Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-03-06 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Thursday, March 06, 2025 at 6:00 PM MINUTES ROLL CALL ATTENDANCE PRESENT ABSENT Commissioner Matthew Sandoval Commissioner Brian Garrett Commissioner Jared Smith Commissioner Patrick Grace Chairperson Maria Lorcher Commissioner Sam Rust ADOPTION OF AGENDA Adopted CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\] Approved Motion to approve made by Commissioner Smith, Seconded by Commissioner Rust. Voting Yea: Commissioner Sandoval, Commissioner Smith, Chairperson Lorcher, Commissioner Rust 1. Approve Minutes of the February 20, 2025 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 2. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Hyperbaric Oxygen Clinic of Idaho by JGT Architecture, located at 135 S. Touchmark Way ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\] ACTION ITEMS 3. Public Hearing for Latitude Forty Three Subdivision (H-2024-0059) by Rodney Evans + Partners, LLC., located at 675, 715 and 955 S. Wells St. Continued April 3, 2025 A. Request: Annexation of 17.27 acres of land with R-8 (13.78 acres), R-15 (2.42 acres) and C-N (1.07 acres) zoning districts. B. Request: Preliminary Plat to re-subdivide lots 7, 21 and 22, Magic View Subdivision, Amended into 81 residential lots, 1 commercial lot and 12 common/other lots on 15.97 acres of land in the R-8, R-15 and C-N zoning districts with some Private Streets. Motion to Continue to April 3rd, 2025 made by Commissioner Smith, Seconded by Commissioner Rust. Voting Yea: Commissioner Sandoval, Commissioner Smith, Chairperson Lorcher, Commissioner Rust 4. Public Hearing for Pollard North Subdivision (H-2024-0037) by Brighton Corporation, generally located approximately 1/4 mile north of W.Chinden Blvd. at the north end of N. Levi Ave. on the north side of W. Waverton Dr. Recommend Approval A. Request: Modified Development Agreement to the existing Development Agreement (Inst. #2019-060655) for a new agreement for the residential portion of the development with an updated development plan B. Request: Rezone of 14.90 acres of land from the R-8 to the R-15 zoning district. C. Request: Preliminary Plat for 157 building lots and 32 common lots on 19.76 acres of land in the R-8 and R-15 zoning districts Motion to recommend approval made by Chairperson Lorcher, Seconded by Commissioner Smith. Voting Yea: Commissioner Sandoval, Commissioner Smith, Chairperson Lorcher, Commissioner Rust ADJOURNMENT 7:03 PM Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting March 6, 2025. Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of March 6, 2025, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Maria Lorcher. Members Present: Commissioner Maria Lorcher, Commissioner Jared Smith, Commissioner Matthew Sandoval and Commissioner Sam Rust. Members Absent: Commission Brian Garrett and Commissioner Patrick Grace Others Present: Tina Lomeli, Kurt Starman, Sonya Allen and Dean Willis. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE Brian Garrett X (vacant) _X Matthew Sandoval Patrick Grace _X Sam Rust X Jared Smith X Maria Lorcher - Chairman Lorcher: Good evening. Welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for March 6, 2025. At this time I will call the meeting to order. The Commissioners who are present for this evening's meeting are at City Hall and on Zoom. We also have staff from the City Attorney and the City Clerk's Office, as well as the city's 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 public testimony portion of the meeting you will be unmuted and, then, be able to comment. Please note that we cannot take questions until the public testimony portion. If you have a process question during the meeting please e-mail cityclerk@meridiancity.org and they will reply as quickly as possible. If you simply want to watch the meeting we encourage you to watch this 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: The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. Please note that Item 3, Latitude 43 Subdivision, will be opened for the sole purpose of continuance. So, if there is anyone here tonight to testify on this application we are not taking public testimony on this evening. Could I get a motion to adopt tonight's agenda? Smith: So moved. Rust: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and second to adopt the agenda. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Oh, sorry. Too fast. Any opposed? Motion carries. F Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 6,2024 Page 2 of 19 MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] 1. Approve Minutes of the February 20, 2025 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 2. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Hyperbaric Oxygen Clinic of Idaho by JGT Architecture, located at 135 S. Touchmark Way Lorcher: The next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda, which includes to approve the meeting of the February 20th Planning and Zoning meeting and Facts and Conclusions of Law for the Hyperbaric Oxygen Clinic. Could I get a motion to accept the Consent -- Consent Agenda as presented? Smith: So moved. Rust: 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: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] Lorcher: At this time I would briefly like to explain the public hearing process. We will open each item individually and begin with a staff report. The staff report will find -- staff will report their findings on how the item adheres to our Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code. After staff has made their presentation the applicant will come forward to present their case and respond to staffs comments. They will have 15 minutes to do so. After the applicant has finished we will open the floor to public testimony. Each person will only -- will be called only once during public testimony. The clerk will call the names individually of those who have signed up on our website in advance to testify. You may come to the microphones in Chambers or you will be unmuted on Zoom. Please state your name and address for the record and you will have three minutes to address the Commission. If you have previously sent pictures or have a presentation for the meeting it will be displayed on the -- the screen and the clerk will help you run the presentation. If you have established that you are speaking on behalf of a larger group, like an HOA, where others from that group will allow you to speak on their behalf you will have up to ten minutes. After all those who have signed up in advance have spoken we will invite any others who wish -- who may wish to testify. If you wish to speak on a topic you may come forward in chambers or if in Zoom you can raise your -- the hand button and if you are listening on a telephone 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 F Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 6,2024 Page 3 of 19 so we don't experience feedback and we can hear you clearly. When you have finished, if 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 has finished responding to questions and concerns we will close the public hearing and the Commissioners will have the opportunity to discuss and hopefully make a final decision or recommendations to City Council as needed. ACTION ITEMS 3. Public Hearing for Latitude Forty Three Subdivision (H-2024-0059) by Rodney Evans + Partners, LLC., located at 675, 715 and 955 S. Wells St. A. Request: Annexation of 17.27 acres of land with R-8 (13.78 acres), R-15 (2.42 acres) and C-N (1.07 acres) zoning districts. B. Request: Preliminary Plat to re-subdivide lots 7, 21 and 22, Magic View Subdivision, Amended into 81 residential lots, 1 commercial lot and 12 common/other lots on 15.97 acres of land in the R-8, R- 15 and C-N zoning districts with some Private Streets Lorcher: With that I would like to open the public hearing for Latitude 43 Subdivision for a request for annexation and preliminary plat and they have asked for a continuance. Madam Clerk, do we have a suggested date for the continuance? Lomeli: Thank you, Madam Chair. It looks like they are looking at April 3rd. Lorcher: And we have room on the agenda that day? Lomeli: Yes. Lorcher: Okay. Can I get a motion to -- continuance for Latitude 43 for April 3rd. Smith: So moved. Rust: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to approve Latitude 43 Subdivision for April 3rd. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. 4. Public Hearing for Pollard North Subdivision (H-2024-0037) by Brighton Corporation, generally located approximately 114 mile north F Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 6,2024 Page 4 of 19 of W. Chinden Blvd. at the north end of N. Levi Ave. on the north side of W. Waverton Dr. A. Request: Modified Development Agreement to the existing Development Agreement (Inst. #2019-060655) for a new agreement for the residential portion of the development with an updated development plan B. Request: Rezone of 14.90 acres of land from the R-8 to the R-15 zoning district. C. Request: Preliminary Plat for 157 building lots and 32 common lots on 19.76 acres of land in the R-8 and R-15 zoning districts Lorcher: The next item on the agenda is for Pollard North Subdivision for a modified development agreement, a rezone and preliminary plat. We will begin with the staff report. Allen: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. This project was previously heard by the Commission back on December 5th. The Commission recommended denial to City Council based on their opinion the proposed rezone to R-8 and TN-R would create too much density for the area and not provide enough transition to lower density development to the north. Following the Commission hearing the applicant submitted revised plans to address some of the concerns raised by neighboring residents and the Commission, which included a reduction of 20 building lots and increase in the width of lots along the northern boundary between Pollard Lane and Schwenkfelder Avenue from a minimum of 50 feet to 60 feet and replacement of some internal single family attached and paired units with detached units and open space resulting in an increase of 3.4 percent of qualified open space and additional pedestrian pathways. The applicant also changed the rezone request from TN-R to R- 15, with R-8 remaining along the north and east boundaries of the site. Due to these changes the Council remanded the project back to the Commission for review and an updated recommendation. The applications before you tonight are a request for a rezone and a preliminary plat. There is a development agreement modification as well, but it does not require Commission action. The site consists of 19.76 acres of land. It's zoned R-8, generally located a quarter mile north of West Chinden Boulevard at the north end of North Levi Lane on the north side of West Waverton Drive. The subject property is part of a larger area annexed with R-8 zoning in 2019 and included in a development agreement and preliminary plat for Pollard Subdivision. The property was approved to develop with 74 building lots for conventional single family residential homes, independent living units for 55 and older, and an 88 bed assisted living facility. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation for this property is medium density residential. As I mentioned the applicant is requesting Council approval of a modification to the existing development agreement for a new agreement for the residential portion of the development with an updated development plan. The approved plan is for the development of 74 building lots for conventional single family Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 6,2024 Page 5 of 19 residential home, independent living units for 55 and older and an 88 bed assisted living facility. The proposed plan is for 157 single family residential detached and attached homes. A rezone of 14.9 acres of land is proposed from the R-8 to the R-15 zoning district. I'm going to skip by that slide. That shows the approved concept development plan on the top versus the proposed development plan on the bottom there. A preliminary plat is proposed consisting of 157 building lots and 32 common lots on 19.76 acres of land in the R-8 and the R-15 zoning districts. The plat is proposed to develop in two final plat phases as shown there on the phasing plan on the south -- on the south -- bottom. The minimum lot size proposed in the R-8 district is 4,350 square feet, with an average lot size of 4,805 square feet. A minimum lot size in the R-15 district is 2,238 square feet, with an average lot size of 2,801 square feet. The gross density of the development is 7.95 units per acre, with a net density of 13.33 units per acre, which is at the high end of the density allowed in the medium density residential future land use map designation. A mix of single family residential detached and attached units are proposed with front-loaded and alley-loaded options. Conventional front-loaded detached homes are proposed along the perimeter boundary to the north and east, which will transition to the existing and future homes with alley-loaded attached and detached units on the remainder of the site. A 20 foot wide street buffer is required along the portion of West Waverton Drive designated as a collector street east of Levi Lane. Off-street parking will be required based on the number of bedrooms per unit. On-street parking is also available along internal streets. A minimum of 15 percent or 2.96 acres of common open space is required to be provided with development that meets the quality and qualified standards listed in the UDC. The applicant proposes a total of 3.94 acres or 19.94 percent qualified open space consisting of several grassy areas exceeding 5,000 square feet in area, linear open speed space, the street buffer along the eastern portion of West Waverton Drive, designated as a collector street, and parkways streets as shown on the open space exhibit, which complies with and exceeds the minimum standards. Amenities totaling a minimum four points are required to be provided based on the area of the development. The applicant proposes a small dog park with a waste station for 1.5 points and a picnic shelter area on a site 5,000 square feet or graver greater in size for two points from the quality of life category and a tot lot with benches for seating, which is one point from the recreation activity area category, which complies with and exceeds the minimum standard. The amenities are required to comply with the associated standards for such in the UDC. Several conceptual building elevations were submitted as shown for the two-story attached and detached single family residential homes. A variety of materials are proposed, including vertical and horizontal lap siding, board and batten siding, stucco and fenestration with masonry accents in a variety of colors and design element and features with the varying roof profiles and wall modulation that demonstrate the high quality of development proposed. All single family residential attached structures are subject to the residential design standards in the architectural standards manual. Written testimony has been received from Eli Benski, Brighton Corporation, in agreement with updated staff report conditions. Only one letter of testimony has been received since the Council meeting from Aaron Kwan. He is against the proposed rezone from R-8 to R-15 and the additional homes and density that would be allowed through the R-15 district. Prior to that last hearing there were four letters of testimony Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 6,2024 Page 6 of 19 that were received that are included in the public record. Staff is recommending approval with the provisions in the staff report. Staff will stand for any questions. Lorcher: Would the applicant like to come forward? Wardle: Good evening. For the record my name is Jon Wardle. My address is 2929 West Navigator Drive, Meridian, Idaho. 83642. And I work for Brighton. I would like to share with you tonight an overview of the Pollard North project. We -- as noted we were here before in December and there were comments made and items that we wanted to address. We took that to Council and they recommended us to come back to you tonight to go through the project another time. So, if you will indulge me here. So, this represents what we originally had proposed that was in the file with 177 lots. We had proposed a rezone of the entire Pollard North project as TN-R with an underlying zone -- original zone of R-8 and so the density of that project was about nine units to the acre and about 17.86 percent qualified open space. Based on the feedback from the Commission, felt like the density was too high and also that there wasn't enough given from a transition from a zoning perspective to the north -- the areas to the north and, for that matter, the area to -- to the east along Fairbourne. Some other items that were taken that we received as feedback was the amount of open space on the original proposal. There was concern about TN-R. While it was not our proposal there was concern that a TN-R would allow multi-family by right and so some mentioned that and also there was a question regarding traffic over to Fairbourne on Waverton, which is a collector road. So, what we have brought back before you tonight is a -- is a revision of the plan and I will get into these details, but we are proposing to maintain the existing zoning of R-8 along the boundary about -- along the north and along the east. So, there would be no change to -- to the zoning. We would change the internal piece of this to R-15 as a transition to the C-G zoning to the south of Waverton as you can see here where we go from R-8 to R-15 to the salmon color, which is the C-G. We also increased -- made wider lot sizes along Block 1 and Block 2. We did reduce a number of the paired units and finally we also increased the common area overall. So, let me get into some of those details. The future land use map for this area is medium density residential, which is a range of three to eight units per acre and we were trying to accomplish that of -- although we are at the top of the range we are in that range now of three to eight, instead of over the eight units per acre. Further, we also heard that, you know, the importance of the transition and by transitioning to the north and to the east where those zones already exist or could be changed in the future of R-8, we maintained that to the R-15 as a transition back to the C-G zone that is part of the Pollard project. Just a side-by-side comparison so you can see the numbers. We now have 157 homes, which is a mix of housing types. There are 27 common lots. Our density is 7.95 units to the acre. There -- the qualified open space is now 19.94 compared to 17.86 and we also are showing in these areas -- and I will go to this next one -- where these changes have happened. The top is up above and, then, the bottom is showing where we are. Starting with number one originally those lots were 50 feet wide, which were similar in size to what Alden Ridge had to the north