seam metal panels, steel canopies, and glazing. The proposed conceptual elevations are approved. The final design is required to comply with the Architectural Standards Manual for Commercial Design Guidelines. E. Transportation Analysis 1. Access (Comp Plan, UDC I1-3A-3, UDC 11-3H-4): Goal 6.01.0213 emphasizes reducing the number of access points onto arterial streets by utilizing strategies such as cross-access agreements, access management, and the creation of frontage and backage roads,while also improving connectivity between local and collector streets. The site plan features a single access point via a private drive aisle located on the western part of the site. This private drive aisle connects to S. Touchmark Way and E. Louise Drive(collector streets). Staff has concerns with the location of the trash enclosure,however,Republic Services has approved these locations. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 256 2. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): The proposed plan includes a pedestrian walkway from the main sidewalk on the north side of the buildings connecting to the front of each building. Pedestrians do not need to cross driving surfaces to connect with these building so delineation from the drive aisle is not required. The site/landscape plan submitted both reflect compliance with this standard. F. Services Analysis 1. Pressurized Irrigation (UDC 11-3A-15): Underground pressurized irrigation water is required to be provided as set forth in UDC I I- 3A-15. 2. Storm Drainage (UDC 11-3A-18): Storm drainage is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-18. 3. 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. III. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Meridian Planning Division 1. Future development of this site shall comply with the previous conditions of approval and terms of AZ-05-022; PP-05-054; CUP-05-050; and FP-06-012 and the conditions contained herein. 2. The site plan and/or landscape plan, as applicable, shall be revised with the certificate of zoning compliance application as follows: - The eastern landscape buffer and area between the buildings shall be revised to incorporate vegetation coverage in the form of trees and shrubs in compliance with the Architectural Standards Manual,UDC 11-313-9, and Comprehensive Plan. - A tree shall be depicted in the planter island to the west of the trash enclosure on the northern property. 3. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application shall be submitted and approved for the proposed use prior to submittal of a building permit application. The design of the site and structure shall comply with the standards listed in UDC I1-3A-19;the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual and with the Development Agreement. 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. City of Meridian I Department Report III. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 257 B. Meridian Public Works Pl{NfPIXF C:ONU17'1{1NS Wastewater • drstancetoSewer Sewer AwaYableatsite 5erwices Sewer shed • kstimated Project see application Sewer ILRLJrs • WKHI Ueclinmg Balance r PFWctcansisteat Yes with WW Master F1anJF acilifty Plan • Imps CtS{CBiLCeFIFS • • See Public works Srte specific Condrtmons Water lhstance to Water Wi ter Avadahle at Site Services • PFesscre 2nne w Unmated Project see applieaLmn water LKU's • WatertLkU" None • ProlectCansistent Yes wrth Water Master Plan ImpaeWiancerns I None-Please see Public Works me Specific C:ondrtions NON-PLAY CONDITI ONS PUm.IC.44'i1ws DIRAwmi--ir She Spaeifle Conditions of Approval 1. There i;an existing Auh leeatrdal the SW corner ofthc wile-Water roster mc&to connect within V from end ofAulk Call"mnwval ofthe Blnw-off.Water nxim ncod to be locatod in Im bdwaping arcs 2. Water services rcquirc a 21Y eascraca up to the water niter.The city roqueA that the i-mernent r.ncnd4 IQ'paxt tic water ffaerbut only S is FegtdFcd. 3. Single xtnx1 ue multi-tiuml unit,that am for rerdal Holy slwuld have a-angle City nxiw.Ifthe unity wil I he craned individually,then each needs a wat x meter. 4. Caup w6jnd other permaneni Anxfiarq(trace,huyhcx,buildings,irayh rouyAwla walLz,fcneea, infiltration trendius,light pole ems)cannot he hudt withk the utility Ea crncnt 5- Emmire no Scwersewices crass infiltratiantrcnchcs.kwer service lima through undtvg aund gwjycbcai {n swatles MM MPI zdlawtxi ko-rlmms UpMoVtd by dw Cicy P,rtigincer. 6. Water swAoea squire a 21Y eaurncni up in and LC'bcyond the meter or as Aorta to ICY i;poxxible- City of Meridian Department Report III. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 258 General C_andil;onx of Approws] I. Applicant xhAl 4x"dia"watcrarud seven main size and routing with the Public Works TAcparlrnrnL 2. PerMcridiart City Cade(MCC� the appLieant Rhall be rutpen LNc in kstall.RmW rand water mains to and through this deveLoprncnL AppliewA may he eligible for a reimbwsmw u agrocment for infrastruclurc enhwmin eni per MCC 9--Cr5. 3. The applicant;hall provide eascnwmt(s)for all public vwatalscwcr mains outside of public eight of way(includeMl.water vcraiccs and hydrants). Sewcrhwaicrcam uau varies depcndlrg an sewer depth.Sewer 420 fl deep require a 30 ft ca-%mcnft,2425 ft a 4U ft c m"nent,and 25-30 Ji a 45 ft casement- Ensure no pmronent-AnL&ures(trF bushee,wilding.auporK tra_;h romptacle walix,Cenem infiltration trencher:,light poles,etc.)arc hulk within the utility cavement_ Submii an execWed ca_w afar t(on the forni available from Public WorUy a legal du:cripiion prgnrcd by an Tdabo Iiccitwed Prof min onal Iand Surveyor,which must i ncludc the area of the cascmwl (mahad EXH I B F A)and an 8 J fit"a I I"reap with bearings suA diaisuees(marked EXHIBIT B) for review_Both exhihin mkLqi be sealed,signed and dated by a Prafed4enal band Smvcyee_DO N07 REMR]D. 4. The City oC Meridian requires that prexxurized i rrigatinn syntcros he suppl icd by a year-round -A"cc of wwcr(IJDC L L-313-6).71he appLicaru should he rcquircdto use any cxistifng yurfaacor well water for the primary vimire. Tf a surface ar wdL ruwuce is fiat avaLLahiC asiFtgjcIXoifut connection lathe ckdinary wwersystera shall he required.If singLo-point conneetUm is ulilLmd, the developer will he rcypram- le far the paymcnt ofays.s r is far the caraff u areas prier to prior to receiving dcvclapmcnt plan apprewaL 5. Any sirtrlums that are allrwrod to remain shrill.he auhjeeito evaluation and pissiblc r aU1gnrncni of sweet addreskang to he in a mpLianec