in their preliminary plat. We have modified those so they are 60 feet wide now in the pink area. In the yellow area we have now converted those to detached carriage lane or alley homes Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 6,2024 Page 7 of 19 here, number two, and, then, numbers three, four, five and six are where we have expanded and added more open space throughout the project, so each block has its own open space that's available with a larger common area in the middle. This also shows where the amenities are throughout the project. We are also adding pathway connections, micro paths to the north in locations that when those projects develop that those connections could be made. In there we also have a micro path over to Fairbourne and the common areas throughout the entire project with connectivity, with pathways. At intersections and locations where those pathways are hitting the road we will have chokers, so the roadway section will be reduced basically eliminating parking in that location, but allow for pedestrians to move across the street without competing with a wider pavement section. As we mentioned, Pollard does offer a variety of housing opportunities. We looked at this pretty closely. We looked at where this community is. It is -- it has evolved from when we brought the project through in 2019. Back in 2019 Highway 16 was not on the map. There was no funding for it. And things have changed and we know that by late 2026 that whole Highway 16, 20-26 intersection will be two major state highways connecting in this location. With that in mind we tried to address the transition to the north of the single family like for like and internally where we have carriage lanes or alleys we also are offering some paired homes and some detached alley homes as well. This kind of shows you where those different homes are within the community. We have four different home types, which offer four different profiles for individuals who can live there. The carriage lanes are both -- the carriage lane B where would be the paired units. The carriage lane C would be detached and here is some examples of both of those. We have conventional homes. These are what we are showing on the north in the pink, conventional areas of the 60 foot lots and is removed to the east. Those become 66 and 72 foot wide lots, which actually are similar in size to what was on the boundary. I think this is important as touched on about where the traffic will go. This is representative of the roadway system that's out here today. We have -- we have completed Waverton from Pollard Lane on the far left- hand side of this picture and it does connect over to Fairbourne in the middle of the screen. Levi Lane are -- it's a five lane road. It was actually only required to be a three lane road as a collector, but we worked with the highway district knowing that the intersection of Levi Lane would be important and it's a five lane road. We have also paid for the signalization of that. It has not been signaled, because ITD needs to finish some of their other improvements, but those have been paid for and just waiting for them to -- to do that. The rest of these lines here are the local streets and how the local traffic will move from their neighborhoods to the collector system. The collector system is the dark blue, which is Levi-Waverton over to Black Cat. Then we have the teal, which are the local streets. The purple in Alder Ridge, which are local streets and the orange, which are also local streets. Those are how all of those homes will get to the collector roadway system. In reality everybody is getting two points. It's to Levi and it is to Black Cat. People will have choices. But the reality is if somebody is trying to get from our project or even Alden Ridge for that matter and they want to get to 20-26 or Chinden, they are going to go to Levi Lane. There may be some that would find going to Fairbourne. This is -- might be an easy way there and vice-versa, but there is a collector roadway system that's in place that we have designed to that we have built to and it's intended to -- to take the traffic from the neighborhoods to the collectors out to 10 1 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 6,2024 Page 8 of 19 the state highway and this kind of gives you an example of the final improvements that are proposed. The flyover is being built right now with this turn -- with this circle -- the off ramp there as well. These improvements are all in place and expected to be done in late 2026 and you can kind of see here in the background of where the Pollard North project is in relationship to this and Levi Lane is just right here. With that we do concur with the staff report. We did take the comments given to us from this Planning and Zoning Commission and from the public -- well, we took those comments to Council and presented those and even presented this idea of the change in zoning to R-8 and R-15 and they felt it best for us to come back. The reason we are back is we did listen. We did take the recommendations that were given. We have spent a lot of time looking at this. We re-noticed the neighborhood as well letting them know the changes and outreach, so it's not been done isolated, but wanted to let you know the process that we have been through and we do request commission approval of the preliminary plat, the rezone and the modification to the development agreement and Council will address that. So, I stand for any questions that you might have tonight. Lorcher: Commissioners, do we have any questions for Mr. Wardle at this time? Thank you very much. Wardle: Thank you. Lorcher: Madam Clerk, do we have anyone signed up to testify? Lomeli: Thank you, Madam Chair. We have Jake Jensen. Jensen: Hello. Lorcher: Good evening. Jensen: Good evening. Jake Jensen. 5011 West Caragana Street in Meridian, Idaho. Part of the Fairbourne community. Appreciate you all taking your time to be here and listening to our concerns that we have. I think it's important to note that, you know, they present the original print plan as the 177 homes. The original plan was the 50 some homes or 74 homes in this area. That was the original plan with the senior living; right? That's the original plan. So, it's not like they are giving in on taking away from the 177. No, they are still asking to add 80 some homes to this area, which is a huge ask. Fine, I understand things change, you need to get rid of the senior living, but how does that justify 80 more homes in this area? To give you an idea of Fairbourne, there are 175 homes covering 66 acres. This is asking for 154 homes covering 15 acres of land. You think of that community stress that it puts on. There is going to be a lot of children in this area. This is going to be a place that's great for Brighton that they are doing homes that are good for the community, may be more affordable, but where are these kids going to go play in this 154 homes? They are going to find their way over to the Fairbourne neighborhood, put strain on our community. I understand the need to change plans, but it doesn't seem justified. The other concerns of the roadways people, cross Waverton all the time from where I live in Fairbourne to get over to the community F11 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 6,2024 Page 9 of 19 area and the amount of traffic that this increases. That's going to happen. I understand that. But taking it from 75 -- maybe if it's a hundred, but going up to 80 more homes that's just a lot more strain. And, then, the last point I would like to make is just the strain that the schools are under in this area. I have four kids in elementary schools here, 32 kids in one class, 35 kids in another class and a lot of them will go to the same school where they just had to rezone because they are out of room at this school. You add this many more homes how are the schools going to handle that? We are just all concerned. I understand Brighton has to do what they need to do for their -- their private -- for their -- for their money, for all that kind of stuff, I understand that need to change, but how does it justify 85 more homes in this small area Thank you. Lorcher: Thank you. Madam Clerk? Lomeli: Madam Chair, I have Ken Fenwick, who is online Lorcher: Mr. Fenwick, if you can state your name and address for the record, please. And you will have to unmute. Fenwick: My name is Ken Fenwick and I live in Sun Valley, Idaho, but I have been in Meridian looking at new homes in the Fairbourne area and became aware that this meeting was going to be held today and my concern is making investment in that neighborhood and immediately seen that investment diminished by the addition of some 80 additional homes above the original R-8 -- R-8 plat that was filed by Brighton Corp. I also think that the other homeowners in Fairbourne will also be facing decreased values in the investments that they have made and I don't think it's fair for Brighton to profit the way they will profit off of the loss these homeowners will take. Thank you. Lorcher: Thank you. Lomeli: Madam Chair, Kyle Ensler signed up and indicated he is representing an HOA, but he didn't check wished to testify, so I'm not sure. Did you want to testify? Okay. Lorcher: Good evening. Ensler: Good evening, Commissioners. Appreciate your time tonight. Kyle Ensler. 26 -- I'm sorry. Wrong address. 5720 West Old School Lane, Meridian, Idaho. 83646. Lorcher: And you are representing your HOA? Ensler: Yeah. Lorcher: Which community? Ensler: It's 12 -- it's Alden Ridge. Lorcher: Alden Ridge. Okay. 12 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 6,2024 Page 10 of 19 Ensler: Alden Ridge. So, this isn't argument against Brighton. I think Brighton's a good developer, a good builder in our community. They have done a lot of really great things in the community. For me this really comes down to is this the appropriate density for this particular area and I -- I think you can't answer that without looking at the entire project that was brought forth in 2019 that still is yet to be built out entirely. So, in 2019 this was part of a larger parcel and so there is this whole commercial section that's yet to be built with -- you know -- and, obviously, plans can change a little bit, so this could be a little bit -- fluctuate a little bit, but currently it's planned for a 95,000 square foot hospital, at least two 70,000 square foot flex spaces, as well as some other commercial. Just on the -- on the commercial side alone. Currently we have just the one commercial -- it's actually -- they just built a second building, but one commercial use back there, which is Franklin Sensors and when Franklin Sensors lets out at 5:00 o'clock at the end of their shift before their next shift, the traffic is already backed out. Now, I understand that -- Mr. Wardle's comments about the lights not in and that's going to alleviate some of that strain once the light -- light goes in. We have a lot of commercial and so initially when that plan came through in 2019 there was support from the neighbors, because those are my neighbors and so I have talked to them, they -- they were -- they were at the Commission meeting as well. They are also opposed to it and originally, though, they -- they got on board with it, because of this R-8 portion that was presented as the transition and buffer between the commercial and what the city has planned, which is a low density residential and so that original plan included the assisted living facility, which hardly had any traffic at all. That's full-time assisted living. And, then, there were 74 homes, 40 of which were age restricted. So, with -- you know, if you look at the difference between that and what's proposed now, not only is it an increase on the type of people that will be in there as an increase of strain on the schools, but much much more traffic than was proposed before. So, on Waverton my concern is while the plan that's presented is with the front faces -- facing Waverton, esthetically that looks nice, but that also promotes more on-street parking. So, Waverton is going to have parking on both sides of the street all the way down Waverton and, then, in addition to that what's not seen in that picture is the neighborhood to the north had a residential or a landscape buffer rather. It was a 15 or 20 foot buffer that needs to go away in order to fit another row of houses. So, I just think that the strain is too much. I think it's -- it's too much on traffic, too much of the community. To my other concerns, on Schwenkfelder and, then, Woodhead Avenue, which are the two streets that connect to the north, really concerned about that much density and the impact of parking on the roads, especially those two streets that go to the north. I have been in that scenario before where you have through traffic and, you know, in a dense community like that and, you know, kids come out through those -- those cars and you just -- you just don't see them. So, those are -- obviously there is -- there is no designated nonparking anywhere on Waverton. So, you know, currently you can put -- park both sides of the road there. I'm concerned about that on the streets going to the north and just overall I just feel like the question is really is this the appropriate density going from the 74 conventional homes before to 157 and being at the top end of that medium density residential and I do think it's appropriate to consider the entire project that was approved in 2019 without just looking at this one section individually. My only other comment is I think, you know, this is one development. There is still development that's happening in the area as well. F13] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 6,2024 Page 11 of 19 There is still more development land here to --just to the west that also takes access off of Levi and Black Cat, as well as some more property to the north. So, I do think that whatever decisions are made also sets a precedent for future approvals, which could be more density. So, I -- that's all my considerations. But thank you for considering. Lorcher: All right. Thank you very much. Lomeli: Madam Chair, Randall Glenco. I also have Clay Lundgren. No? Okay. Bill and Theresa Henry. Lorcher: Would you like to speak? Bill and Theresa? No? Lomeli: And the last name that I have is David Hitz. Lorcher: Hi. Hitz: Hi. How are you? Lorcher: Good. Thank you. If you would state your name and address for the record that would be great. Hitz: I would love to. David Hitz. 6669 North Elmstone Way, Meridian. I am in Fairbourne. Lorcher: Okay, Hitz: This is the third meeting we have come to. Lorcher: Okay. Hitz: We had one that was a slight shift in the schedule, so it would have been four, but my biggest concern is that -- as Kyle put -- well -- and so did Jake is the density doesn't match the general area. I have recently started running again very lightly, but I am proud of that, because it's been about a year and a half and as I have been running I have been paying more attention because of this development of that path down Waverton and imagining what it would look like with cars lined on both sides and, then, imagining if I'm running when businesses are getting out when people are trying to get to work, if it's not at 6:00 in the morning like I normally do, but maybe I want to go with my kids and I have got four of them and my house literally backs up to Waverton and so naturally for us it is popping right behind the house and going down Waverton where we can spend some time, because there is a nice stretch, but when you add that many homes and you add that many cars, the safety kind of goes out the window and -- and, then, I look at the schools and I look at the re -- the shuffling and boundary changes that Pleasant View just went through because of the density of all of the development in the general area and, then, you add this on top of it, there is no other elementary in the area that can support any of this. There is nothing planned to be built and so where are the 14 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 6,2024 Page 12 of 19 kids going to go? What's going to happen with the current school system? How are they going to learn in an environment that is conducive for learning when you start already hitting max capacity only three years into the school being there. Those are my biggest concerns, among the other things that are already on the record. Thank you. Lorcher: Thank you very much. Lomeli: No one else has signed up. Lorcher: Okay. Would the applicant like to -- oh, I'm sorry. Was there somebody else that would like to speak? Okay. Sorry. Jumping the gun. If you could give your name and address for the record that would be great. Taylor: Sure. Good evening. My name is Chase Taylor. I live on 7000 North Pollard Lane, just northwest of this development, and I -- yeah, I don't want to belabor the point, but density is my -- my issue. I have six kids and we use Waverton to get to the bus stops there and back and concerned about all the cars and, you know, also now we are going to have a development built around us and we knew that coming in and we kind of knew the plan was going to be there was going to be homes built out in front of our development, but it was going to be homes, you know, not -- not high density townhomes I guess you call them, but -- so, it's -- it's still a little disappointing to have an investment and having a -- having a future with plans looking like, you know, they want to be changed. So, my biggest concern is my kids and just us being safe getting in and out of our community. But appreciate you guys time. Thanks. Lorcher: Thank you. All right. Before I go forward would you like to speak as well? Okay. L.Taylor: Hi. My name is Leah Taylor. I live at 7000 North Pollard as well and, yes, this is our third meeting as well, plus the one that we rearranged to come and, then, it was continued at the last minute. We have six kids, so it is difficult to get to these meetings, but we are grateful for all of you in your public service and know how important it is to be civically engaged, especially when it can affect our own community so hugely. I agree with what's been said already. I think this density does not match the area and hope that you guys will not allow this huge jump in density and think of it more as still what they are adding from the original plan and not what they are taking away from the plan that has never been approved. The green space for me is a large issue. I know that they will be using the green space of the communities nearby. Traffic is a huge issue. Like was said on Waverton that road just doesn't feel wide enough to have cars parked on either side and you know when kids are needing to cross a road, even if they know how to cross a road safely, when there is cars there it makes it so much more unsafe and, like my husband said, our kids do need to travel down that road to go to the bus stop. Most of the time we drive them, but we will absolutely have to drive them. It's a whole mile to the bus stop. But with this kind of traffic there is no way that they could walk to the bus stop themselves. I -- the -- the largest concern that