with MCC. G. All ird"ian ditchcx.canals,laterals,ordraim,cxdusivc-of natural waicrway�intcrsafiing, crossing or laying adj accart and eooi.igwcrus to the area heing subdi vidod shall.he addreimed pa TTbC l I-3A#ti In perforrni ng:weh work,&a appLic=xhall comply with Idaho Cade 42-1207 and any other applicable law err regulatiorL 7. Any wdLs that will.not cnNinue to be used must be properly ahandmcd according to Idaho WeLL Ccm.4mdion Standards Rulcs admi nisicred by the Idaho Departmcni of Water Ruwouram The J3cvclolxr's rngiucer�aLL proYidc astatomcinaddrerx�ing wbethtt there arc any ewisung wclLs in the dcvclnpmcrct,and Lfse,how they wLLI continue to he used,or provide reeaxd of their abandonrncnL R. Any cxLRUag Rq*c system~within this project shall he rmoycd from service F"C'rty{7r1inanar Seeiion 4-L-4 and9 4 R_ CorctactCrntral DLsirict]3ealth fix abandonment proeedrursand inspcetmam(208)37--5211_ 9. All imprcwcrnentc rdated to public Life,aafcty and hcalth d uLl he completed prinrto oearpancy of the 4ngtares. 10. Applicant shall be roquired to pay Publie Wcwb&%.cicgmmrrt plan review,and eonshtrciien inslwciian Fecm,asdelermincddwingthe pLan review prouyr,priorw 9se issuanoeofa plan approval letter- Ill. It shall he the responsibility of the appLie"to ensure that all dcvcLopnxnt features compLy with the Arncrieans with Diaahilitin Act and the Fair Hmuw ng Act. 12. AppLicant shall be nespon_ciNc for application wJ oornpl iarxe with any Section 41N Permitting that Fray he roquirid by the Arnr}Corpsof FjLgjne 13. Dcvcloper shall crwudinme Fnailhox Locatim%with the Meridian Post(Hrim. 14. Caupaclion test rcsuLts~hall be suhmitied to the Meridian BuiLdl ng Depautnwni for all bui Iding pads fewiuingengjnceredbackfFLl,where footing would sit atop FiLl material_ City of Meridian Department Report III. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 259 15. The deM p enginoer:shall he required t0 certify drat the strut centurlinc cJcvauow arc sct a minimum of 3-fecl ahma the highest etitahlishad peak grmrwtwaicrcicuation. This is I6 ensure that the hcaarn elevationofthe crawl spaces of horncs is at Least l-foot abow- I& The applimeantu design cnginear shell he rmpoasihla for inmpedion of al.L irrigation arxViar drainage facility within this payees that do not fall.under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or AC.WF)_The design engineer shall pri vide certification that Ibc fwjhtics have been insraLlod in acconiwNx withthe approved,design plank This maification will be rcquircd befcwc a oertifreatC of occupancy is issual for any stntawiy,within Oic Fina oct 17. At the completion of the preyecC the applicant shall.he mFwwLsihlc to Fmhmit rcoord drawings per the City of Meridian AutnCAD standards- 7bew nemcd drawing mum be r=lvai and approved prior to the iwwnoa ofa eartification cnf nocupaney f w any smeftiru with in the penjxt 18. A suca I ight plan will nocd to Inc inelud3d in the civil consu=tion plans_Stmx Light plan requirarMnls are Iistad in saet m 6-5 ofthe Impmvcment%ULDC aids for Streit 1_12hting.A crquy of Ohe sianderds mn be fatwd a!http:r7uvrw.rncridianeLty.crrg+publiti_wcwlrs.mpx?id-272_ 19. The City of Meridian requires that the owner past to the City a perfarmanee marry in the anuaL u of 125%cf tho total czirtsui kern skit for all.inwmpLae sewer,water and reuse i.nfra_evuchue prior to final plat signamm-This surety will he verified by a Line item cost esLimuz provided by the owner is the City.The surety can be p4*"in the farm ofan irFevocable Lewf of credit,cash dcpnsit at bond_AppLicartt roust file an appLickan frrr surety,which can be frwid Lon the Community Dcvelopmer t DeparW nt wcbsite. Picric erwrtack I-and f}eatlnprreait Service fix miwre Lnfixmation at 887-22L L. W. The City of Mesidian rcquims chat the owner post in the City a warranty surety in the amrwiniof 20%of the Ic"L fi{KL9nrCtiori cost for all.oompk%ed mwa,water and mm:c infiragr+ct rc far duration oftwo yrars.This surety wil.l.be vaified by a line item aku cdlinvW prrn idad by the owner lit the City.Ths surety can ho Fnujid in the form-afar irrcvomW Ldtar of creaks,cash dcpnsit err bond_AppLieant must file an appLieatirwi frrr surcry,which can be found nit the Community Dcvelopmcnt Departnxru wchsite. Picric erwrtaet I-and Deatlnprr mt Service fix maw infcwmation at 897-22L L. IV. 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 meets all dimensional and development regulations of the recommended L-O zoning district. 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan and in accord with the requirements of this title. Staff finds the proposed office 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. Staff finds 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. However, staff recommends that the applicant enhance landscaping between the buildings and along the eastern buffer to align with the neighboring properties to the south. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. Findings 260 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. IV. 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 City of Meridian I Department Report IV. Action 261 ' 1 � _ _ � _ _�_ FA•IRYIEW - - - .. ; _ O • --- ' -WM .-. .. PINE y V w _ {. -- - M. .FRANKLIN � 44 84 ,OVERLAND- .E maim : -FAIRVIEW '511", L - PINE H • V Illl 11�� J F�RA_NKtI�N -0 son ' - s on.IIisign � r r.•r.b...P L�VJ emu. OEM �± W $4 1 J ' Q up m RI■ W i0 : OVERLAND Y�fBf _1:::. _ • I�SIa t 3. Future Land Use FAIRUIEW _Legend MM r6al Project Location Highr - -sidential Area of Impact 'I 0 AnalysisQ W Medium Density ene al ,VInIIR —1-Indu trial Low W FRANKL-IN Density .. Residential us Offic Q.�'1�1111� mu- =�J g Planned Development . r Legend ,rr� rrFAIRVI'EW 'tion 'P"Area of Impact •I --�--■rV ��lf.l n..uy 111.1111111� City Limits Planned Parcels 0 Analysis 7-7 .��.■ �is wJ�,,.,,; ��;�1 _ _sir.l.... �u.-nnrru..��i.lu�:inilll 11111111111� -PINE II`-;•IIIIiI pHl,}..rturin./lal II1�I��IIIP is � �FRAN�KL-INN ' N � V - Ei �� OVERLAND DepartmentCity of Meridian Report Exhibits B. Service Accessibility Report Description r � Location In City Limits GREEN Extension Sewer Trunkshed mains < 500 ft.from parcel GREEN Floodplain Either not within the 140 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 Within 1/4 mile of current transit route GREEN 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 DrivaElity Middle or Elementary School within 1 mile driving GREEN (existing or future) Park Walkability No park within walking distance by park type RED City of Meridian I Department Report V. Exhibits 264 C. Site Plan (date: 5/17/2024) ME DATA '.� � L AD •.awe=.tee I I I ry/ I CWHER DATA 1 fi ��;� Mercury Eco Alternating .o a _ n V W � n 2 6 0 n wvn �rn e�147.0 City of Meridian Department Report V. Exhibits 265 D. Landscape Plan (date: 9/19/2024) '43' Pi `33 52 S 99 34 43" w 1 h" S 87394 w t5-,'Q3 lIIIFI � �+ �klkFll7 d� ¢ UVf:RALL �[ltil"APF I.LD City of Meridian Department Report V. Exhibits F266] E. Building Elevations (date: 4/17/2023) n n F- e' 07 U a 71 �n �g o o� � o op � YPm City of Meridian Department Report V. Exhibits 267 E IDIAN;--- Applicant Presentation Touchmark Offices October 17, 2024City of Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission April 27, 2006April 18, 2024 Building ABuilding B Revised Landscape Plan submitted to staff Oct. 15, 2024 Original Conditional Use Permit application was a condition of the platting process for variances or waivers to the requires under this zoning.We are not asking for any uses not allowed in the limited office zone, any Touchmark Center Subdivision No. 1. Request modification of the conditions of approval to remove of the following condition:14, 2024.landscape plan submitted to staff on October 15, 2024 dated October exclusion of Condition III., A., 2., and approval of the revised 0046 for the Touchmark Offices with the -2024-0045 and H-2024-Respectfully request approval of conditional use permit application H 9, and Comprehensive Plan.-3B-11shrubs in compliance with the Architectural Standards Manual, UDC revised to incorporate vegetation coverage in the form of trees and The eastern landscape buffer and area between the buildings shall be -with the certificate of zoning compliance application as follows:2. The site plan and/or landscape plan, as applicable, shall be revised A. Meridian Planning DivisionIII. City/Agency Comments & Conditions Staff Report: Thank you. w IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for McDonalds at Firenze Plaza (H-2024-0044) by Kimley Horn, located at 3058 Amity Rd Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2024-0044 A. Request: Conditional Use Permit to construct and operate a 4,507 sq. ft. drive-through establishment and restaurant in the C-C zoning district. 2611 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : October 17v 2024 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 11 PROJECT NAME : McDonalds at Firenza Plaza ( W2024 - 0044 ) 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 L tArPN. v� 2 I AVII o `1 4 6 v 7 Y 1 SC7, 9 10 11 12 13 14 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C�WE IDIADEPARTMENT REPORT40 i"o HEARING 10/17/2024 Legend _.. DATE: Project Location TO: Planning&Zoning Commission :::area of impact a - __-` ; a= City Limits ; FROM: Nick Napoli, Associate Planner O Analysis 208-884-5533 ` nnapoli@meridiancity.org '_ J APPLICANT: Connor Candrian SUBJECT: H-2024-0044 - - }24 McDonalds at Firenze Plaza LOCATION: Located at 3058 E.Amity Road, in the North 1/2 of Section 3 T.IN R.29E. 51 (Parcel#R2833250020) � A I. PROJECT OVERVIEW A. Summary Conditional Use Permit to construct and operate a 4,507 square foot restaurant with accessory drive-through in the C-C zoning district,by Kimley Horn. Note: A restaurant is a permitted use. The conditional use permit is required because the prosed drive-through is within 300 feet of another drive-through. B. Issues/Waivers This application has received a significant amount of public testimony in opposition of the proj ect. C. Recommendation Staff:Approval with Conditions D. Decision Select: Pending. City of Meridian I Department Report 1. Project Overview 269 IL COMMUNITY METRICS Table 1: Land Use Description Details Map Ref. Existing Land Use(s) Vacant Land - Proposed Land Use(s) Restaurant w/drive-through - Existing/Proposed Zoning C-C V.A.2 Future Land Use Designation Mixed-use Community(MU-C) V.A.3 Table 2: Process Facts Description Details Preapplication Meeting date 4/30/2024 Neighborhood Meeting 8/8/2024 Site posting date 10/5/2024 Table 3: Community Metrics Agency/Element Description/Issue Reference Ada County Highway District III.0 • Comments Received Yes - • Commission Action Required No - • Access Private Drive Aisle via S.Cubola Ave(Local Street) - ITD Comments Received No - Meridian Public Works Wastewater III.B • Distance to Mainline Available at site • Impacts or Concerns No Meridian Public Works Water III.B • Distance to Mainline Available at site • Impacts or Concerns No Note: See section III. City/Agency Comments &Conditions for comments received or see the public record: (Public record link). City of Meridian I Department Report 11. Community Metrics 270 III. STAFF ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code (UDC) A. General Overview This property is designated as Mixed-use Community(MU-C)on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The use of a drive through restaurant is consistent with the comprehensive plan for the MU-C designation. The subject site is among several commercially zoned properties surrounding the intersection of S. Eagle Road and E. Amity Road. The proposed use of a restaurant with a drive-through aligns with the desired uses specified within the Mixed-use Community designation in the Comprehensive Plan, as noted above. In conjunction with the already approved development directly to the north and west,the proposed use satisfies the general Mixed-Use Community future land use designation for this area. In 2016, the development agreement approved with the annexation of the property showed a drive through on this site. Table 4: Pro aect Overview Description Details History AZ,CPAM,PP(H-2016-0102);DA Instr.#2017-041827;FP(2019-0067); ALT(A-2022-0086) Physical Features Tenmile Feeder Canal Acreage 0.98 of an acre B. Site Development and Use Analysis I. Proposed Use Analysis (UDC 11-2): The proposed use of a restaurant and drive-through establishment aligns well with the Mixed- Use Community(MU-C)future land use designation,which supports a blend of residential, commercial, and recreational uses. By offering service options within proximity to both residential areas and existing commercial developments,this project contributes to the community's overall livability and sustainability. Specifically, it adheres to Policy 3.06.02B, which encourages and supports mixed-use areas that provide the benefits of living, shopping, dining, and working nearby,thereby reducing vehicle trips. Additionally,the proposal is consistent with Policy 3.07.02B,which recommends locating smaller-scale,neighborhood- serving commercial uses in clusters that complement and provide convenient access to nearby residential areas,while minimizing direct access to major roadways. The establishment's location adjacent to E.Amity Road within the Firenze Plaza Subdivision enhances its accessibility and supports the local commercial landscape, fulfilling the need for such amenities in the immediate and broader community. 2. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): Development of the site hall comply with the dimensional standards of the C-C zoning district in UDC Table 11-2B-3. Staff has reviewed the proposed plans and building elevations and they comply with the required standards. The proposed hours of operation are S:00 am to 12:00 am which is in compliance with the C-C zoning district. Since the property does not directly abut a residential district(intersected by S. Cubola Ave) the hours are not restricted. 3. Specific Use Standards (UDC 11-4-3): Drive-Through Establishment UDC 11-4-3-11 and Restaurant UDC 11-4-3-49: The proposed drive-through establishment is subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-11,Drive-Through Establishment. All establishments providing drive-through City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 271 service are required to identify the stacking lane, menu, and speaker location(if applicable), and window location on the site plan. The site plan is also required to demonstrate safe pedestrian and vehicular access and circulation on the site and between adjacent properties. At a minimum, the plan is required to demonstrate compliance with the following standards: Staff recommends signage be installed ahead of the eastern crossing warning drivers to watch out for pedestrians. 1) Stacking lanes have sufficient capacity to prevent obstruction of driveways, drive aisles, and the public right-of-way by patrons; The proposed restaurant features two drive-through lanes that merge into one with space to queue a total of 16 vehicles along with an escape lane located on the south side of the site, outside of the drive-through lane. The drive-through itself starts at the west side of the building and exits at the east side. The concept plan also shows that the stacking lane is separate from the drive aisles and parking, which allows for easy access to the rest of the development. Staff recommends that the Applicant install additional signage and parking lot striping to clearly mark and guide traffic safely throughout the site. Staff has some concerns about peak hour stacking as it may back out into the private drive aisle during hours that may impact neighboring businesses. However, Staff has worked with the applicant to look at data from McDonald's drive-throughs during peak hours and it has alleviated some of staff concerns. The applicant provided data discussing peak hour traffic for a McDonalds in Meridian as well as explaining that 100 feet between the order kiosk and pick up window is the most efficient layout for McDonalds. If needed, McDonalds will direct patrons to park in parking stalls to prevent stacking from extending beyond the means of their site. 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. The stacking lanes are separate lanes from the circulation lanes needed for access and parking. However, the applicant is proposing to use the escape lane as a one-way drive aisle for egress from the site. While this is not the intent of the escape lane, staff finds it to be adequate for site circulation. 3) The stacking lane shall not be located within ten(10) feet of any residential district or existing residence; The stacking lane is not located within 10'of any residential district or residence. 4)Any stacking lane greater than one hundred(100)feet in length shall provide for an escape lane; and The stacking lane exceeds 100'in length and an escape lane is required. An escape lane is proposed on the south side of the building(see site plan). However, the applicant is proposing to use the escape lane as a one-way drive aisle for egress from the site. While this is not the intent of the escape lane, staff finds it to be adequate for site circulation. 5) The site should be designed so that the drive-through is visible from a public street for surveillance purposes. The drive-through is located starting on the west side of the building and ending on the east side of the building. The drive-through is visible from E.Amity Road along the south side of the building for surveillance purposes. Based on the above analysis, Staff deems the proposed drive-through complies with the specific use standards as required. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 272 Restaurant: The proposed use is also subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11- 4-3-49 Restaurant,which requires at a minimum, one(1)parking space to be provided for every 250 square feet of gross floor area(see parking analysis below). The applicant is proposing 21 parking stalls exceeding the 18 that are required. C. Design Standards Analysis 1. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): i. Landscape buffers along streets A 25-foot wide street buffer is required along E. Amity Road and a 10-foot wide street buffer is required along S. Cubola Avenue, an arterial and a local road. These buffers shall be landscaped per the standards in UDC 11-3B-7C. The proposed landscaping was installed with the final plat for Firenze Plaza. The combination of the existing and proposed landscaping exceeds the minimum requirements. ii. Parking lot landscaping Landscaping is required to be provided along all parking areas per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8. The proposed landscape plan does not meet the minimum requirements. The landscape plan should be revised to include a tree in every planter island, if this is not feasible due to utility easements, alternative compliance shall be applied for with the certificate of zoning compliance submittal. Additionally, the pathway along the east portion of the building extending north shall be landscaped 3 feet on the west side and 5 feet of the east side. iii. Landscape buffers to adjoining uses Landscaping is required to meet the standards of UDC 11-3B-9. The landscape plan meets the minimum requirements. iv. Storm integration Storm drainage is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-18. Drainage swales should not be within the landscape setbacks along E.Amity Road. 2. Parking (UDC 11-3C): i. Nonresidential parking analysis A minimum of one(1) off-street parking space is required per 250 square feet(s.f.) of gross floor area. Based on the 4,507-square-foot restaurant, a minimum of 18 parking spaces are required.A total of 21 parking spaces are proposed, exceeding UDC standards. ii. Bicycle parking analysis A minimum of one(1)bicycle parking space must be provided for every 25 vehicle spaces or portion thereof per UDC 11-3C-6G;bicycle parking facilities are required to comply with the location and design standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C.Bicycle parking is depicted on the plans submitted with this application that meet the requirements. 