I have, though, is the schools. Like was mentioned we have two kids currently in the F15] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 6,2024 Page 13 of 19 elementary school, two kids that will be going in the next two to four years as well and, then, also high schooler and middle schooler, but the Pleasant View Elementary is already over capacity at 616 students. They have capped any new students moving in or coming into kindergarten and there is an apartment complex that has already been approved on Black Cat and McMillan that will be within these school boundaries. So, I am not sure how that school is going to sustain it and there is no other -- like it's been said there is no other school nearby. So, I really hope that you guys will not allow this many this high density -- high of density and this many homes to be added from the original plan. Thank you. Lorcher: Thank you. Starman: Madam Chair, I want to just note for the record that Commissioner Sandoval has joined us in person. He was previously joined us via Zoom and I saw him watching his phone as he walked through the door, but just for the record, Commissioner, can you just confirm you have -- you have seen and listened to all the testimony to date and you are prepared to act? Sandoval: Yes. Starman: Thank you. Lorcher: Is there anybody in Chambers that would like to speak before we close the public -- or before the applicant comes forward? Okay. I think we are good. Lomeli: Yes. Madam Chair, no one else is signed up. Lorcher: All right. Mr. Wardle, whenever you are ready. Wardle: Madam Chair, for the record again Jon Wardle with Brighton. I appreciate the opportunity to just address a couple of the comments that were made regarding buffers and transitions. The property that we are asking for your consideration tonight on a preliminary plat, the area that we are asking for a rezone specifically is highlighted there in red. If you look at the north Meridian area from Highway 16 over to Ten Mile and, then, down to McMillan, we circled a number of pockets in there that all have R-15 zone and I think if you went through those neighborhoods you would see that those were good transitions for the neighborhood. We are a little unique here. We do have a lot of commercial property, but you do see in other areas where it's either proposed or will come in the future, but the R-15 to R-8 to R-4 are appropriate transition of zoning and this does exist in north Meridian. I didn't want the moment to go by as if this were done in a vacuum and there -- it doesn't exist anywhere else. It actually does. These transitions are there and that's why based on the feedback given to us from the Commission, comments from neighbors during that Commission hearing and our proposal to City Council was to maintain an R-8, transition to R-15, which, then, transitions to the C-G zone across Waverton. Regarding the buffer, yeah, there we did have a -- and continue we will have a landscape buffer, which was an easement. Back F16] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 6,2024 Page 14 of 19 when the project was approved there was no Alden Ridge. Alden Ridge -- we actually had worked with Restucci, Hayes, Ernst and Schwenkfelder on that transition between them. Three of those property owners allow -- had Old -- Old School go across their property and Schwenkfelder was at the end of that. When we talked with them we were going to have a fence on the property line with a 15 foot landscape berm on our side and there was already landscaping that was proposed on their side. When Alden Ridge came forward they actually proposed a 30 foot corridor, which would be the place of Old -- Old School Road. I don't know exactly, but I suppose that that was -- that was held there because they needed to maintain property or access over to the two owners to the east until there was other provided, but that was, in fact, proposed by Alden Ridge and shown on there. Alden Ridge has still not been platted. It's not been developed, but that was part of their plan and we assume that they will maintain that. As it related to Ernst and Panter and Schwenkfelder, we have talked with them, we have provided our plans to them. We can still maintain the 15 foot landscape buffer in an easement, which was proposed before, and make that transition work for both of them until they decide to develop. When they do develop one of the things that was asked was micro paths. So, we have a micro path here. There is another micro path just off the screen. And, yes, we can continue to maintain that, but the buffer between us and Alden Ridge is actually existing through what will be Alden Ridge's common area of a 30 foot landscape buffer that they have proposed. We know that there has been changes. This plan that we brought forward before -- this -- the top one is the approved preliminary plat. We recognize that we have asked for changes. That's why we are back here in a public process and the lots have changed. So, I don't want to minimize that and that's why we are here in this process and based on the feedback that was given to us we reduced the density even a little bit more. I do want to show you what the transitions were. We proposed ten lots compared to 12 for Alden Ridge. Seven and a half lots for nine for Alden Ridge. Six and a half. Previously we had eight and a half. We proposed 13. Previously we had 14. We proposed six now. Previously we had seven. So, we have even reduced those transitions against what is to the north of us from the original preliminary plat. We are hopeful that based on the feedback given to us from this Commission and the opportunity to come back and discuss this with you, that we can receive your approval and recommendation for approval for Pollard North, the preliminary plat and the rezone of a portion this to R-15. Stand for any questions you might have. Lorcher: Commission, do we have any questions for Mr. Wardle? Rust: Madam Chair, I have a couple questions. Lorcher: Commissioner Rust. Rust: Mr. Wardle, what is the timeline for phase one? When do you expect those buildings to be completed? Wardle: Madam Chair, Commissioner Rust, the process for us still requires us to submit a final plat and so at this point in time, even the best case scenario, we could F17 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 6,2024 Page 15 of 19 start development of that first phase at the end of this year, with maybe home construction happening in the spring or early summer of 2026. Homes usually take six to seven months and so maybe the end of 2026 there would be occupancy. It might even be '27. But it would be at the very end of 2026 if we continue this course. Rust: Appreciate that. When do you expect Levi to be signaled? Do you have any guidance on that from ACHD? Wardle: Madam Chair, Commissioner Rust, the feedback we have is currently there are signalization restrictions at Highway 16 and 20-26, Chinden. Until they put final signalizations in there they would do this one at the same time. So, when that project completes these signals can go in, but they felt like if they put a signal in here, especially when they are moving lanes through there, it causes some conflicts. So, it's under -- ACHD has the money and has the equipment for it, but ITD ultimately will be the one who will decide when they get installed. So, my guess it's ITD's process and their timeline continues it would be end of 2026 should -- which should be consistent with when we would have homes completing. Rust: One more, Madam Chair. Several of the public testimony also mentioned the parking situation on Waverton. I wondered if you could just clarify for the Commission what the parking situation is on Waverton, if there is garages, how much of that is anticipated to be street parking, that was certainly something that was brought up by several of the testimonies. Wardle: Madam Chair, Commissioner Rust, all the homes in front or face Waverton are -- will be alley homes. So, there are no garages on Waverton. Additionally, we have designed the alleys so that the garages are set back 20 feet from the alleys. So, the city has a requirement in any home -- you get a lot of bedrooms you have more, but the typical is you need two enclosed and two in the driveway and we meet that with all these homes with two car garages and driveways on the alleys. We have no driveways on Waverton. Will there be parking on Waverton? There will be, but if I am a homeowner or a resident I'm going to go into my garage and into my house. There may be a guest or two. There could be several at a time, but it's -- we are not competing with driveways along this area and it does provide a way to calm traffic as well. Rust: Excellent. Thank you. No more questions, Madam Chair. Lorcher: Mr. Wardle, originally the application called for a over 55 community. Did you consider that as an option going forward with this application or has that been -- is that off the table? Wardle: Madam Chair, originally when we had the assisted living memory care facility and some independent living opportunities, that's when we considered it, but as we have looked at it, no, we are -- we are not proposing that in -- with this project. Could there be individuals of that age demographic? Yes, but it's not an age restricted community. 18 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 6,2024 Page 16 of 19 Lorcher: Okay. And the proposed -- or as far as you know the proposed uses of the commercial area one is going to be a medical center of some kind? Wardle: Madam Chair, St. Alphonsus owns the property there now. They have purchased about 16 acres from us. Their proposal is to build first a medical office building, which would be about 60 to 70 thousand square feet and the long range or long-term plan would be to have a hospital unit here as well. They feel like that would allow them to serve the community better and provide some hospital services in this. So, they are currently -- I don't know -- I can't say that they will start soon, but they are currently finishing up another medical office building in Canyon county and, then, this would be their next project. But the timing I don't know of their medical office building as of yet. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you. Commissioners, any other questions? Okay. Wardle: Thank you. Lorcher: Okay. We are good. Thank you. Can I get a motion to close the public hearing? Smith: So moved. Rust: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and second to close the public hearing for Pollard North Subdivision. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. Lorcher: Well, I'm both ways in this one. In one respect Brighton listened to public comments. Some of that, you know, as much as they could with the product that they are offering, as well as the Commission, to be able to make changes to their proposal for their subdivision. They have reduced the density. The transition is better. But I think ultimately the challenge is is that whenever you live in a community and there is a piece of dirt in front of you, there is no guarantees of what that piece of dirt is going to turn into and even if a real estate agent -- or even a developer might say, well, this is what we are going to do and the community changes as far as the demographics of the economics and the roadways and Highway 16 and all those things kind of put together as players, there is still no guarantee what's going to happen to that piece of dirt. So, as a Commission it's important for us to be able to look at this application, does it fit the code, does it fit the space and to make a recommendation to City Council where they will make more of a judgment call on whether it's the best interest of the City of Meridian. So, on the positive side Brighton has made adjustments to this application to be able to create less density and provided the carriage houses with driveways and -- and parking. I don't think anybody's going to ever be a hundred percent satisfied, but on the other side of it north Meridian -- everything north of Cherry Lane is -- has become 19 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 6,2024 Page 17 of 19 high density and the schools will respond and the roads will respond when those organizations are ready to. In the meantime we can't stop everything and need to continue to go forward. So, I would like to hear from the other Commissioners on -- on what they think. I think Brighton's done a good job of being able to make those adjustments. My personal opinion is that density is -- is still too high for that area in general. I think with the medical center and Highway 16 and Chinden being as many lanes as it is, it's going to be a challenge no matter what goes there, even if you turn into R-2 or R-4, it's still going to be busy and, you know, I think being closer to a medical center would attract an older generation possibly, but there is no restrictions on that. So, families could come in with their small children as well. So, I guess I would like to hear from the other Commissioners, but I'm kind of on the fence. Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: Yeah. I think a big thing for me -- and I remember when this last came I was actually on the fence and I think I voted against it on a tough decision, just because there were too many things that were just slightly off and I think for me they have addressed a lot of my concerns in the transition space -- that the transition space is super helpful to generally kind of helping ease that buffer to -- to the more dense areas. Obviously, there is -- I think there are a lot of areas here where it's kind of questions of where do you draw the line? How dense is too dense? I heard a hundred thrown out as a number by some of the testimony. I'm sure that students for someone else in the audience and so there is this question I think and, you know, I -- I'm not an economist, I'm not going to find the optimal -- you know, I'm not trying to calculate any of that, but I think as a judgment call in terms of the proximity to major transit corridors to kind of prevent a lot of stress on internal roadways and, you know, the kind of the transitional space, the proximity to the commercial, to a lot of the things that we generally want denser development closer to, I think that outweighs some of the -- like, you know, this could be a little bit better, could be maybe a little bit less dense concerns in the fine tuning. So, I think on net I am supportive of this. Obviously, yeah, I think there are probably some -- some small things I would say maybe on the Fairbourne side of things are there opportunities to improve that transition seeing as there is more kind of transitional space you could -- you could transition just to get to that southwest corner as kind of being the more dense area on Waverton, but -- but, you know, we have heard before, you know, you never know what's going to go in there if this doesn't and I think that some -- I would much rather something that I generally think is good for the community with -- with a couple of maybe nitpicks over something else that could be a bad for Meridian. So, that's -- that's where I'm at. Yeah, generally supportive of this. Lorcher: Okay. Commissioner Sandoval, comments? Sandoval: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Sandoval. 20 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 6,2024 Page 18 of 19 Sandoval: I think this is a good compromise and you guys did pretty good at that, so -- I want to hear what Commissioner Rust thinks, but generally I'm in favor of this. You guys sacrificed a lot, came back, so I'm happy with it. Curious to what your thoughts are. Rust: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Rust. Rust: Yeah. Would be happy to comment. Passionate about the City of Meridian and I think for the City of Meridian to be healthy we have to have a mix of housing types. That's what's considered in our FLUM and our Comprehensive Plan. I think that's really important that we have a place for teachers to live, for firefighters to live, for beginning starter homes and necessarily those homes have to be built somewhere in our community. When I look at where this project is relative to the rest of the city, two major arterial roadways, highways, I really can't think of a better spot in general for this type of a development. Then you zoom into the micro and there is always concerns on traffic and -- and density for the people that are already there and that have owned homes for, you know, five to ten years, however long Fairbourne has been around. I understand those concerns, but on the whole I really want to see more of this kind of housing and as housing costs continue to rise I want -- I want the American dream to be accessible to a wide array of people and the reality is people are continually getting priced out of the market. We need stuff that's between a single family home and an apartment. Several of the Commissioners have already said if we don't approve this what will come in here next? It will be apartments. And that's -- you know, I don't want to cast fear with that. Apartments are good where they are needed. But I really like the design as it is. I thought that map was pretty revealing, that most of the commercial and the surrounding three square miles is bordered by R-15. 1 think that that's something that's important to -- to consider, the fact that the entire border of this project is still R-8 and the R-15 is in the interior, this is going to be a really busy intersection and it doesn't matter whether this gets built or not, the amount of traffic coming through here is going to be significant, but that could be a good thing as well. That's a sign of growth. That's a sign of a growing city. As Madam Chair has already spoken to, schools are going to grow and adapt. Roadways are going to grow and adapt. The reality is that for us to grow, for us to have a vibrant community, we have to have more housing development to, then, pay for everything else that's going to be required. I wish it were the other way around, it would make our jobs as commissioners a lot easier, but that's not the way that city development happens in America today. I think it's really important to note that there is going to be four parking spaces per dwelling that's not on Waverton, that's not counting any additional parking on Waverton. I think that's important to note and so for all those reasons the 70 attached homes that are going to fill -- meet demand for a needed demographic in the area, for the health of the city, the general location I'm strongly in favor of this as put forth by the staff and Brighton. 21 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission March 6,2024 Page 19 of 19 Lorcher: All right. After considering all staff and applicant and public testimony, I recommend to approve to City Council File No. H-2024-0037 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March -- March 6, 2025, with no modifications. Smith: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and second to approve the Pollard Subdivision. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? And my vote is aye as well. All right. Motion passes. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. Lorcher: Can I have one more motion? Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: Move to adjourn. Rust: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. Thank you for coming. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:03 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS. ) APPROVED MARIA LORCHER - CHAIRMAN 3-19-2025 ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK 22 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Approve Minutes of the February 20, 2025 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 3 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission February 20,2025 Page 5 of 5 Garrett: I will move that we close the meeting. Grace: Second. Smith: It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor? Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you everyone. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:08 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS. ) APPROVED 3 I 6 125 JARED SMITH - VICE-CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Hyperbaric Oxygen Clinic of Idaho by JGT Architecture, located at 135 S. Touchmark Way 9 CITY OF MERIDIAN V IDIAN;--- FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ! DAHO DECISION& ORDER In the Matter of the Request for a conditional use permit to construct and operate a 5,500-square- foot medical office,Located at 135 S.Touchmark Way in the L-O Zoning District,by Aaron Randell. Case No(s).H-2025-0001 For the Planning& Zoning Commission Hearing Date of. February 20th,2025(Findings on March 6th,2025) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 20t'',2025, incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 20th,2025, incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 20th, 2025, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of March 6th,2025, incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the"Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975,"codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code(I.C. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has,by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian,which was adopted April 19,2011,Resolution No. 11-784 and Maps. 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-5A. 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s)received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this decision,which shall be signed by the Chairman of the Commission and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S).H-2025-0001 Page 1 Flo] upon the applicant,the Planning Department,the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. 7. That this approval is subject to the conditions of approval in the attached staff report for the hearing date of February 20',2025, 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 conditional use permit is hereby approved in accord with the conditions of approval in the staff report for the hearing date of February 20t'', 2025, attached as Exhibit A. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits Notice of Two(2)Year Conditional Use Permit Duration Please take notice that the conditional use permit,when granted, shall be valid for a maximum period of two(2)years unless otherwise approved by the City in accord with UDC 11-513-6F.1. During this time,the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval,and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground. For conditional use permits that also require platting,the final plat must be signed by the City Engineer within this two(2)year period in accord with UDC 11-5B-6F.2. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11-5B-6.F.1,the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the use not to exceed one(1)two (2)year period.Additional time extensions up to two (2)years as determined and approved by the Commission may be granted. With all extensions,the Director or Commission may require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11. E. Judicial Review Pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-652 1(1)(d), if this final decision concerns a matter enumerated in Idaho Code § 67-652 1(1)(a), an affected person aggrieved by this final decision may,within twenty-eight (28)days after all remedies have been exhausted,including requesting reconsideration of this final decision as provided by Meridian City Code § 1-7-10, seek judicial review of this final decision as provided by chapter 52,title 67, Idaho Code. This notice is provided as a courtesy; the City of Meridian does not admit by this notice that this decision is subject to judicial review under LLUPA. F. Notice of Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis Pursuant to Idaho Code §§ 67-6521(1)(d) and 67-8003, an owner of private property that is the subject of a final decision may submit a written request with the Meridian City Clerk for a regulatory takings analysis. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S).H-2025-0001 Page 2 Fill G. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of February 20t1i,2025. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S).H-2025-0001 ■ Page 3 By actign,of t�e Planning&Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the 6th day of Marc 92025. COMMISSIONER MARIA LORCHER, CHAIRMAN VOTED COMMISSIONER JARED SMITH,VICE CHAIRMAN VOTED COMMISSIONER BRIAN GARRETT VOTED COMMISSIONER PATRICK GRACE VOTED COMMISSIONER MATTHEW SANDOVAL VOTED COMMISSIONER SAM RUST VOTED Maria Lorcher, Chairman 3/6/2025 Attest: Chris Johnson, City Clerk 3/6/2025 Copy served upon the Applicant, the Planning and Development Services divisions of the Community Development Department,the Public Works Department and the City Attorney. 3/6/2025 By: Dated: City Clerk's Office CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S).H-2025-0001 ■ Page 4 Exhibit A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C��fEFIDIAN*,- DEPARTMENT REPORT A H O HEARING 2/20/2025 Legend � DATE: Project Location TO: Planning&Zoning Commission Area of Impact � = City Limits "I d FROM: Nick Napoli,Associate Planner O Analysis 208-884-5533 ' nnapoli@meridiancity.org APPLICANT: Aaron Randell SUBJECT: H-2025-0001 ' Hyperbaric Oxygen Clinic of Idaho -` r_ \ 5 LOCATION: Located at 135 S. Touchmark Way in the \ - north '/4 of Section 16, T.3N.,R.1E. {�-- - PROJECT OVERVIEW Summary The applicant requests a conditional use permit to construct and operate a 5,500 square foot medical office on 0.612 acres in the L-O zone,by Aaron Randell. Recommendation Staff. Approval with conditions. Decision Commission: Approval with no recommended changes. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S).H-2025-0001 @ Page 5 COMMUNITY METRICS Table 1: Land Use Description Details Map Ref. Existing Land Use(s) Vacant - Proposed Land Use(s) Medical Office - Existing Zoning L-O Adopted FLUM Designation MU-C(Mixed Use Community) Table 2: Process Facts Description Details Preapplication Meeting date 12/17/2024 Neighborhood Meeting 12/30/2024 Site posting date 2/10/2025 Table 3: Community Metrics Agency/Element Description/Issue Reference Ada County Highway District 0 Comments Received Yes - Commission Action Required No - Access Private Drive Aisle - Traffic Level of Service No - Meridian Public Works Wastewater Distance to Mainline Available at site Impacts or Concerns None Meridian Public Works Water Distance to Mainline Available at site Impacts or Concerns None Note: See section 0. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS for comments received or see public record. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S).H-2025-0001 ■ Page 6 STAFF ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code(UDC) 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 site is among several commercially zoned properties surrounding the corner of S. Touchmark Way and E. Franklin Road. The proposed medical office building aligns 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 0.612 acres History 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. Site Development and Use Analysis Proposed Use Analysis (UDC 11-2): The proposed use of a medical office 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 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. 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. Design Standards Analysis Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): Parking lot landscaping CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S).H-2025-0001 Page 7 16 Landscaping is required to be provided along all parking areas per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8. Landscape buffers to adjoining uses Landscaping is required to meet the standards of UDC 11-3B-9. The landscape plan meets the minimum requirements. Tree preservation A Tree Mitigation Plan should be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance detailing all existing trees and methods of mitigation outlined by the City Arborist before any trees are to be removed as set forth in UDC 11-3B-1OC.5. Storm integration Storm drainage is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-18. Parking (UDC 11-3C): 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 building square footage being 5,500, 11 parking stalls are required on the site.A total of 23 parking stalls are provided exceeding the required parking. However, staff would like to note that there will be three(3)tenant spaces in the proposed building with all of them sharing the parking stalls. Future tenants will have parking analyzed prior to certificate of occupancy. 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. 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 stucco,horizontal metal trim reveals, stained wood columns,anodized aluminum windows, and glazing. The final design is required to comply with the Architectural Standards Manual for Commercial Design Guidelines. Transportation Analysis 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 western part of the site. This private drive aisle connects to S. Touchmark Way and E. Louise Drive(collector streets). CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S).H-2025-0001 Page 8 17 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 the building. Pedestrians will be required to cross drive aisle surfaces to connect with the building so delineation from the drive aisle is required. The site/landscape plan submitted both reflect compliance with this standard. Services Analysis Pressurized Irrigation(UDC 11-3A-15): Underground pressurized irrigation water is required to be provided as set forth in UDC 11- 3A-15. Storm Drainage (UDC 11-3A-18): Storm drainage is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-18. 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. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS& CONDITIONS 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: - Align the proposed 5-foot sidewalk along the north private access drive with the property to the west. - Comply with the parking and landscaping standards listed in UDC 11-313-8 and UDC 1I- 3C-5. 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 11-3A-19;the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual and with the Development Agreement. In accord with UDC 11-3A-3,the applicant shall construct driveway stubs to the southeastern property(shown on plan)and record a cross-access/ingress-egress easement granted to the property to the southeast(Parcel#R8509140120). Copies of the recorded easements shall be submitted with the Building permit application for the proposed use. 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 FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S).H-2025-0001 Page 9 F181 Meridian Public Works Wastewater • llBtan[e to sewer AvaLebie at 9w 5erwk5es • Sew of shed + Es matedpfo}ect Seeappllcatlnn Sewer kRLr5 r WHm Oecllni% L9alarim Project unststent TeL with WW Masher Planflacllltyplan ImparWambunkL I SMPUWWurksSPoeSWcMk1 Cax7&kHis Water + akstaMetQ water Water AvallabL-at site 5eFvk5m • PmssuireLone EstlmatedPropod Seeappllcatlon Water kRLYs r Waw(u hty N m • ProJettConsmUmt yes with Wart-er Master Plan ImpaoLVConcerns Hone- NON-P1,A'1'0JNDI'1'10N P[,mut:Wurrxsllt.r u[rerrsrr-r Sloe Spet!Ae C.'oadldimn of Approval I. hb chanaL-r tr3 Public water infrmL;UuLLuc shown in m-.mwd.Any clmngcs irnzl.bu uppruxnd by public wrr•kx_'1.1 iN includLs bydranLx ur IL:aharrrluiuuod of wa[cr umim. 2. '1'trc Ci[yk(AS r nls do mL shuw an rascrncw fi)r 11ir vA]YlnlF,war LT si:7vi L'which is requrcL Apptiuur[lu pnrridr pruuf-+f canting cxwcrnui[or providr a rrcw 2fl' aa cmr mmiL fnr LJrc wa[cr x rtiL up IsF di. walcr nrdLT_11ir 0q n qui:�[6v L�iimnl.L'almmL LV r i i LLii:wArr rur[cr bu[ unty S'Ls mquircd_ 3. 'ThLm is a srwcr A"arailabfe to sLTrc[hrs pnryrcr[y fnrm Ic nurr6_ f:eaend rondidaas of App"val I. Appliuml shall a rdi=[c wa[cr3wdxwvr urarn sir alr,l rsal[iug widk the rubtic WorlLw 13cparLmcid. 2. I'tr MLiidian City Cimle;(MCC]tbrapplraudalmll bL mNpunsihle W mcdall x wLT aim]walrr Mahn ue airJ Llrnauglr[his dcucJupaKLA. ApIkc-aid may be cLgi hJr fcK a rurnhurscurcn[ dV[ Luxn[tin nllffr ml.rucl=rikluncrmmil per M(,t,N-6-3. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S).H-2025-0001 ■ Page 10 J. 1 he appLLL;nIE shall lrn]vldC LmsL'rmmik(s)fur a&L public walcrhsuwer rmaim mlwiLl sof public rioa of way(inK::ILlllu alL water survdxs arxl hydrants). ScweT)walur rasunlcnL varies dL3xmdiugon scwcr &p[h.rtiewcr 0-2U fl dLx;r reyuirc a 30 fl ro<wcrncni 21k23 ft a 40 fl cascuu=ut,and 25-30 ft a 9:5 fl cascnLcnL. }insure no pervarrcnislrlLvl Lrxs(Im2i,bushes,huildrngs,carpsrrLi�LraslY nxi7LlaLcic walls,fun us,iutihLVLisLn 1rcLruhL Iigld puLcx,c[c-)avr both wilhm llx uLildyuaxnlunL. Submit mi cxcvuled L w iimiia{ou dw furru availabLc frum 1'u6liv Wtirkmj} o 1LFaL druaripiiun pr"pa"by an 6Lhu L,imumc'd lbpfc-;N Lmlal.1 auid Surnyor,which musL mc1Lxlc the arms of dkc uLwumuml (mar"F.XHIBTT A)andan S 12"x L l"myp withbcari ggsand distanL=(rttarkod EX HIRT 13) fur n:riew.B;"exhi hiL%mLL%1 he m2dE4 slgticd an&dale&by a PrufLviunal LAnd Surrryur.00 W)r k iCl]R Ll. 4. T6c Cary of McridL mquir Umt premLriyxd irrigation s}T Eons he supplied by a yum-TOL1Lrd s&w Lx of wafer(Ll X: L I-3H }-Ilk-aMil card Amuld hu mMu6,Ld lzY Lac any rxis[Lmg B:wfmx ur wcJ1 woLcr fur Llke prirrimy x wLx. if a surface ur well sLanx is nul avaiLLhk,a siug)r-pumt L;LL[uaxLitm U.L LIYc cul ilary water aymlun shall 1 L:reyuirLd-1 f a singlepuinL L;mmLxLi.m is uLilie.LA Ukc LLvchalxr will he responsibJv f;w Lhc pmymLud(if zw NnLenLs fur Ukc L nurxan arms p6ur tLr prior lit rL1xIviiky dLvLA;MrLn1L'n1]4aiYnplrrrrval- 3. Any s[ruu'Lm lhaLlarr allowed LLr rummiu xholl he sthi:x[w L: aIma[urLYarLd piPm1 c massrgnncriL of mn,.l aLI n2ming w 6e in uumplLimm:with MCC_ 6. All irigalillm di U: rm,meal i,Ialcrals,ur drdim,cxrILLsivc of natural waLcrwa^in[Lrmclnrg, caue�ling ur Lying w4acml and L]LrLLIigiaom w L6L=&hciug subdividLd slWl be zddr.:�J Pcr UUC I 1-3A-6. In perform img mwh wmk,In:Wlic2uYt shall L;smnpLy wdh l"MP C"ANIC 42-1207 and any olhcr appl"hlu law iar rLTrdnLL n. 7. Any wrLls tlkaL will Lint cLm[i uucu h nulL Lmml. ni hu prLpFrerly ah2uKl neat aiAmrdiug Lai idalwr WL:LI Gu Unisu'Liun SLarxfarL6 Ru1L�adrlll IusEc"by thu J"mp IJL:pw1nrLlrL of WalL"r XL�. uR N- 1 kc f]uwL:loWr's Fnginutr shall piuvi&e aAULI :nlWIrl ngwlkodiv tlr:rcarc any cAisling wells in Ubc dLych}pmYUYt,and If sir,lltlw Ubcy will.LNmlhnLru lzY hu umxl,or pnrvidr rLxurd of Ib Lnir al.sciK Lnuumt. 9. Any rx isling supiiL:3ys[uns wi[hn1 Lhis prujcLd shop.bu n rnovul fr1Lm srrvicc per C:i[y()Fdi imkcr .w -i:L11Y'>✓-14 md94 R- UmmL t Cemtral lyiwlnd Hcal[b for ahandumn mL pi LL dumL and 6nlKx1iLnLs f2U$}375-5211_ $. AIL unim"umunls rrl"lu pii.Ric life.saPLl'y and lLua ldh shall.hu c4mrlpldcd 1Lruw w txxupamuy of thu sLrucluro. 10. Appl ica l sliall he reyuirud lu pmy 1'L1hLir WmL,&-y ukTincril plaik rr-piuw,and L:ommlruc Li Uli I hMtx[iou fLxs,m&LcrinimA during tim p1m ri:'iLIY prucc-sm,1RLLR Iu Ihr iss kcv of o plan ap iowmL Lc[Lcr- 1 1. 11 shall Ire Lhc me FKmLmbi Ir[y of dkie appliL rift.LLr vikmu Thal all.LlcvelK"MnE fcalurrs n Pkmply wdh the Amrriciam wil Diyyhili6c s AcA and Ulu Farr Hvmo iag Ad. 12. AppLicanE shall hi:rupLruLsibk for aLpplim[i Pih aridcumpliaucc Willi 2my Suclim 4M 1'Lunil[uYg tlal nmy Iti rcyum-A by Elie+bury Corps Lrf hngincLT . n- IhweILrpur shall cuordma[c mrei Ili IkKmIi Piles wills UK:MurWiza I'LLsi Offr . t4.CAmnpaL-Lim test ri: rdi:s shall hr subI161bcd Iu Use McrirLari HuAdiug 136LpartmLrd I'm A building paLLiw rcnciv iug cngiucmd hackfill,where fLrLding wtmhl sd altar fill malurud. 13.The Llksigu crigiimur shall Ix:rcyuimd iLr certify LhaE lhr Ami:L L idurhiiiu vluvadurus are sd a nunmlum of 3-fcul alnivr[tic IYighL3l cslabLisliLd peak grLLundwater ulcva[xrLY. This is w mks Ual Ehu WALunl elera64 nY of Uie crawl slrauL aof IKiir3cN is a[1L:aA L-f;KLl abnvi'- 16.Thu 21PPU IB dLa;gn cnguuxr shall.6r rL-4Kmm6lc f4m iri."oLmm Li-fall irrigation andJor drainage fatality wiULin Uus prLgncL Lha[Lk1 nLrt faIJ midri I[ir j urimbu'Liun of mi irriga[ismY dixtrict or AU 31.).l7Yc design cugiuccr shall.prLLvrdc LxrLiJirmiou Llmi Llw facili["hair brcn imulkd in mxurdmwx Willi UIPL agxlanavcd LLsiVi lrlans.T16S 4XFt3fIca Litm wi 11 Ix mquin:d hcfurc a Lxrti1rK7a e of 4Pccupa1rL'y is issued rirr awry sLruaums wA6irL Ukc lmji:LE. 17. Al The coopluLiLm of lhr prujc4,t,dic appli4mml shall hu ru-4mm sihlc LLr suhiml KxAiLd&rawin&w per dK City at MumfiaLr AulLWAD sEandw&. ThLsr rucurd4imwings must 6c rrcciwd.wd appruwd. prkor 10 t1r i u net:Lrf a cLShficzr.f Ln of 4mxuliaLYcy for any sLrucLuL3 widbim Use pn iLUL. 19. A sdr r light plaLr will moil lu he inLdudL:d i a LIYc uivil LxomlrvcLim pins.SL=L ligld plmk mquucimcuLs are JIsLcL1 ui sel6031 fr3 Lrf Ihr IogrruvclLrcni SLmdanlh fuc SUva L�igh[Lug.A LxLpy of thu s1aridaii&cam hi:f iuml at Ld1lF:l�wx x_mLTi&ia,YeiLy-urglPuhlir_wLrrkx.aslLx'."id-2'!}. 