3. Building Elevations (Comp Plan, Architectural Standards Manual): Goal 2.09.03A of the Comprehensive Plan highlights establishing distinct, engaging identities within commercial and mixed-use enters through design standards to integrate commercial, multifamily, and parking areas with existing neighborhoods. In response, the developer has submitted conceptual building elevations for the proposed structure as shown in Section VII.C. Building materials consist of EIFS stucco, standing seam metal panels,wood paneling, and glazing. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 273 Staff recommends the incorporation of additional fenestration, banding, or glazing on the South fagade as this is the primary facade that is visible from E. Amity Road. The architectural standards require an average of 40%fenestration on applicable facades in Mixed-Use Areas. Additionally, staff recommends the use of materials (brick, stone wainscot, etc)from the surrounding development as required in the development agreement. The proposed conceptual elevations are not approved. The final design is required to comply with the Architectural Standards Manual for Commercial Design Guidelines and shall integrate with the surrounding development. D. Transportation Analysis 1. Access (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-3, UDC 11-3H-4): Goal 6.01.02B emphasizes reducing the number of access points onto arterial streets by utilizing strategies such as cross-access agreements, access management, and the creation of frontage and backage roads,while also improving connectivity between local and collector streets. The site plan features two access points via a private drive aisle located on the northern part of the site(backage road). This drive aisle connects to E. Cubola Avenue(a local street)on the western side of the property. Vehicles will enter from the north,with options to either park in the lot north or west of the building or continue south to the 12-foot drive-through lane and pick-up window, exiting back onto the northern drive aisle. An escape lane on the south side merges into the exit drive aisle to the east. Direct access from E. Amity Road is not permitted. The Applicant is required to submit a copy of the recorded cross- access/ingress-egress easement for the adjacent property to the east(parcel#R2833250040) to the Planning Division along with the future CZC and Design Review Application, in accordance with UDC 11-3A-3A2. 2. Multiuse Pathways (UDC 11-3A-5): An existing multi-use pathway exist along E.Amity Road, this shall be preserved and protected during construction. 3. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): The proposed plan includes a pedestrian walkway from the main walkway on the east side of the building connecting to the store front across the drive-through lanes. Where pedestrian walkways cross vehicular driving surfaces,they're required to 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.4. The site/landscape plan shall be revised to reflect compliance with this standard. The connection through the drive aisle shall be delineated from the driving surface through pavers, colored or scored concrete. E. Services Analysis 1. Waterways (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-6): The Ten-mile Feeder Canal has been piped and runs along the southern boundary of the site. No additional improvements are required with this application. 2. Pressurized Irrigation (UDC 11-3A-15): Underground pressurized irrigation water is required to be provided as set forth in UDC I I- 3A-15. 3. Storm Drainage (UDC 11-3A-18): Storm drainage is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-18. Drainage swales shall not be within the street landscape buffer along E. Amity Road. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 274 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. III. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Meridian Planning Division 1. Future development of this site shall comply with the previous conditions of approval and terms of AZ, CPAM,PP(H-2016-0102); DA Instr. #2017-041827; FP (2019-0067); ALT(A- 2022-0086); and the conditions contained herein. 2. The site plan and/or landscape plan, as applicable, shall be revised with the certificate of zoning compliance application as follows: i. Provide a tree in the planter island to the east of the trash enclosure or apply for alternative compliance with the submittal of the certificate of zoning compliance and design review. ii. Provide 3 feet of landscaping on the west side and 5 feet on the east side of the pathway on the east side of the building to match the landscaping within the development. iii. Pave the drive aisle to the east that the escape lane exits onto that is owned by Albertsons (Parcel #R2833250040). iv. Delineate the pedestrian connection through the drive aisle with the use of pavers or stamped and colored concrete. v. 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. vi. Signage shall be installed ahead of the eastern crossing warning drivers to watch out for pedestrians. 3. Compliance with the standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-49 and 11-4-3-11 is required. 4. The building elevations shall be revised to incorporate additional fenestration, banding, or glazing on the South fagade to meet the 40%fenestration requirement in the architectural standards manual.Additionally, the use of materials (brick, stone wainscot, etc.)from the surrounding development shall be incorporated into the design to provide consistency with the surrounding buildings. 5. Preserve and protect the existing landscaping on the south and west buffers of the site during construction,per UDC 11-3B-10. 6. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application shall be submitted and approved for the proposed use prior to submittal of a building permit application. The design of the site and structure shall comply with the standards listed in UDC I1-3A-19;the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual and with the Development Agreement. 7. 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 as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6F. City of Meridian I Department Report III. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 275 B. Meridian Public Works PRE-PLAT CONDITIONS Wastewater + Distance to Sewer Sewer Available at site Services • Sewer Shed ■ Estimated Projeet See application Sewer ERLI s + WRRF Dedining Balan ce ■ Projed Consistent Yes with WW Master Plan/Facility Plan • Impacts/voncams • + See Public Works Site Specific Conditions Warber + Distarrre to Water Water Available at Site Services ■ Pressure Zane • Estimated Praject See application Water ERU's r Water Quality None + Project Consistent Yes with Water Master Plan + Impads/Concems None- NON-PLAT CONDITIONS PUBLIC ORK'.I)rrAjwrMF.N'1' site$pDdfiic uLkadiauoa urAWravA _ Carports aim]tattier pormmauuut structures(trees,bushes,buildin ,trash rwepUcle walls, 161mr.,iuiiltration trcnchUs,1i41,i lit}I ,etc_)Cd 111611w,built within the utility E seutent_ 2_ EtlsulL 110 Sewer sCrvirZ1.e:&DS1.ialiltraticii trcuCbCs_Sewer stnvice Iiws Ibrough u.ndcrground Houpage beds or swale;are not allowed uudLis approved by the City Euginecr_ 3_ Water services require a 20'easernent up to and l{V be)wd the meter nr as clams In I tr as possible. 4_ Remove a portion of water Laub so drere is nn nxwe than 3'past the waLorservicc onnnodian.C',ap dead end of stub. City of Meridian Department Report III. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 276 Crncral Cumrliiions ul Appruvul I_ Applicant shall rcwrdinatc waterand sewer main siyr and,routirng with aw Public Wfwks Department_ 2. Per Meridian City{odc(MC V),Lhe applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and th ough this developmmL Applicant may be eligible Fora reimbursement ap r=cnt for infrasmuoture cnhencemenl per M{_C',8-r5_ 3_ The appLkaru shall provide ca-w-ment(s)for all public waterlsewcr maims outside of public right of way(include all water mwvkrs and hydrants} tiewcdwauscasanrnt varier;dependingon sewer depth.Sewer 1-20 ft doW require a 30 f1 caeemcn4 20-25 fl a 40 fl casemcn4 and 2f-30 ft a 45 ft casement_ Ensure no permanr-nt structurem(t m s,husbr-v,building,carlxHts,trash mceplacle walls,fenrm,infiltration trcnrhes,light pol ,etc_)arc huilt within the utility cELwnwnt. Submit an executed casernem(cm the form available from Public Works),a IegaJ des nipuon prgsarcd by an Idaho-LiccnuA Frofe_ssimraJ LAM Su v)w,whidr must include the area of the euxmcttt (marked EA1 IIIJEI'A)and an 8112'x 11'nw with bearings anddistanccx(narked EXII IHIT li) for review.Hoth exhibits must be scaled,sippul and dated by a FraFcssional land Survcynr.DO glen'KBUX)RD- 4_ The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systerns be supplied by a year-round source ofwatox(t11X; I 1-311-6} The appliamt should be required to use any existing surface or well water far the primary souse. If a Nwfam ar wcJ l source is not available,a single-point cmucclion Ira the culinary water system shall be required. Ef a single-aoinl oonrtectiorL is ulilimd} the developer will be responsible for the payment oFaysessmwmts for the common areas prior to prior Ira rc=iving development plan approval_ 5_ Any strucwres that are allowed to ranain shall be subject to evaluation and p isibk rc&�LL;ilmmumt of stron addressing to be in cumplianrc with MCC;. 6_ All irrigation ditches,canals,laterals,or drains -axe Insive of natural waterways intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contippum to the area being subdivided shall he addra sed per UIX,' I l-3A-i_ In perfuming such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any other applicabJe law or regulation. 7. Any wcJJs that will nit amtinuc to be used muss be prtaperly ahandrmed according to Idaho Well Urm,.tnrcticm Standards Poles administered by the ldahn Dcpmtmrmt of Watcr Resources. The IX-velopeC6 hnginerr shaJ I provide a statement addrem-ing whether there are any cxi_yting wells in the dmmIopmcnL and if so,how they wi I I continue to be Lm4 or wide record of Urcir abandonment. X_ Any existing septic systems within this project shall he removed from service per OtyOrdinance 4cGtinn 9 1-4 and 7 4 M. Contact t'entral District health for abandnnrnenlproceduras and inspections(208)375-521 l_ 9_ All improvements related to public life,safety and health shad l be completed price to o uoparncy of the gnalurms_ Io. Applicant shall be mquiradto pay RuhJic Weirs development plan review,and constructi4m inspectian forma,as dctcrminedduring the plan review pirocxw,pore to do iL;uance oFa plan approval letter_ 1. It Anil he the ratiprrn:;ibilily of the applicant to ensure that all development featurm comply with the Anwricars with Uisahilitics Act and the Fair I lousing AcL 12. R.pplicant shall be respursible for application and omupliancc with any 4oction 44A Permitting that may be squired by the Army Corp of Enginctni_ 13. Developer shal l cocwdinatc mail box loration5 with dre Meridian Post Office. 14. Uompwtian Lest results shall lac submitted to the Meridian Huilding lXrmb,ent fear all building party re3=vmgcnitit1ecrcd hackfill,what:Fooling would sit atop fall material. City of Meridian Department Report III. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 277 15. The desipn cnpinea shall be required to certify out the street centerline elevations arc tics a minimum of 3-feet above the highcnt established peak grnundwaterelcvation. This is tocnsum that the bottom elevation of the crawl s}tiaccs of hn ncs is at least 1-fool above_ I6. The applirwu design cnpnccr shall be rc}tinnsible fix msp€ction of all irrippi ion and/or drainagc facility within this prtr cct that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation distract or ACC Ill_The da,.ipn cngirrocr shall provid-c coati ficatiron that Ilrc facilities have twvn installed in accardance with the approved design plains_Thia certilication will he required tm fore accrtilicate oFoccupancy iN issued for anyshudurra vrithin the project. 