19-T6c'L:r[y LLl McodL mqu1r i:�UaL LJrc owLYcr rHP51.1ir dC Cityx perf4Pmu Mc curdy III LILL:anKxLn[ uP 123%of tlar LAJ cmk%lLnLrhLLn 4mL fm all imLwrnpk[c mwer,walL-r mml rrase mfraxlrucLurc prier lu fnraLl p6l!iiismalum.This.,,r,.Ey will 6Ls rcrifinLI by a JIM iLrm cmL Lslmwbc pnrvid.LA by LhL WINM:r io dw City- AIL-Numty can hL positzi in Llrc form of a1L urL:wjrahk IL-LtL-r 51f L7i'd]L,cuAi &posit ur lrsrod-AppllcaoL mmNE filr mi appliu rk f;w surLty,w16A calY 6L:fuunKi rm the CLmnneoYiiy J3cvrhipnlcoL I]--jemLlruco[wehsilr. Pkiasc cunLmd Lund JhvclvpnLcnt Scry x:fur nYLLrr:inforrimLitni a[!iU-2211- 20..1'LLc C:i[y of McridLan n:yuLr i:�Llal LJ1c owner post LLr Lk l:dy a warran[y sumLy in Llrc amuLr mt of 20 of[hu total cumLnru[uru cml for all cungrleLwl sL-Wcr,waLcr 2md reuse i ufrmuuuihm-for &uraluLn;if Lwo yLars-Tha suruy will hu vrrifwd by a Iinr itenL ems[L3Lualc pnavidnLl by tim ownL:r ua Lhu C:i[y.7'hu MucLy Lain he pu%6A im lhr funn of mi irLrvcxahJr Lc[Lcr of cri:&L,c-dmh &pnsiL ur lmPivL AlrydJ iht mew[filr mi appliudiLn flu surety,wlLiLAi L h 6c fuunLl L the CinnrllLLlYllr 13cvchipnlcuL ULlarinlcnE wuhsilG. P1Lxsc cunlad Land LlewlopnLLcnt SLrri Lx for na.mc inforimaLitm al XX'1-221 1- CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S).H-2025-0001 ■ Page 11 Ada County Highway District(ACHD) Miranda god,Vresidpnt ACHD +ent Pickerin e g.Vl -presldPnt Kent Goldtharpe,Commeelaner Dave MCKrnney,tom"Eslorwr V'f &IM-mm Datricia Ni1m;Pm CGMrr9141onar January 21.2025 Tu: Aaron Randell,via email JOT Architecture 12121T Avenue South Nampa. ID 83651 Subject MER25-00091H-2025-0001 135 S Touchmark Way Hyperbarlc Oxygen Cllnlc of Idaho The Ada County Highway District (ACHD) has reviewed the suhmittad application for the application referenced above and has determined that lhore are no improvements required to the adjacent stieat(s}. The applicant shall be required to; 1. Pay a traffic impact fee,if a pplicable_ For any questions regarding the traffic impact fee please contact ACHD-s Impact Fee Administrator at im ctF a achdidaho-o - 2, if applicable,a traffic impact 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 process and it is the 8pplicanl's responsibility to submit plans directly to AOHD- 3. Payment can be accepted over the phone by calling (208)387-6170 or can be sent!delivered to the following address; Ada County Highway District Attn: Development Seruiees 1301 N Orchard St,Sulfa 200 Boise, ID 83706 • Reference the file number above when making the payment- ■ Please note-. o Fees are subject to change If not paid prior to October V c Al 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; https:lfwww-achdida ho.orcVhomelshowpu bl isheddocu meno88163824598571 1600000 5, Comply with all ACHD Policies and ACHD Standard Condilions 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(curb, guner, sidewalk, pavement widening,driveways,Culvie ts,etc-)- CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S).H-2025-0001 Page 12 21 Standard Cond Nona of Approval 1, All proposed irrigation facilities shall be located outside of the ACHD right-of-way (Including all easements). Any existing irrigation facilities shall be relocated outside of the ACHE)right-of-way (including all easements). 2. Private Utilities including sewer or water systems are prohibited from being located wlthln the ACHE)right-of-way, 3. In accordance with district policy, T203.3,the applicant may be required to update any existing non--compliant pedestrian improvements abutting the site to moot current Public Right-of-Way Acoessibilily Guidelines (PROWAG) requirements, Ihe a icant'& en ineer should provide documentation of compliance to District Develooment Review staff For review. 4. Replace any existing dammed curb, gutter and sidewalk and any that may be damaged during the construction of the proposed development_ Contact Construction Services at 208-387-6280 (wltlh file nu mbar)for details. 5. A license agreement and compliance with the District's Tree Planter pDlicy is required for all landscaping proposed within ACHD right-of-way or easement areas_ 6. All utility relocation casts associated with Improving street frontages abutting the rile shall be borne by the developer- T. It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all wdsting utilities within the right-of-way. The applicant at no cost to ACHD shall repair QiXieing ufilities damaged by the applicant_ The applicant shall be required to call DIGLINE (1-811-342-1585) at least two full business days prior to breaking ground wlthlo ACHD right-of-way. The applicant shall oontact ACHD Traffic.Operetlone 387-6190 in the event any AGHD conduits(spare cr filled)are compromised during any Phalle of construclian. a. Utility street cuts in pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless appr<Ved Its writing by the District. Conlact the District's Utlllty Coordinator at 208-387-6258(with flle numbers) for details. a. All design and construction shalt big in accordance with the ACHD Policy Manual, ISPVVC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services procedures and all applicable ACHD Standards unless specifically ward herein. An engineer registered In the State of Idaho shall prepare and certify all improvement plans. 10_ Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable requirements of ACHD prior to District approval for occupancy. 11. Nb change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they are in W6ting and signed by the applicant or the applicant's authorized representative and an audhorized representative of ACHa. The burden shall be upon the applicant to obtain written confirmation of any change from AE)HD. 12. If the site plan or use should change in um 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 applicafianr shell require the applicant to comply with ACHD Policy and Standard Conditions of Approval in place at that time unless a walverNariance of the requirements or tither legal relief ig granted by the ACHD Commission. FINDINGS Conditional Use(UDC 11-5B-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-2025-0001 ■ Page 13 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 L-O zoning district. 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 we fare of the community. 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. 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. Additional findings for the alteration or extension of a nonconforming use: This finding is not applicable. 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-2025-0001 ■ Page 14 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. 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. Commission: The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard this item on February 20', 2025. 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: Jerrod Wal rgen b. In opposition:None c. Commenting:None d. Written testimon. e. Staff presenting application:Nick Napoli f. Other Staff commenting on application:None 2. Kev issue(s)of public testimony: a. None 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission: a. Commission had a brief discussion about the type of use and whether the site plan was in conformance with the UDC. Staff confirmed this was correct and the commission had no further questions. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. None CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S).H-2025-0001 ■ Page 15 EXHIBITS Project Area Maps (link to Project Overview) Aerial Legend 0 Project Location Area of Impact o W OAnalysis -s Ny is 347,11 h��� aw�� � fad ■4S+Y[P -� �l � _ � ,�_ 1 , 4 A9hP lR {I ung IF CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S).H-2025-0001 ■ Page 16 Zoning .• LegendPINE "1u ■ �•Ir Area of Impact 1 III!■M Project Location 0 Analysis Iz RUT W _ � FRANKL-IN �■��■■ ■■■■ in 111� � �I■■■■■■■��■��� lll11111�� ■ ��nn uu■■ilr[pur- . �• urn - r p. Future Land Use Legend 11►�� ■ � -sa _ �IIIEI u■f� �rr■nlin 111u w1111111n11 Area of .. i • Analysis • • L INS I ' -�„ FRANKL-IN Residential �), IiAe' i'um Density— � ca r■ n■ ■n ru■n Residen • Comm- o �'�Ir�■■� 84 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE • i00 Planned Development Map Legend JLI I I I I C= Project Location Area of Impact City Limits l Planned Parcels Jf OAnalysis --- J I 111 1 " � 1 i e CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S).H-2025-0001 ■ Page 18 Subject Site Photos WW CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S).H-2025-0001 ■ Page 19 Service Accessibility Report Description Location In City Limits Extension Sewer Trunkshed mains � 5W ft.from parcel GREEN Floodplain Either not within the 100 yrfloodplain nr , 2 a� e4 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 future transit route YELLOW 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 r School Drivability 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 FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S).H-2025-0001 ■ Page 20 Site Plan(date: 11/12/2024) +*� S�Yd-al 4.MlEtlMiliR FIY•w ilwYrt FatwiwA Mip� Rant FaGky _.... � I& BuIY &.ir I�F 11 II r � a *ZLIN 1 - • I. dt-1 0 2 f�MN dfLM11R!-Ml! S i4hM tlK115�w[.}LW •S��R� .v. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S).H-2025-0001 ■ Page 21 Building Elevations (date: 11/12/2024) Ell � Irk lit -T7Z ---------wj" - — — -- + y�sramm Y HY� All V m I7R-3b CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S).H-2025-0001 Page 23 32 Landscape Plan(date: 10/11/2024) LANDSCAPE NOTES: r..................................... M@1'.. :r^w!■.rJ'-j A LANDSCAPE LEGEND „. ........ .�,..�Mm,,.�,�..a.o.e.. ■ I I \ > 1 PLANT SCHEDULE IRRIGATION NOTES: ■ 1 .w .w a _ _ ■ PROPOSE rc�,....•.vM .M.... OFFI E6UILq.IN" 1 .� .... �„,.a.,...'.m„ .�'� w�F '♦ —....._-....................... ♦+, GALLOUT LEGEND "..... ANDKAPE PLAY �y 4. 615CLAIMER:� ��.k �.,m SIT PFVELOPMENT FEATURES LANDSCAPING REQUIRMENTS �o �,pu man �L1.0 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S).H-2025-0001 ■ Page 22 E K IDIAN:--- iuAn Planning and Zoning Presentations and outline Changes to Agenda: • Item#3: Latitude Forty Three Subdivision (H-2024-0059)—The Applicant requests continuance to April 3rd in order to make revisions to the application. Item#4: Pollard North (H-2024-0037) This project was previously heard by the Commission on December S`" the Commission recommended denial to City Council based on the opinion the proposed rezone to R-8& TN-R would create too much density for the area & not provide enough transition to lower density development to the north. Following the Commission hearing, the Applicant submitted revised plans to address some of the concerns raised by neighboring residents and the Commission, which included a reduction of 20 building lots, an increase in the width of the lots along the northern boundary between Pollard Ln. &Schwenkfelder Ave.from a minimum of 50 feet to 60 feet; and replacement of some internal single-family attached/paired units with detached units and open space resulting in an increase of 3.4%in qualified open space, and additional pedestrian pathways. The Applicant also changed their rezone request from TN-R to R-1 S, with R-8 remaining along the north & east boundaries of the site. Dues to these changes, Council remanded the project back to the Commission for review and an updated recommendation. Application(s): ➢ Development Agreement Modification (doesn't require Commission action) ➢ Rezone ➢ Preliminary Plat Size of property,existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 19.76-acres of land,zoned R-8,generally located %mile north of W. Chinden Blvd. at the north end of N. Levi Ln.on the north side of W.Waverton Dr. History: The subject property is part of a larger area annexed with R-8 zoning in 2019 and included in a DA&preliminary plat for Pollard Subdivision. The property was approved to develop with 74 building lots for conventional SFR homes, independent living units for 55 and older and an 88-bed assisted living facility. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MDR(medium density residential) Summary of Request: The Applicant requests Council approval of a modification to the existing DA for a new agreement for the residential portion of the development with an updated development plan. The approved plan is for the development of 74 building lots for conventional SFR homes, independent living units for 55 and older, and an 88-bed assisted living facility. The proposed plan is for 157 SFR detached&attached homes. A rezone of 14.90-acres of land is proposed from the R-8 to the R-15 zoning district. A preliminary plat is proposed consisting of 157 building lots&32 common lots on 19.76-acres of land in the R-8&R-15 zoning districts. The plat is proposed to develop in (2)final plat phases.The minimum lot size proposed in the R-8 district is 4,350 s.f.with an average lot size of 4,805 s.f.;the minimum lot size in the R-15 district is 2,238 s.f.with an average lot size of 2,801 s.f. The gross density of the development is 7.95 units/acre with a net density of 13.33 units/acre,which is at the high end of the density allowed in the MDR FLUM designation. A mix of SFR detached &attached units are proposed with front-loaded and alley-loaded options—conventional front-loaded detached homes are proposed along the perimeter boundary to the north&east,which will transition to existing and future homes,with alley- loaded attached &detached units on the remainder of the site. A 20'wide street buffer is required along the portion of W.Waverton Dr. designated as a collector street, east of Levi Ave. Off-street parking will be required based on the number of bedrooms per unit; on-street parking is also available along internal streets. A minimum of 15% (or 2.96-acres) common open space is required to be provided with development that meets the quality&qualified standards listed in the UDC. The Applicant proposes a total of 3.94-acres(or 19.94%)qualified open space consisting of several open grassy areas exceeding 5,000 s.f. in area; linear open space;the street buffer along the eastern portion of W. Waverton Dr., a collector street; and parkways along streets as shown on the open space exhibit,which complies with and exceeds the minimum standard. Amenities totaling a minimum of four(4) points are required to be provided based on the area of the development. The Applicant proposes a small dog park with a waste station (1.5 pts.) and a picnic shelter area on a site 5,000 s.f. or greater in size(2 pts.)from the Quality of Life category; and a tot lot with benches for seating (1 pt.)from the Recreation Activity Area category, which complies with and exceeds the minimum standard.The amenities are required to comply with the associated standards for such in the UDC. Several conceptual building elevations were submitted for 2-story detached &attached SFR homes as shown.A variety of materials are proposed including vertical and horizontal lap siding, board and batten siding, stucco and fenestration with masonry accents in a variety of colors and design elements/features with varying roof profiles and wall modulation that demonstrate the high quality of development proposed. All SFR attached structures are subject to the residential design standards in the ASM. Written Testimony: Eli Benski, Brighton Corp.—In agreement with staff report conditions; only(1) letter of testimony has been received since the Council meeting from Aaron Kwan—he is against the proposed rezone from R-8 to R-15 and the additional homes/density that would be allowed through the R-15 district. Prior to the last hearing, (4) letters of testimony were received that are included in the public record. Staff Recommendation: Approval with the provisions 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 Number H- 2024-0037, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 6, 2025,with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2024- 0037, as presented during the hearing on March 6, 2025,for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2024-0037 to the hearing date of(insert continued hearing date here)for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) h2 Planning and Zoning March 6, 2025Commission Meeting Slide 1 h2 Agenda Item Numbers/Order: hoodc, 12/19/2006 Aerial MapFuture Land Use MapZoning Map Approved Conceptual Development PlanProposed Development Plan W IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Pollard North Subdivision (H-2024-0037) by Brighton Corporation, generally located approximately 1/4 mile north of W.Chinden Blvd. at the north end of N. Levi Ave. on the north side of W. Waverton Dr. Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2024-0037 A. Request: Modified Development Agreement to the existing Development Agreement (Inst. #2019-060655) for a new agreement for the residential portion of the development with an updated development plan B. Request: Rezone of 14.90 acres of land from the R-8 to the R-15 zoning district. C. Request: Preliminary Plat for 157 building lots and 32 common lots on 19.76 acres of land in the R-8 and R-15 zoning districts F33 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: March 6t", 2025 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 4 PROJECT NAME: Pollard North Subdivision (H-2024-0037) I wish to testify Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing (mark x (please Print) HOA? if yes) R(A v\,Q&-)-( (S I.eh eve Ge,✓rLt — Sl 5 G z/� sy 4 U,� S 41/n - 5 kv/p Gol � � ��d J � �°W r*�, EL_ 6 Dqv� d NjL— U��,q 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C��fEPIDIAN*,,--, DEPARTMENT REPORT HEARING 3/6/2025 Legend DATE: Project Location TO: Planning&Zoning Commission :::Area of Impact City Limits FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner O Analysis 208-884-5533 sallen@meridiancity.org APPLICANT: Brighton Corporation SUBJECT: H-2024-0037 r- Pollard North—MDA,PP,RZ � LOCATION: Generally located approximately 1/4 mile north of W. Chinden Blvd. at the north m end of N. Levi Ave. on the north side of W. Waverton Dr., in the south 1/2 of Section 21,TAN.,R.1W. (Parcel #SO421438475). The Planning&Zoning Commission heard this project on December 5th and issued a recommendation of denial to City Council on the original development plan and their opinion the proposed rezone creates too much density for the area & the transition to lower density development to the north is not enough. Following the Commission hearing, the Applicant submitted revised plans to address some of the concerns raised by neighboring residents and the Commission. The revised plans include a reduction of 20 building lots (an 11.3% decrease) resulting in a decrease in density from 8.06 to 7.95 units per acre; an increase in the width of the lots along the northern boundary between Pollard Ln. &Schwenkfelder Ave.from a minimum of 50 feet to 60 feet; and replacement of some internal single-family attached/paired units with detached units and open space resulting in an increase of 3.4%in qualified open space, and additional pedestrian pathways (see original vs. revised layout below in Section VII.J). The project is also now proposed to develop in two (2)phases rather than one(1). City Council heard this project on January 14, 2025.Due to substantial changes to the plat and zoning request from the original submittal, Council remanded the project back to the Commission for review and an updated recommendation to City Council. The staff report has been updated to reflect these changes and the project has also been re-noticed for the new public hearing. I. PROJECT OVERVIEW A. Summary The Applicant requests a modification to the existing development agreement(Inst. #2019-060655)for a new agreement for the residential portion of the development with an updated development plan; rezone of 21.95 14.90-acres of land from the R-8 to the TN-R R-15 zoning district; and a preliminary plat for 4-77 157 building lots and 2-6 2132 common lots on 19.76-acres of land in the TN R-8 and R- 15 zoning districts. City of Meridian I Department Report 34 B. Issues/Waivers Request for Couneil approval of eyaended block faces beyond the maximum length st.,,,,1.,r i the TN the faee-of Sleeks-1,2, 3 4 and c ..1,.ne 107 Flat ReekSt. ki i�x7�c4et4oa Dr •,1.;,.k all r-aage4fem 620 to 875 feet i le t Per &DG 11 6G a>; G,,.,,,ed Staff eommentsi A waivep4o4he T-N R standards isn't neeessafy if+ey4sions are made to the pb-ja:12 1„( ,l t ♦' l,l b .ld � B 1 1 � � C-9rri —a�3e�cacrncirwiarcccivirceuicr-vc-ccaacaz'r"rmvcicTco ch2-EthlittiatHf$Evirmivi'rv"�cl� si3aee afea to the nef4h in Alden Ridge Sub.; andeefineetionsthro,, 1, Blooks 23 None C. Recommendation Staff. Approval with the provisions included below in Section IV. Commission: Denial due to the following reasons: 1)the proposed rezone would create too much density for the area; and the transition to lower density development to the north is not enough. Council: Due to substantial changes to the plat and zoning request from the original submittal,Council remanded the project back to the Commission for review and an updated recommendation. D. Decision Council: Pending 11. COMMUNITY METRICS Table 1:Land Use Description Details Map Ref. Existing Land Use(s) Vacant/undeveloped land - Proposed Land Use(s) Single-family residential detached&attached dwellings - Existing Zoning R-8 (Medium-density Residential) VII.A.2 Proposed Zoning T_14 _R R-15 (T-r-aditio ..l Neig1.1.,.,4eod Medium High- Densi Residential)(14.90-acres).A portion of the existing R-8 zone will remain (7.05-acres Existing Future Land Use Map Medium Density Residential(MDR) VII.A.3 Designation Table 2: Process Facts Description Details Preapplication Meeting date 7/15/2024 PREAPP-2024-0061 Neighborhood Meeting 7/22/2024 Table 3: Community Metrics Agency/Element Description/Issue Reference Ada County Highway District • Comments Received Yes • Commission Action Required No • Access N.Levi Ln.,a collector street,and N.Black Cat Rd.,an arterial street,via W.Chinden Blvd. Traffic Level of Service AL NA(ACHD doesn't set LOS thresholds for local streets) City of Meridian I Department Report 35 Traffic Impact Study(Y/N) No ITD Comments Received Yes(no significant impact to the state highway system) Meridian Fire No comments received Meridian Police No comments received Meridian Public Works Wastewater Distance to Mainline: Sewer is available at site;Impacts or Concerns: see site specific conditions Meridian Public Works Water Distance to Mainline:Water provided by Veolia;Impacts or Concerns:None See City/Agency Comments and Conditions Section for all department/agency and the public record for comments received on this application. Figure 1: One-Mile Radius Existing Condition Metrics 2.0u 1,500 Single-family a") 1.50 Residential b 1,000 Parcel Diversity a 1.00 I]Parcel Count t! 0.50 ® 500 U *Average Acres c 0.00 ��0 00—�0 0 O:oi,—�tv"�9A� 0 a J R-2 R-4 R-8 R-15 Average Single-family Density by Zoning Average � 10.00 O 9.28 _ � _ntial _ Density 5.00 O 5. 