17. At thecminprletion ofthe project,the applicant sheJL be Te.vponsible to submit mrord drawing Tier the t sty of Mu-ridim Auto(Al)standards_ These ror43rd drawings must be rmcivud and ap pruvud prior to the issuance of adxrti6cation rrfnceupanuy forany structures within the prro mL. 18. A str ct Jight plan will Fmmd to be included in the civil construction plans.Strout light plan requirements arc listed in section 6-5 ofthe Improvemmnt Standards for Strect Lighliny,A copy orthe.AaFKhw s can be found at hup:fwww.mcndiancily.org/public wor6:s.aspx?id-272_ 19. The City of Meridian requiras that the owner post to the City a perfbrrnancc surety in the amotmt of 125%of the tcNaJ construction oodd for all imcemplete sewer,water and remm infrastrustmr prior lo,final plat sipmature.This surety will he verified by a Jinc item cost cstimatc provided by the owner to the t"Lty_The sttrety can be pos"in the Form ofan irm-w ahle letter of cmdiL Wash deposit or bsmd.Applitmnt mall file an applicatirm for surety,which can he Found on the Community DcN dnpment l3 pattmenl wcbcitc. Yleavc contact land Devetnpmtarl Service far more information at 80-2211. 20. The City of Meridian rcquires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount.ofi 2(r/o of the total comtruclidm cost for all completed sewer,wattw and rcwsc m Frmh uctire for duration oftwo yearv_This srrrety vMl he verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the{:ity_Tyre surety can be lwxsted in the form of an irrevocable letterofcredit,cash dgwait or bsmd.Aprplicant must file an application for surety,whid:h can he Found ran the Community Development UtTortmPmLwabsitc_ PJcase contact lend I)evclaprrrtarl Service for more information at 80-2211. City of Meridian Department Report III. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 27s C. Ada County Highway District(ACHD) ACHD AN21;,Mckpring.Pr441d4n# miran4a GQ10.%Ice-Progl0@rt Jim I#ansm G;5rWe 7idi*r K~C4Uthorpe:Ci5 mSiWi r —i& Guw McAinney,Gommimi er September 3. 2024 To: Connor Candrian,via email Kimley-Hum 1100 W. Idaho Street,Suite 210 Boise, ID 83702 subject: MER24-00891 H-2024-CO44 305$ E_Amity Road McDonald's located within Firenze Plaza The Ada County Highway district (ACHD) has reviewed the submitted application for IJ}e application referenced above and has determined that Mars are no improvements required to the adjaQent strvet(s}. The applicant shall be requlred to: 1. Pay a traffic impact fee,if applicable. rarany questions regarding the traffic impactfee please contact AGHD-s Impact Fes Administrator at imaactFeegQachdidaho_org_ 2. ll applicable,a traffic impacl fee shall be assessed by ACHD and will be due prior to the issuance of a building permit by the lead agency. This is a separate review puXe s, and it is the applicartCs responsibility to subrnit plans directly to ACHD, 3. Payment can be accepted aver the phone by calling (208)387-6170 or can be sent!delivered tc the following address: Ada County Highway District Attn: development Services 1301 N Orchard St,Suite 200 Boise, 10 83706 + Reference the file number above when making the payment_ ■ Please note: o Foes are subject to change if not pall prior to October V o All card paymerrts are subject to a 3%processing fee a All a-check payments are subject to a$1.50 processing fee 4. Submit a driveway approach request for any proposed driveways. Driveway approach permits can be found at: https:)Iwww.achdida ho.orglhomeJ5howpu bl isheddoru menO8M38245965711600000 5. Comply with iall ACHD PoliOeF,and ACHD Standard Conditions of Approval for any improvements or work in the right-of-way, 6. Obtain a permit for any work in the right-of-way prior to the construction,repair,or installation of any roadway improvements(curbr gutter, sidewalk, pavement widening,driveways,culverts,etc_)_ City of Meridian Department Report III. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 279 Standard Conditions of Approval 1, All proposed irrigation facllldes shall be located outside of the ACHD right-of-way (including all easements). Any existing irrigation facilities shall be relocated outside of the ACHD right-of-way (including all easements). 2, Private UGlitles including sewer or water systems are prohibited from being located wlthln the ACHD right-of-way. 3. In accordance with district policy, 7203.3,the applicant may be required to update any existing non<*rnpliant pedestrian improvements abutting the site to meet current Public Right-of-way Accesslbilily Guidelines (PROWAG) requirements, The applicani's engineer should provide documentation of compliance to District Develooment Review staff For review. 4. Replace any existing damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk and any that may be damaged during the construction of the proposed development_ Contact Construction Services at 208-387-ti280 (wilh file number)for details. 5. A license agreement and compliance with the District's Tree Planter policy is required for all landscaping proposed within ACHD right-of-way or easement areas_ 6, All utility relocation costs associated with Improving street fronlages abutling the site shall be bome by the developeF_ 7. It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right-of-way_ The applicant at no cost to AC HD shal I reps iF existing utilities damaged by the applica nt. The applicant shall be required to call DIGLINE (1-011-342-1585) al least two Full business days prior to breaking ground wlthln ACHD right-of-way, The applicant shall contact ACHD Traffic Operetlons 387-6190 in the event any ACHD conduits(spare or filled)are compromised during any phase of construction. a. Utility street cuts in pavement lass than Five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing by the District. Contact the District's Utlllty Coordinator at 208-387-6258(with file numbers) for details. 9. All design and construction shall be in accordance with 1he ACHa Policy Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construclion Services procedures and all applicable ACHD Standards unless specifically waived herein. An engineer registered In the State of Idaho Shall prepare and certify all improvement plaris, 10_ Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable requirements of ACHD prior to District approval for occupancy_ 11. No change in the terms and oonditians of this approval shall be valid unless they are in writing and signed by the applicant or the applicant's authorized representative and an authorized representative of ACHa. The burden shall be upon the applicant to obtain written confirmation of any change from AQHD. 12. If the site plan or use should change in the future,ACHD Planning Review will review the site plan and may require additional improvements to the transportation system at that time. Any change in the planned use of the property which is the subject of this application, shall require the applicant to comply with ACHD Policy end Standard Coriftons of Approval in place at dial time unless a waiverfvariance of the requirements or other legal relief is granted by the ACHD Commission, IV. 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. Staff finds the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meets all dimensional and development regulations of the recommended C-C zoning district. City of Meridian I Department Report 1V. Findings 280 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 restaurant and drive through 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. IV. ACTION City of Meridian I Department Report IV. Action 281 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 W. and Findings in V. B. Commission: Pending City of Meridian I Department Report IV. Action 282 ' 1 1 •. IN .. • - - VICTORY t 9� W - AMITY �'`�� 1-- . ■ 04 74 11 :.1111 - - �� m� ��� P♦♦N�i� .. nil _ . . .. � NICTORY IMF ■111111 r w 119 y� • anmm�, y)•�.. y� 1 C ,u'■Idi�� 11 ...■ �uum■■: �!!■ W .��y�11 e:.l r..li.r...■: ■ ■■� AR�iiau■ 1r��fyto::ii ff�r1ff �1�1111111' Sg�"•••'i � �Ln... _�!!.■�I!■11 ♦.f R'LIIR 1111111��f ,�`,�iiiiiexn■ ml i r�w w w•m q:. ,���7!■ :�lq� � ��51.11111' � :::�:1�1_ Q• ,w ii' ur f Ills �4 - n.,. 1�1 ♦ I i C � �, 'fin :•IIIIIIH • 'Illlli 1)j _ 1 1 1 �I � •` �: �� .\I\�u\: `ill1111 "I`w Illilll g'r. nu■nu.li.;` Inn �■I Illrlm •1111111 ill iifllllli■ i liii■u� w mires - �, � 1�IIIL �11•r_ _ _ ■111■tl �� 11 ■■ 11;11 ��-: -111 r ■ YAKITY • _ L No , �IIIOAII � 111111111�� 1111111.11■111 nil S II,IIF �f� !` f �i!■ • ,nn, _ "1/ a�nurs +. ■■:".:�_ nnu 1 � •Iy u`u+� it _h2 s n m u 3. Future Land Use Legend ® T� Project Location IF ,. I Area of Impact e OAnalysis = --I Civic Low Density Residential tt Medium ® LL Density n Residential �� ® lam.PIT MU-C MU NI 4. Planned Development Map Legend T a Project Location .;:Area of Impact ` \' T='. City Limits rf — Planned Parcels - �'• OAnalysis - -- - A a i j - - City of Meridian Department Report V. Exhibits 284 B. Subject Site Photos r r City of Meridian Department Report V. Exhibits 285 C. Service Accessibility Report FOyerall Score: 35 164th Percentile Location in City Limits GREEN Extension Sewer Trunkshed mains < 500 ft.from par€el GREEN Flood Plain Either not within the 100 yrfloodplain or 5� 2 a€r-=} 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 From 1/2 to 1 mile walking YE__rDV Eithera High School or College within 2 miles OR a � School Drivability Middle or Elementary School within 1 mile driving GREEN (existing or future) Eithera Regional Park within 1 mile OR a-Communit.- Part€Walkability Park within 1/2 mile OR a Neighborhood Park within GREEN 1/4 mile walking City of Meridian I Department Report V. Exhibits 286 D. Site Plan (date: 7/15/2024) -W 41 I ri 1 171 - lifl EXHt'BFF City of Meridian Department Report V. Exhibits 287 87] E. Landscape Plan (date: 8/19/2024) 9 I�I 0- IFFT 1 �` r '•y'• -r•"f'�..r '... 77... r:•�. ems 2 Cif GM - we�eY•••• a � � � 3 e'7ma ® - LI-Oo City of Meridian Department Report V. Exhibits 288 F. Building Elevations (date: 6/28/2024) L a—ram---JB Q.m �M M-7 AM Q fi ter. any $f9P 14 — I FiJ N s '�. Q01 HIM 6 Ei-j k1i O � i rt 7L---- __- --- , M it �'. Tit k ,l�! ��i 'Tlr� r �.,..�.... a..r..� , , • e Kalil City of Meridian Department Report V. Exhibits 289 E IDIAN;--- Applicant Presentation McDonalds October 17, 2024 CUP- Applicant Team Boise, IdahoHorn-Kimley CONNOR CANDRIAN, PE Walnut Creek, CaliforniaDevelopment CompanyBrowman ZUZACKAARON Master Plan & Firenze PlazaApproval for Original CUP Approved 0067)-2019-(HApproved July 2019 0102) -2016-February 2017 (H Preliminary Plat Approved Drive Thru Building5,000 SF Fast Food Lot 1 –Block 1 0067)-2019-(HApproved July 2019 Preliminary Plat Approved October 2022 Final Plat APR 2024 McDonaldsTimeline–OCT 2024SubmittedApplication –AUG 2024MeetingNeighborhood –AUG 2024 MeetingApp -Pre– Vicinity Map AMITY ROADEAGLE ROADSITE 3058 E Amity Road CUBOLA AVENUEAMITY ROAD SubdivisionFirenze Plaza SITEEAGLE ROAD Future Land Use Map AMITY ROADEAGLE ROADSITE Zoning Map AMITY ROADEAGLE ROADSITE Site Plan Parking Provided(1 bicycle rack)21 spaces Parking Required(1 bicycle space)18 spaces plat for Firenze PlazaAvenue installed with final CubolaAmity Road and Landscape buffers along •pass lane-By•-2 drive•way-One 1•way -Two 2•3 entrance drives•story building-4,507 sf one• Distances to existing residential 775’540’1130’800’675’275’SITE Conceptual Elevations Compliance with CUP Criteria or historic feature of major importanceNo destruction, loss or damage of natural, scenic, •or odorsNot detrimental because of excessive traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, •No excessive additional costs for public facilities and services•Essential public facilities and services•No adverse effect on other property•Compatible with the general neighborhood•City CodeHarmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in accord with •regulationsSite is large enough; meets all dimensional and development • Staff Report Conditions We agree to comply with all staff conditions• Requested Action Approval of the Conditional Use Permit • Traffic Impact Study ITE Land AM PeakPM Peak Daily Land Use TypeUse QuantityUnits Total InOutTotalInOutTotal Code Original Trip Generation Fast-Food Restaurant with Drive-Through9345,000Sq. Ft.23371141062238679165 Updated Trip Generation Fast-Food Restaurant with Drive-Through9344,507Sq. Ft.2108103982237772149 Net Difference in Trips -229-11-80-9-7-16 Anticipated DriveThrough Stack- Albertson’s Approval Conditions of Approval Compliance with Condition (Site) Community Impact Community Impact Trauma Intervention Programs of Treasure Valley-workers during the PandemicFree Meals for First Responders/Healthcare -Shop with a Cop-Dr./Dentist Offices--Donations to Non-United Way-Boys & Girls Club-SignageHigh School Gymnasium and Football Field -High School Graduating Seniors -Elementary School Carnivals-Elementary Schools Monthly “Academic Achievement” Awards to -NightsMcTeacher-Schools-Company SupportersIdaho Food Bank--First Tee of Idaho-Wish-A-Make-The Cabin-Family Advocates-Boise Rescue Mission--Interfaith Sanctuary-Idaho Voices for Children---Owner/Operators of the Treasure Valley