8 3.78 • 1.36 O 4.76 o.00 Dwelling Units / Acre R-2 R-4 R-8 R-15 III. STAFF ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code (UDC) A. General Overview Development Agreement Modification: The Applicant requests a modification to the existing development agreement(Inst. #2019-060655)for a new agreement for the proposed development with an updated development plan. This property will no longer be subject to the existing DA. A legal description and exhibit map for the property to be included in the new DA is included below in Section VII.C. The current approved development plan for this area, shown below, consists of 74 building lots for conventional single-family residential homes, independent living units for 55 and older, and an 88-bed assisted living facility. City of Meridian I Department Report 36 The updated development plan(i.e.preliminary plat), shown below, is for 44W 157 building lots and-26 -3 32 common lots for the development of(47-42)front-loaded"conventional" single-family detached dwellings and alley-loaded"carriage lane" (38 45) single-family detached and(92 70) attached"duet" dwellings. Conceptual building elevations for these dwellings are included below in Section VII.I. Larger lots are proposed along the north and east sides of the development as a transition to adjacent lots of a similar width for compatibility. a;a�n�� o 0 0 0 ov o o vo po 0 0 0 © om ® o o mo 00 © o o pom o © ga o 0 0 0 0 © o a w- °. e�= = o o®oo©000�� ©o©00000 � ; i o Ia @O®®��®®® I= Ile �111[s�zm �Stzl[�o5m � � n:�,G'sw Rezone: A rezone of 21.95 14.90-acres of land from the R-8 to the TN R-15 zoning district is proposed as shown in the legal description and associated exhibit in Section VII.D below. The rezone of a portion of the property to TN-R R-15 allows more lots to develop on the property as there is no minimum lie or street frontage requirement in the TN-R R-15 district and a lesser building setback is allowed as opposed to that in the R-8 district.Note:If the rezone is not approved, the plat will need to be revised, and the number of buildable lots will be sinificantly reduced to comfy with the minimum dimensional standards of the R-8 district. The rezone area is designated Medium Density Residential(MDR)on the Future Lane Use Map (FLUM)included in the Comprehensive Plan. The MDR designation allows for dwelling units at gross densities of 3 to 8 dwelling units per acre. The T-N n distfiet requires rot density of 6 dwelling tmits per-aer-e. The proposed use and development plan with a gross density of 8-06 7.95 units per acre and net density of 14.23 13.33 units per acre is consistent with the MDR FLUM designation ...7 the'PAT D dis -iet Preliminary Plat: A preliminary plat consisting of 4-7-7 157 building lots and 2-6 29 32 common lots on 19.76-acres of land is proposed in the TN R-8 and R-15 zoning districts. The plat is proposed to develop in one two(4- 2) final plat phases,with the eastern portion developingfrst,per the phasing-plan included in Section VIIC. City of Meridian I Department Report 37 The minimum lot size proposed in the R-8 district is 4,350 square feet(s.f.)with an average lot size of 4,805 s.£;the minimum lot size in the R-15 district is 2,238 s.£with an average lot size of 3-,OQ 3-,2- S 2,801 s.f. The proposed development is consistent with Comprehensive Plan Goal#3.07.01A which states, "Require all new development to create a site design compatible with surrounding uses through buffering, screening, transitional densities, and other best site design practices." Table 4: Project Overview Description Details History H-2019-0021 (Pollard Subdivision AZ,PP -DA Inst.#2019-060655); TED-2021-0003 (2-year time extension on preliminary plat);TECC-2023- 0001 (1-year time extension on preliminary plat) Phasing Plan 47 2 phases Physical Features There are no waterways or other physical features of importance on this site;the property is relatively flat. Acreage 19.76-acres Lots 4-77 157 single-family residential building lots and-2-6-29 32 common lots B. History The subject property is part of a larger area annexed in 2019 and included in a development agreement and preliminary plat for Pollard Subdivision. C. Site Development and Use Analysis I. Existing Structures/Site Improvements (UDC 11-1): There are no existing structures on this site. 2. Proposed Use Analysis (UDC 11-2): Single-family residential detached and attached dwellings are principally permitted uses in the-TN- R R-8 and R-15 zoning districts,per UDC Table 11-2D-2 11-2A-2. 3. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): See UDC Tables 11-2D 3 11-2A-6 and 11-2A-7 for standards applicable in all traditional n erheed the R-8 and R-15 zoning districts;; and UDG Table 11 2D 6 for-the dimensional D. Design Standards Analysis 1. Existing structure and Site Design Standards (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-19): There are no existing structures on this site. The proposed single-family attached dwellings are required to comply with the residential design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. Single-family detached dwellings are exempt from these standards. 2. Qualified Open Space &Amenities (Comp Plan, UDC 11-4-3-27): Compliance with the open space and site amenity standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3 and 11-3G-4 is required. A minimum of 15% (or 2.96-acres)qualified open space is required to be provided with development that meets the quality standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3A.2 and the standards for qualified open space listed in UDC 11-3G-3B. City of Meridian I Department Report 38 The Applicant proposes a total of 345-3 4.W 3.94-acres(or 17.86 21.26 19.94%)qualified open space consisting of several open grassy areas exceeding 5,000 square feet in area; linear open space;the street buffer along the eastern portion of W.Waverton Dr., a collector street; and parkways along local residential streets as shown on the open space exhibit in Section VII.I. When counting street buffers along collector streets,the buffers are required to comply with the enhanced buffer requirements in UDC 11-3G-3B.3. Parkways along local residential streets are required to meet the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3B.4 when counted toward open space. If any stormwater detention facilities are proposed,they're required to comply with the standards in UDC 11-3G-3B.5 when counted toward open space. Amenities totaling a minimum of four(4)points are required to be provided based on the area of the development(i.e. 19.76-acres). Site amenities totaling 4.5 points(pts.) are proposed from the Qualify of Life and Recreation Activity categories as shown on the exhibit in Section VII.I as follows: • Quality of Life: a small dog park(3-,9W below 5,000 s.f.)with a waste station(1.5 pts.); and a picnic shelter area on a site 5,000 s.f. or greater in size(2 pts.). Dog parks are required to have bags for dog waste disposal, a double entrance gate, bench(es) and fencing to enclose a minimum of 5,000 s.f. and secured open space for an off-leash dog park as set forth in UDC 11-3G-4C.9 in order to count as 2 amenity pts. (a waste station is an additional 0.5 pt.). The Applicant proposes a lesser size dog park with a waste station at 1.5 pts.Because the minimum amenity points are met, Staff does not recommend the dog park is enlarged to meet the minimum standard. The dog park also counts toward the required common open space. The picnic area is required to include tables,benches,landscaping and a structure for shade, as set forth in UDC 11-3G-4C.5. • Recreation Activity Area: a tot lot(1 pt.) Per UDC 11-3G-4D.3,the tot lot is required to have commercial grade play equipment scaled and designed for the use and safety of younger children; benches for seating shall be provided nearby. i. The proposed common open space and site amenities meet and exceed UDC standards for such. ii. Landscaping is required to be provided in common open space areas in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-513 and maintained in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-5C. The proposed development is consistent with Comprehensive Plan Policy#2.02.00,which states, Plan for safe, attractive, and well-maintained neighborhoods that have ample open space, and generous amenities that provide varied lifestyle choices. 3. Landscaping (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3B): Attractive landscaping and pedestrian friendly design is required within new developments in accord with Comprehensive Plan Policy#5.01.02G. Landscaping is required to be provided within the development in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-313. i. Landscape buffers along streets A 20-foot wide street buffer is required along W. Waverton Dr. designated as a collector street, east of N. Levi Ave., landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. The buffer is required to be planted with a variety of trees,shrubs, lawn, or other vegetative groundcover. Lawn and other grasses requiring regular mowing shall comprise no more than sixty-five City of Meridian I Department Report 39 (65)percent of the vegetated coverage of a landscape buffer. This maximum area excludes landscaped parkway with trees.All other vegetated coverage shall be mulched and treated as planting area for shrubs or other vegetative cover.Areas along required walls and closed vision fences should generally be reserved for planting beds with a minimum of one(1) shrub per seven (7)lineal feet of frontage, as demonstrated in Figure 1. The buffer shall also comply with the enhanced buffer requirements listed in UDC 11-3G- 313.3 because it was counted toward open space requirements. All street buffers are required to be in a common lot or on a permanent dedicated buffer easement,maintained by the property owner,homeowner's association or business owner's association per UDC 11-3134C.2a and should be depicted on the plat. ii. Storm integration Stormwater integration is required in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-I1 C. A Geotechnical Engineering Report was submitted with this application and is included in the project file. iii. Pathway landscaping Landscaping is required along all pathways in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B- 12C. 4. Parking (UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required to be provided for each dwelling based on the number of bedrooms per unit in accord with the standards for single-family detached and attached dwellings in UDC Table 11-3C-6. 5. Building Elevations (Comp Plan, Architectural Standards Manual): Several conceptual building elevations were submitted for 2-story detached and attached single- family residential homes, included in Section VII.I below. A variety of materials are proposed including vertical and horizontal lap siding,board and batten siding, stucco and fenestration with masonry accents in a variety of colors and design elements/features with varying roof profiles and wall modulation that demonstrate the high quality of development proposed. All single-family attached structures are subject to the residential design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual(ASM).Although single-family detached structures are typically exempt from these standards,compliance can be required by the Commission and Council as part of a development agreement.A few of the conceptual elevations for single-family detached homes lack the variety of materials and colors desired in the ASM;however,they do appear to meet the alterative standards which include the provision of design elements such as corbels, front porches, fagade and roof modulation, stone and brick accents,wood columns,lintels,balconies, awnings, etc. Therefore, Staff finds them acceptable. Staff is of the opinion the proposed conceptual building elevations are in accord with Comprehensive Plan Policy#5.01.02L: "Support beautiful and high-quality development that reinforces neighborhood character and sustainability. 6. Fencing (UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): All/any fencing proposed on the site should comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. The landscape plan depicts 5-foot tall open vision metal fencing and 6-foot tall closed vision stained cedar fencing on the shared property line of some building and common lots. The developer is responsible for constructing fences abutting all pathways and common open space lots to distinguish common from private areas.Fencing should be depicted on a revised City of Meridian I Department Report 40 landscape plan along with a detail of the fencing type proposed; or, alternative compliance may be requested to the standard. 7. Parkways (UDC 11-3A-17): All parkways should comply with the standards for such listed in UDC 11-3A-17. Parkways are proposed along all streets within the subdivision,except for along N. Pollard Ln.,with landscaping that complies with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C, as required. Parkways along local residential streets shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3B.4 when counted toward open space requirements as proposed. E. Transportation Analysis A Traffic Impact Study(TIS)was not submitted for this development as ACHD did not require one. Capital Improvements Plan(CIP)/Integrated Five Year Work Plan(IFYWP): • Black Cat Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 5-lanes from McMillan Road to US 20126 between 2036 and 2040. • The intersection of US 20/26 and Black Cat Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 5-lanes on the north leg, 5-lanes on the south, 7-lanes east, and 7-lanes on the west leg, and signalized between 2036 and 2040. Condition of Area Roadways (Traffic Count is based on Vehicles per Hour(VPH): Roadway Frontage Functional PM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Classification Traffic Count Level of Service Pollard Lane 315-feet Local Industrial N/A N/A Waverton Drive 2,667-feet Local 27 WA ACHD does not set level of service thresholds for local streets. Collector streets are required to be constructed with development in accord with ACHD's Master Street Map(MSM) and/or as required by ACHD. The section of W. Waverton Dr.between N. Levi Ave. and the east boundary of the site is designated as a collector street. Access (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-3, UDC 11-3H-4): 1. Access is proposed from W. Chinden Blvd. from the south via N. Levi Ave., a collector street,and from the east via W.Waverton Dr. from N. Black Cat Rd., an arterial street. The Applicant plans to install a traffic signal at the Levi Ave./Chinden Blvd. intersection; while the timingi s dependent on ITD, it's anticipated it will be completed prior to any residential occupancy in this development. This should minimize trips through Fairbourne subdivision to the east to access the traffic signal at Black Cat/Chinden. Two (2) stub streets are proposed to the north for future extension and interconnectivity with adjacent future development. The western stub street(N. Woodhead Ave.) is in alignment with that approved in Alden Ridge Subdivision to the north. Local and collector street connectivity is proposed within the development in accord with Comprehensive Plan Policy#6.01.02B, "Reduce the number of existing access points onto arterial streets by using methods such as cross-access agreements, access management, and frontage/backage roads, and promoting local and collector street connectivity. " City of Meridian I Department Report 41 2. Multiuse Pathways (UDC 11-3A-5): Multi-use pathways are required to be provided with development in accord with the Pathways Master Plan. There are no pathways depicted on the Plan on this property; therefore,none are required. 3. Pathways (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-8): All pathways should be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-8. Pathways are depicted on the landscape plan throughout common areas for pedestrian connectivity within the development and to adjacent existing and future developments. A pathway stub exists to this property at the east boundary,which is being extended with development. The pathways along the east and west sides of Lot 4-514,Block 5 abut the residential property lines and don't have the required 5-feet of landscaping on both sides of the pathway as set forth in UDC 11-3B-12C.The landscape plan should be revised to comply with these standards; or,a request for alternative compliance may be submitted to this standard as set forth in UDC 11-5B-5. 4. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): All sidewalks should be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17. Five-foot wide detached sidewalks are proposed along the section of W.Waverton Dr. west of N. Levi Ave.,designated as a local street, and along the eastern section of Waverton that lies east of Silver-Bir-eh n.,e N. Frosted Oak Ave.to align with the existing 5-foot wide detached sidewalk to the east. The section of Waverton between Levi and Silver- N. Frosted Oak Ave., designated as a collector street,is proposed to have 10-foot wide detached sidewalks. 5. Subdivision Regulations (UDC 11-6): Compliance with the subdivision design and improvements standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3 is required. Alleys: Alleys are required to comply with the standards in UDC 11-6C-3B.5. The proposed 20- foot wide alleys appear to comply with these standards. Wayfinding address sig_nage should be provided at the public street for homes accessed via alleys that don't have frontage on a public street(i.e. Lots 9-13 and 15-19,Block 5). Common driveways: Common driveways are required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3D. One (1) common driveway is proposed on Lot 4-5- 16,Block 3 for access to Lots 4-3- 14 and 44 15. A common driveway exhibit is included in Section VII.F that demonstrates compliance with the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3D. Perpetual ingress/egress shall be required either by a recorded easement or as a note on a recorded final plat. The easement or plat note shall include a requirement for maintenance of a paved surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment. Solid fencing adjacent to common driveways is prohibited,unless separated by a minimum five-foot wide landscaped buffer planted with shrubs,lawn or other vegetative groundcover—if fencing is proposed along the south side of Lot 4-516,Block 3, a 5-foot wide buffer should be provided. Block face: In residential districts,no block face greater shall be more than-500 750-feet in len h without an intersecting street or alley, except as allowed in UDC 11-6C-3F.3. Where a pedestrian connection is provided,then the maximum block face may be extended up to 750 1,000-feet in length in the residential districts. The pedestrian connection shall provide access from within the subdivision to one (1)or more of the following: a qualified open space as defined in UDC 11-3G-3.B, a street, or a common open space area or public meeting area within an abutting development. The City!`ounei' may.,ppr-eve a blee'r faee"to 1,200 feet in length where the bleek desip is eenstfained by site eenditions whieh inelude,among other-things, an abtWiag urban pr-ejeet with no adjoining alley or-street eenneetions City of Meridian I Department Report 42 sueh as the ease with this deve pme fft The proposed block faces meet the required standards as they are either below 750-feet in length or have a pedestrian connection and are less than 1,000-feet in length. The faEee€Blocks 1,2, 31 4, a-ad and 6 allongW . Flat Rook St. a-ad W.Wa zertonzr. ^'r e from 620 to 975 feet i...length, exceeding the maximum length standard. Blocks 1 3 along pedestfia-aewmeetion. The Applioant has pf:evided writtenjustifioation, as required, for the bloek faces • Blooks and 5)that e3ceeed 750 feet in length. The reasons stated are as follows: the original Pollard streets(i.e.N.Woodhead Ave. &N. Sekwenkfelder A-ve.),which are being retained with t proposed stibdivision; due to the shape of the parcel and existing roadway eonneetions in the area, the pr-ojeet is designed with bloeks tha4&Eeeed the mwEim-um standard; the stfeet length and loeation are r-estr-ieted by the agreed upon position of N. Sel+wenkfelder-Ave,whieh will sef-,�e both Par-eels to the noire S0421314900 &S0421428100) €er-ftitufe dever'epmefft-and will presumably eenneet to W. Highland Fall Dr. in Fair-botime Estates. As mitigation for-the longer- No&faees,the ApplieapA proposes pedestrian friendly elemen�s, ineltiding btilb outs(noted ift yellow), ehoker-s(noted in red) md desigaa4ed pedest (with distanees noted in bla&4 on the following diag..a . 0 0 J 0 a WAVERTON - J 0 J a WAVERTON F. Services Analysis See Service Accessibility Report in Section VILB below. 1. Waterways (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-6): All waterways, except natural waterways, are required to be piped unless used as a water amenity or linear open space, in which case they may be left open as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6. There are no waterways within the boundary of this property. 2. Pressurized Irrigation(UDC 11-3A-15): Underground pressurized irrigation water is required to be provided in each development as set forth in UDC 11-3A-15. City of Meridian I Department Report ■ 3. Storm Drainage (UDC I1-3A-18): An adequate storm drainage system is required in accord with the adopted standards, specifications and ordinances; design and construction shall follow Best Management Practice as adopted by the City per UDC 11-3A-18. 4. Utilities (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-21): All utilities for the proposed development are required to be installed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-21. Water service is provided by Veolia; sewer service is available at the site. Main lines are required to be extended to and through the subject property with development. The developer should coordinate main size and routing with the Public Works Dept. and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service. 5. Topography This property slopes down from the east to the west as shown on Sheet PP 1.1 of the plat. 6. Hazards Staff is unaware of any hazards that exist on this site. IV. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Meridian Planning Division 1. A new Development Agreement(DA) shall be required as a provision of the MDA and RZ applications. The previous DA [i.e. Pollard Subdivision-Inst. #2019-060655)] shall no longer be in effect for the subject property. Prior to approval of the rezone ordinance,a new DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian,the property owner at the time of rezone ordinance adoption, and the developer. A final plat application shall not be submitted until the rezone is finalized.The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six(6)months of the date of City Council approval of the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision&Order for the Rezone and MDA request. The new DA shall incorporate the following provisions: i. Future development of the subject property shall be generally consistent with the conceptual development plan/preliminary plat,phasing plan, landscape plan, open space and site amenity exhibit and conceptual building elevations included below in Section VII,the conditions contained herein and the standards in the Unified Development Code(UDC). ii. The subject property shall be subdivided prior to submittal of any building permit applications for the development. iii. The developer shall construct 10-foot wide detached sidewalks along W. Waverton Dr. on the section east of N. Levi Ave. to the west side of N Silver-Bach Ave.N. Frosted Oak Ave., as proposed. iv. Administrative design review shall be required for all single-family attached structures in accord with the residential design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual. Single- family detached structures are exempt from these standards. 2. The final plat shall include the following revisions: i. Depict a 20-foot wide street buffer along W. Waverton Dr. designated as a collector street, east of N. Levi Ave.,in a common lot or on a permanent dedicated buffer easement,maintained by the property owner,homeowner's association per UDC 11-3B-7C.2a. City of Meridian I Department Report 44 v � B i n a 1 W. Flat Deck St W.W 11. rccvoixugcii�vxvc cs� ��x -aixcr -u 6�g�� isrrcoc car.-ate �-��--cca'ct49a D1'. 6 eemply with the bloel-E-fFace.sAffindiffirds listed in UDC 11 6G 3F for-the TN R distriet,unless 3. The landscape plan shall include the following revisions: i. Depict a 20-foot wide street buffer along W. Waverton Dr. designated as a collector street, east of N. Levi Ave.,with landscaping per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. Include additional landscaping with calculations that demonstrate compliance with the required standards. The buffer shall also comply with the enhanced buffer requirements listed in UDC 11-3G-3B.3 and because it was counted toward open space requirements. The buffer shall also comply with the enhanced buffer requirements listed in UDC 11-3G-3B.3 because it was counted toward open space requirements. ii. Depict fencing abutting pathways and common open space lots to distinguish common from private areas as set forth in UDC 11-3A-7A.7; or, submit a request for alternative compliance to this standard. iii. Depict a minimum 5-foot wide landscape strip along both sides of the pathways located along the east and west sides of Lot 4-5 14,Block 5 with landscaping in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-313-12C; or, submit a request for alternative compliance to this standard as set forth in UDC 11-513-5. iv. If solid fencing is proposed along the south side of Lot-14 16,Block 3, a 5-foot wide buffer should be provided planted with shrubs, lawn or other vegetative groundcover as set forth in UDC 11-6C-3D.5. The plat should be adjusted accordingly. 4. The common driveway shall be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3D and per the common driveway exhibit in Section VII.F. 5. Perpetual ingress/egress shall be required for the common driveway either by a recorded easement or as a note on a recorded final plat as set forth in UDC 11-6C-3D. The easement or plat note shall include a requirement for maintenance of a paved surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment. 6. Submit a detail of the dog park that demonstrates compliance with the standards listed in UDC 11- 3G-4C.9,which require bags for dog waste disposal, a double entrance gate,bench(es), and fencing to enclose the area and secured open space for an off-leash dog park. 7. Submit a detail of the tot lot that demonstrates compliance with the standards listed in UDC 11-3G- 4D.3,which require commercial grade play equipment scaled and designed for the use and safety of younger children with benches for seating nearby. 8. Submit a detail of the picnic area that demonstrates compliance with the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-4C.5,which require the area to include tables,benches, landscaping and a structure for shade. 9. Off-street parking is required to be provided for all single-family residential units in accord with the standards for such listed in UDC Table I1-3C-6. 10. All waterways, except natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or lying within the area being development are required to be piped unless used as a water amenity or linear open space, in which case they may be left open as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6. If left open, fencing may be required in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-6C. City of Meridian I Department Report 45 11. Wayfinding address signage shall be provided at the public street for homes accessed via alleys that don't have frontage on a public street(i.e. Lots 9-13 and 15-19,Block 5). Other Agency comments may be accessed in the project file in the public record. Copy and paste the following link into your browser: Itggs://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=35831 S&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX V. FINDINGS A. Rezone(UDC 11-5B-3E) Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall,at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Stafffinds the proposed map amendment and development plan complies with provisions of the Comprehensive Plan pertaining to transition in density and compatibility with adjacent uses. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Stafffinds the proposed amendment to the R-15 district is consistent with the purpose statement of the residential districts in that a range of housing opportunities are proposed consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Stafffinds the proposed map amendment should not be materially detrimental to the public health and safety but recommends the Commission and Council rely on public testimony to determine this finding. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and Stafffinds the proposed map amendment should not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services; however, because student enrollment at area schools will increase with this development, services by the school district may be impacted by the proposed map amendment. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. This finding is not applicable as the proposed request is for a rezone, not annexation. However, in regard to the rezone, the Commission does not find a map amendment is in the best interest of the City. B. Preliminary Plat(UDC 11-611-6) In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat,the decision- making body shall make the following findings: 1. The plat is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and is consistent with this unified development code; Stafffinds the proposed plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with the UDC. 2. Public services are available or can be made available ad are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; City of Meridian I Department Report ■ Staff finds public services are available to the site and will be adequate to accommodate the proposed development. 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the city's capital improvement program; Stafffinds there are no scheduled public improvements that affect development of this site. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Staff finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development. 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and Staff finds the proposed development should not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare but recommends the Commission and Council rely on public testimony to determine this finding. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. Staff is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that need to be preserved with this development. VI. ACTION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed MDA,RZ and PP requests with the provisions included above in Section IV. Council should consider and take action on the waiver requested by the Applicant pertaining to block face. B. Commission: The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard these items on December 5,2024. At the public hearing,the Commission moved to recommend denial of the subject RZ and PP requests. 1. Summary of Commission public hearing_ a. In favor: Eli Benski and Jon Wardle,Brighton Corporation b. In opposition: David Hitz,Jacob Jensen,David Durrough, Scott Willoughby,Kyle Enzler, Jade Enzler,Lea Taylor, Chase Taylor c. Commenting None d. Written testimony: Eli Benski,Brighton Corporation(in agreement with staff report conditions) e. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen f. Other Staff commenting on application: Bill Parsons 2. Key issue(s) public testimony a. Concern pertainingto o higher traffic volumes and resulting safety concerns for area children due to the proposed increase in the number of homes planned for this area. b. Proposed development seems inconsistent with what was planned for this area(i.e. lower density residential). c. Opinion that proposed density is too high and doesn't provide an adequate transition and site design that is compatible with existing and future development to the north. The proposed TN-R zoning allows a higher density due to lesser setback requirements than the existing R-8 district. Concern that the proposed open space isn't adequate for the density and lot sizes proposed,resulting in residents using the common areas in adjacent developments. d. Opinion that it would be unfair to adjacent residents to change the development plan for this area from what was previously approved and anticipated for this area to a much higher densi , development. City of Meridian I Department Report ■ e. Not in favor of the changes to the development plan as the previous plan,which included an assisted livingf any,was much less dense and would result in much less traffic in the area. f. Concern that the higher volume of traffic generated from the proposed development will be pushed through the adjacent development to the east(i.e. Fairbourne Sub.) for access to the signal at Black Cat Rd. 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission: a. Not in favor of the proposed zoning& development plan, opinion the density is too high and not appropriate for this area and will adversely affect area neighbors;preference for the existingdevelopment evelopment plan and density; inadequate transition to existing and future residential properties;waiver to block face standards wouldn't be needed if existing zoning is retained, and the higher density will create more traffic impacts on area roadways,more impacts on area schools and create more demand for services. b. Preference for the R-8 zoning to be retained with revisions to the development plan to replace the assisted livingf acility with single-family residential building lots similar in size to those approved with the previous plat. C. No issue with TN-R zoning if the development plan reflects compliance with associated development provisions (i.e. block face length). d. In favor of the variety of housingtvnes proposed with smaller lots sizes,which maX provide opportunities for people to be able to afford a starter home. e. In favor of keeping the same general proposed plan but reducing the number of units, which would address a lot of the concerns noted by providing a better transition to the north, compliance with block face standards and the provision of additional open space& site amenities, including pedestrian accesses, for the development. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. Denial—the proposed rezone creates too much density for the area&the transition to lower densi, development to the north is not enough. 5. Outstandingissue(s)ssue(s) for City Council: a. Request for Council approval of extended block faces beyond the maximum length standard in the TN-R district of 500' without an intersecting street or alley and up to 750' with a pedestrian connection, for the face of Blocks 1,2, 3,4 and 5 along W. Flat Rock St. and W. Waverton Dr.,which all range from 620-to 875-feet in length. Per UDC 11-6C-3F, Council may approve a block face up to 1,200'in length where block design is constrained by site conditions such as an abutting arterial street or highway, a limited access street, railroad tracks, steep slopes in excess of 10%, an abuttingurban rban project with no adjoining alley or street connections, a public or private education acility or park, a large waterway and/or a large irri ag tion facility—none of which exist in this case. A waiver to the standards isn't necessary if revisions are made to the plan to comply, as follows: a pedestrian connection could be added in Block 1 to the abutting future common open space area to the north in Alden Ridge Sub.; and street connections could be provided through Blocks 2-5. C. City Council: The Meridian City Council heard these items on January 7 and 14,2025.At the public hearing on January 14,2025,the Council moved to continue the subject MDA. RZ and PP requests to the March 6'hearing in order to re-notice the project to update the RZ uest. 1. Summary of the City Council public hearing a. In favor: Jon Wardle,Brighton Corp. (Applicant) City of Meridian I Department Report ■ b. In opposition: Aaron Tomoskv,Benjamin Grayson,Karen Ernest,Kyle Enzler.Jacob Jensen,David Hitz,David Woodard.Elizabeth Blencoe, Chase Taylor,Leah Taylor. Zeppelin Hitz C. Commenting: d. Written testimony: Eli Benski,Brighton Corp. (Applicant) e. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen f. Other Staff commenting on application:None 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony: a. Against the proposed rezone to TN-R as he feels it's inappropriate for the area as it will increase the density in this area and may result in a rental community like to the one to the east—preference for R-8 zoning to be retained: concern the proposed rezone will result increased traffic and congestion in the area,which is already backed up at times from the high volume of traffic from the adjacent church&rental community. b. Against the proposed rezone& development plan,which will increase the number of SFR dwelling units by 83 additional homes—request for R-8 zoning to be retained- opinion the proposed development will burden community&resources and have a negative impact on home values. C. Opposed to the zone change from R-8 to TN-R. d. Concern pertaining to the stress this development will put on the school system and the community in Fairbourne Subdivision. e. Proposed development isn't consistent density-wise with existingddpment: proposed development will negatively impact adjacent neighborhoods and congestion in the Fairbourne development to the east. f. A berm with landscapingprivacy fence on top was proposed along the northern boundary of the subdivision with the previous application as a buffer to residential development to the north that is not proposed with this application: safety of children walking to bus stop and traffic generated from the proposed development. g= Against traffic, congestion,noise, air quality generated from the proposed development. 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by City Council: a. None 4. City Council change(s)to Commission recommendation: a. Due to substantial changes to the plat and zoning request. Council remanded the project back to the Commission for review of the updated plat and zoning change. City of Meridian I Department Report ■ VII. EXHIBITS A. Project Area Maps (link to The Planning&Zoning Commission heard this project on December 5th and issued a recommendation of denial to City Council ON THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN and their opinion the proposed rezone creates too much density for the area & the transition to lower density development to the north is not enough. Following the Commission hearing, the Applicant submitted revised plans to address some of the concerns raised by neighboring residents and the Commission. The revised plans include a reduction of 20 building lots (an 11.3%decrease)RESULTING INA DECREASE IN DENSITY FROM 8.06 TO 7.95 UNITS PER ACRE;an increase in the width of the lots along the northern boundary between Pollard Ln. &Schwenkfelder Ave.from A MINIMUM OF 50 feet to 60 feet;AND replacement of some internal single-family attached/paired units with detached units and open space resulting in aN increase of 3.4%in qualified open space, and additional pedestrian PATHWAYS(see original vs. revised layout below in Section VII.J). The project is also now proposed to develop in two (2)phases rather than one (1). City Council heard this project on January 14, 2025. Due to substantial changes to the plat and zoning request from the original submittal, Council remanded the project back to the Commission for review and an updated recommendation to City Council. The staff report has been updated to reflect these changes and the project has also been re-noticed for the new public hearing. Project Overview) 1. Aerial Legend in Project Location Area of Impact OAnalysis 1 ;, lllh�:a+ • lip r.A�r♦i}"qn,t�► wgtrpl� `tl� �a L ear Fagg zr_ -"+�� 1/ 111 7 I+In1�1iR 11 _, r� � ���n.A BIT ..N Nita �" ■ i s 1 •� s mn�� rii!}llil-c CIO- 1f - - �(- __�.�_,.eu- nousn•mnnl_ _ -,%rta',Itlli:nilredT+� Ili' �� y �r � a . �i11411A@Grp null i'" AMC r rgrlle- >'ei nw �Irr..�e er.1 Fe 1t 17+s i ■ e IRltr■nR+� 1 IIm e�flllel l _ R,q 17i 1t11NY1■!11■1�jSfljp9>ty hhpr/Nrr Illllftl�� R ri•elae1a M031 tOMAN "i' iEyw' "�^�ieeel±fsnsa _ _ @ ca w� lrll fflM 'a� .4 a lttl llttl�V•. tfll m ; • - R■Ill■1111■iF. _ r i'■ �', iSi! �':E.".IMrt■1 i1t?7�Plt nl�. 1L ■�R•��� �� � �r1�4 Ai9i� i City of Meridian Department Report Fo 2. Zoning Map i Legend Project Location Area of Impact RUT OAnalysis 21 -- ..a R4 ' M1 C-G R1 C-C C-N R-15 - L-O RUT/ RUT eEEO R-8 R=8 49 rTT ra C-C 3. Future Land Use Legend Project Location 0 ...'Area of Impact OAnalysis i� Low Density Residential 7 . MU-C A _ Fie s _ MU-RG EEB Mixed Use- / � I &-bare Int/ e�/rcha/nge Medium Density.- Pran Residential.`V ® � _Civic' � � �a" City of Meridian I Department Report 51 4. Planned Development Map Legend Project Location Area of Impact 7= City Limits Planned Parcels OAnalysis 1 i f_-�J R t PER 1 I e 1 1 1 1 1 1 I rFTFT�k� City of Meridian Department Report ■ B. Service Accessibility Report PARCEL E042143 475 SERVICE ACCESSIBILITY overall Score: 12 2nd Percentile Location - City Limits Extension Sewer TrunKshed mains < 500 ft.from parcel GREEN I Floodplain Either not within the 100 yrfloodplain or 5� 2 acres I GREEN Emergency Services Fire Response time > g min, ED Emergency Services Police Not enough data to report average response time Pathways Within 114 mile of current pathways Transit Not within 114 of current or future transit route Ultimate configuration(#of lanes in master streets Arterial Road Buildout Status plan) > existing (#of lanes) &road IS NOT in 5 yr work plan SchooI Walking Proximity From 112 to 1 mile walking YELLOW Eithera pigh School or College within 2 miles OR a SchooI Driwability Middle or Elementar,,School within 1 mile driving (existing or future) Park Walkability No park within walking distance by park type Repxt gst-erysd on T1-25-2G24 by H:R1D1AK--;sa11en City of Meridian I Department Report 53 C. Legal Description & Exhibit Map for Boundary of Proposed New Development Agreement Im August 1,2024 Project No.24-031 Exhibit A Legal Description for DaWopmentAgreement Modification(pollard North Subdivision) A parcel of I and situated in a portion of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 and the Southeast 1 f 4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 21,Town ship 4 No rth, Ra nge 1 West,B-M,City of Meridian,Ada Cou nty,Idaho,and being more particularly described as f❑Ilows= Cornm endng at a n a lurninu rn cap rna rki ng the South 1/4cornerof said section 2I which bears 589°27'17"E a distance of 2,509.39 feet From an aluminum ca p marking the Southwest comer of said Section 21r thence along the weste rly line of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 3/4(easterly line of the Southeast 1/4 of the So uthwest 1�4)of sa id Section 21,NQO°32'12"f=a distance of L317.30 feet to a 5/8-inch reba r marking the Center-South 1/16th corner of said Section 21 a nd bei ng the P01 NT OF BEGIN MING- Thence leaving said westerly line(and said easterly line)and following said northerly line of said Southwest 1/4 of the 5a utheast 1/4,589°20'25"E a distance of 1,305-33 feet to a 5/84nch rebar marking the Southeast 1/16th ca rner of sa id Section 21; The nce leaving said northe rky line and fol lowing the easterly line of said Southwest V41 of the Southeast 1/4, 500°27'11"W a distance of 506,58 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar on the subdivision boundary of Pollard Subdivision No.1(Book 127,Pages 20407-20411,records of Ada County,Idaho); Thence fol lowing said subdivision bounda ry the fol lowing fourteen(14)co urses. 1_ 588850'33"W a distance of 17,79 feet to a 5f84nch rebar; 2- 133-88 feet along the arc of a circular curve to the right,said curve having a radius of 238.Sefeet,a delta angle of 32°09'46",a chord bearingof h173°27'56"W and a chord distance of 132.13 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar, 3. N07°05'39 W a distance of 26.37 feet t4 a 5/8-inch rebar; 4, N52"4(Y22'W a distance of 61.09 feet to a 5/9-inch rebar; 5. 581`24'3VW a distance of 14-13 feet toa 5/8-inch rebar; 6- 246-97 feet along the arc of a circular curve to the let said curve having a radius of 301-50 feet a delta angle of 46°55'57",a chord bea ri ng of N65:5:V-45W a nd a chord d istance of 240,12 feet to a 5/3-Inch rebar, 7. N89'19'43"W a distance of 524.75 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; S. 1441WW2 3"W a d ista nce of 23.19 feet to a 5/8-i nch rebar; 9. H89°20'2Sr'W adistanceof 60.01)feet to a 5/8-irkch rebar; 10. 545'39'34'W a distance of 23-16 feet to,?5/84nch reba r, 11. N89°19'43 eW a distance of 164.32 feet to a 5/8-Inch rebar; 12- 21.54 feet along the arc of a curve to the right,said:curve having a radius of 10,031-50r a delta angle of 00'07'23",a chord(searing of N89°23'25"W and a chord distance of 21.54 feet to a 5/3-inch rebar; 13- N$9°27'N"W a distance of 1,358.82 feet to a brass plug; 14- N44"26'05"W a d ista nee of 23.34 feet to a brass plug on the westerly line of sand Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4; 5725 North ViKEYVery Way•6ol5e,Idaho 83713• 208.639.6939- kmangllp.oam City of Meridian Department Report 54 Thence following said westerly line,hi00"34'56"E a distance of 298.49 feet to an aI urn inurn cap marking the Southwest 1/16th corner of said Section 21; Thence leaving pia westerly line and following the northerly line of said Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4, S0'27WE a distance of 2,303.59 feet to the POW OF a GINNING, Said description contains a total of 19.756 acres,more or less. Attached hereto is Exhibit 8 and by this reference Is made a part hereof. Q. 124519 City of Meridian I Department Report ■ 0gepf `lwnc epv 'ue3ppan jo !� `I q 'MIS `Ntl `T 'VQS; zI "tr1I AS 0 17/1 MS DMI pue trll AAS 40 Z/T S ayl10 UO!Ijod V LL LU uoisC ipgn WON PJE?110d -Gg uoileoillpon 'dQ Y 8 1lglq3 = w 133HS 33 F—F %F , '44Z4 �.Z$.ZF,QON LU _ i O W I p 0 � CJ � 2 {y 9P US J ir} U � f �== o o M 0 � a ev �v r3 cy _ a � w � v 4�1 M z z m z LO co j q n O ff- I d s ry w rz — N a0 WWI 4 G' SDI] p 7.+'S I y1k _0 on r i N abLn f N 0 z ui n f u ( 4Af z � W � C 9O um _ ° _V1 cn ft UJ I ,Str'86Z �9 ,#£AOh� no Ul Nell0d 'N oa o r-4 P ry ca G-) r-o ---'E�206tSgni53'k�R7�T�`tlUdllx2 NOs�f"#Sv*0'NOi1Ygj140�{�'�xE�-pgksGrewx�atralxaner+sixeo-rzl°d City of Meridian Department Report 56 o§em 'A Rno0ePy 'U@Pg®n |] 'A9 'MU 'N#± 'TZTpaS § § Z ) /IIS JO #I MSa4l PLLf AAS}o Z S aq!$D uci4iod » e. O )7{f u O|SIaip g n S 4 1J O N PJ V11 0 d ® ED �2 u O!j e]II O O - q q|§ ] k ) k z§ LU d ^ I ~ § [ z \ 2 / k 2 7 § 2 LL 3 to a Ln cq \ L �§ 5 § k § q f LO§ LU § § 3 of / \\ co k ® § \ \ A I - qa - � ) k § C C Lr) \ @ / / n 7 2 G \ _ \ k C § o \ \ \ 3 f % % MI o \ � ± E aAV @ 'N I -L IHS13S 1�, . ma'vlm r4OuVv'_mu,«wm�»mmG_mn . City of Meridian Department Reprt 9 D. Rezone Legal Description&Exhibit Map-REVISED January 28,2024 Project No.24-091 Exhibit A Legal Description for Rezone to R-15 Pollard North Subdivision No.i A parcel of land situated in a portion of the South 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 and the Southwest 114 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 21,Township 4 North,Range 1 west,B-M_,City of Meridian,Ada County,Ida ho,and being mare particularly described as follows; Commencing at an al um fnum cap marking the South 1/4 corner of Bald Section 21 which bears 5$9`27'17"E a distance of 2,609.39 feet frorn an aluminum cap marking the Southwest corner of said Section 21,thence fallowing the vuesterly Ilne of the Sau€hwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4(easte Oy line of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 114)of said Section 21,ND0°32'12"E a distance of 97D.80 feet to the renterline of W_Waverton Dr. and being the POINT OF BEGIN NIl%_ Thence leaving said westerly line and following said centerline,N89°27'06"W a distance of 1,328.87 feet to the centerline of N.Pollard Lane; Thence leaving said centerline of W_Waverton Dr.and followlrrg the centerline of N.Pollard Lane, NOT34'56"E a distance of 253,00 feet; Thence leaving said centerline,S89'27'06"E a distances of 1,318.91 feety Thence 19.49 feet along the art of a curve to the rqgght,said curve having a radius of 10,421.O1)feet,a delta angle of00°1641",a chord hea ring of589°23'4eEand a chord distance of19.49 feet; Thence 589°20'25"E a distance of 1,141.61 feet; Thence 51.91 feet along the arc of a curve to the right,said curve hawing a radius of 31.83 feet,a delta angle of 93,WrI ",a chard bearing of 542°41'57"E and a chord d i5tance of 46.38 feet; Theme 500°27'11"W a distance of 197.57 feet; Thence 100.47 Net alangthe arc of a curve to the right,said calve having a radius of 128.50 feet,a delta angle of 44°47'5S",a chord bearing of 522 '_5V10'vV and a chord distance of 97.93 feet; Theme S45°15'09"W a distance of 66.08 feet to said centerline of W.Waverton Dr.; Thence fallowing said centerline the following five{5)courses' 1. 27.30 feet along the arc of a curve to the right,said curve having a radius Qf 270.00 feet,a deu angle of 05"4735",a[hard bearing of N42'20'29"W and a chord distance of 27.29 feet to a 5/8-inch Tebar, 2. 235.07 feet along the arc of a curve to the left,said curve having a radius of 270.00 feet,a delta angle of 49`53'02",a chord bearing of N64°23'12"W a nd a chard distance of 227.72 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; 3_ N8V19'43"W a distance of 731.84 feet to a SA-inch rebar; 4. Thence 21.48 Net along the arc of a curve to the left,said curve having a radius of 10,0W 00 feet,a delta angle of 00°07123",a ch ord bearing of N89'23'25"W and a chard distance of 21.49 feet to a 5/8- Inch rebar; 5- NR9°2705"W a distance of 71AS feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, Said parcel contains 14-901 acres,more or Tess. Ff 1245 n w Attached hereto is Exhibit B and by this reference is hereby made a part of_ A fi-Al � :h 47' % �4 5725 North Discovery Way+'Boise,Idaho Ei3713•209.539.6939-kmerigllp.com City of Meridian I Department Report 58 oyep! 'AluneD PpV 'ueip!j@N �o Al!:) 'VI U 'AAT,4 'Nl7-L 't -POS 3 UOISIA[pqnS 41JONJ2 O ,--i 01 auozam - a I!q HXA vzi � Z 113HS 33S " 1 �, •and final `�1 � LD Woo02 0 a : I ro I W I U, ' °° I n7 Iu tA r L� r zv CD r � aO G L N } C3 I o q f [ a O an ! C 4„ I,U- r,p•C n + osz-- � I � rq 4. Q p C u 4a O �4 m ! n ru o ru o 0 z cn G� uI PJE!IIad 'N o � -- E7d'�CW Olf SLGRf9��l N7Y{k�?'/iSYlY i3�S.i`CMG'�I'L01=!h7£3L'1�'P41S121H7C31i1k7Sh3U4`JfRkS4]LY7L1�d City of Meridian Department Report 59 oyepl `Aluno:) epV `ueippa jo A4!:) 'Aa ' MI8 `Nti 'L-Z -;aaS g 117/� 3S 40 1VI; AAS OHI p+jt> 17/1 AAS yo Z/L S agl;o uoi�jod VLL EL W 13al U01SIAipgnS glJON pae110d w ST-H 01 auozaU - 8 1!g!W A a � a d �a 0 N Ld -671 Q n N u3 CD -W W1 cJ N � F'} fV � LL7 N S*a N OF tf5 Ih Z 'L fir} w a SD =CD �rSV M1 (J 1 cl V .��y5 If} N [Y U U`I O O 4 _ S 6 O Q nn O r rn CL � w N lei o 0 0 un 0 0 u Q Q t po i Pq �+ Qj14- +- � 0 c Qj r o u? 0 � O ao a o LQ tP rri LO tb kD 3 'D a� � � as r f% J f 1 R1 J J J ap n _ -— VS ID O iO { C4 T 133H3 33S ^ '�eaaa of�+no'smr1�J['rcrwe3wwr�a�i'9rra75[-e�i 3w023e Lf�rltSllAiHx3ti�0'�1+.��+kdR51�f4*�1�d City of Meridian Department Report 60 E. Preliminary Plat&Phasing Plan(date: 9/6/2024 12/23/2024 1/28/2025)-REVISED NOU.M&SNOO UOJ iON-,kUVN1V9113Vd Hit 0- A�F--,Lll z! INN -0 (D L)� (D z 12'c g i a 2 0�! HIM <z T, 3: 90 E LLI 41) WO tt Hui PIS So Oe I CI I All I H City of Meridian Department Report F 61 a sa JA31 MM3 9 3 3 5-31111 HXVW 79 I I w. we wa w�wa'� r� Ygg - yy yy } •r. pp 93 air. � ♦�•',�- '� ♦� I' I' Y �� �'� '�.'g C�9 y#�®i tl � tl ®j i "�a�ry°°r"n x Q 5 C 1� �� •I t �q ii..i �i IiG I i � ®a � � CAE i� .� � �•.':'.'.'-' � /rr I o 'ere' p l i �� �" /v/�l��a Ilp xr�v uorwe. a°v' p �'"" �'•;4' I!r lei Y i "" i� $ $ my $ .j4 �• "'S5 C of SIP _ I C tl q na �3 iio 1 g ®�Etii. t ®9 afar g �^ it 98 ..a� q I• I. I i u t� l � � �.�� ®y I©da #I I I p a. # ■! I [� ■ k 6 �2 jp$ y $ IIP } .i ;eF J§^- IN IM$14 !� ! � _ I A .� i a 's � iio � I �ei s �tt �, �•i,I � i II 6 �€ �R��° REIN I �C`3��„'g tI, it . = `o —_rPei morm�. - $ r 1N91N 3AO9V 335-3NI7 N]lVW § € k g R'e gg E City of Meridian Department Report 62 i 2 T— maE o f ! � J �y Q 5 � F z � G I `g � o 3� L 9z {� W � N g � 2 o ° ° V w N m ' u FR Z 2 's L G L G a City of Meridian Department Report F63] I I � W IL rib �Y I ! E�. I � I _ _ I I I I I I I City of Meridian Department Report ■ F. Common Driveway Exhibit � N 9T ET lal E 1181HX3 AtlMMINO g3btlHS ltlld kHVNIW I138d N��p� x ❑ `c' a1`NdlalUN w NOISWO9nS H1avN❑8"Od = a r wy = +u n a� zz 3w� c3 n S tN/i� as�m 0 �UN�Y m� °gm=s 1N3W35tl3 NItlHO a31tlM� 0 3;IMtlO II QH:O4' QZ .01 Of, H J r 6Tl 6�PI d"PI 6RI�E ., 091 6YI E �B'PI 5PI 8...�_ 301S T �. ¢ � I In oII W fI LU off . I I �ce i ❑ — ❑ w ' al $C�]1 3 0 ~e N e v2 P •Is'� V I m m � II pp m I Ky, ww C I Y In U �s Q ¢ n `0Z City of Meridian Department Report F65 2 FMAIN-Im1 = +� - - ;!a PFM4 II p S AM AV Mu 1. I:E i 1t - m .Mfg q 0 19 4p E 33 F was � o i 00 ® CA � � t n i� RICH e 0 kJ �� � s� rFi { e S RI € o z all! H11 A d I = 0 4 _ 6 i GP�GY ® II � MC.,. ® I p Q v i Q y V ® I C 0 II g W e�ga � ee.eeva_ _ a._e•.._,e_ee_.e_e. I g i as,aa _off - • - y5p �� 5 L§� ia, yy ,q55 pp d @ S i 6 1tl 3 Y� C P �y30 6 a 5®0 lie, SE lL—•, 77 [4 4 y}y} Y ggy€ C _ cry € 4 5� Ye ` iEi 3 1 .i iC n it k 2 ! yy gg E FS B i e ■ z eS 3 i}[y 2. ii tl I pi 5 Y z �titl �F 0e ± 'Pg s��� a4 F °sa e8 !i@.5. �------ A.. City of Meridian Department Report 67 NOI17 nU15N O]UOJ ION-AkJYN I aN I1361 Wa �st� Qa ! q pp Jg 3 3 3 d d ! 3 g 0 i 7 � 7 9 e 4 °� � x4{g# °g#g !a€ 1• J$ # W 9agi� 9 $ � � m�g y a ! E � 6 g��.-�y p 110 MM O9y 9�3�/1 FA1MY _ter.— _ -- 1 ,'•',� I i �.._•: � sees e 1'� I I V _•. '.I � tl 9 6 ti_ m f I' 1 I I I I . I If I '•i I I Ifs - _1" _ Tje i, a yy r 4 R C I I V -•:E: • I � �2 B y & 17 jig I I S[S { • - I C p '•I ' ""�� 1 .%�: i it i W � �1� �� ��� x�a�N���4ga 9EF Z f._: ,` -.r- -"-L�]"?�_ _�__ .;•� _�— �w F W e�aa �€ �Wg 27 ��=�SG�4��� '222� ,nee. -- e e ., a City of Meridian I Department Report 68 Na ID nUSN CO UOJ ION-AUYN I W 113 W in aw�d �s-any I i--m II II II e�• _ II j 9f I j05y~5yEp83E�E�gFB Y E ' - :,•...:....�',J - L... 3 ♦'.. I ,��C�R��°��0^� �y p¢''�"{ ��»�'�;.,,.�.i�~ •• PP f�� I y'•$� � �B�Y E$FCaCa c 8+f b E 9a k�T1, y 3 � ft, FIU N. 'sus°Ug dgi • •'• �� � ill pp pp 33 Ek .pJ�g7-i I 11yZ��3'74 ill 9IM111S ui1 I I i qD I ; I I L__ w •• :. �1� ���'titldd 133HS3E-3NI11{]i �— �� City of Meridian Department Report 69 F- —..�^' ,I 174, f f .v� I c,� i I{ •• . 1� f' v • s ► •, li � c$ p x x a O �. r• ``� 4 i i S �5 ten ��� �$��ffi��ge$ � - � �" r f• s :_ -_ ^__ "_:.y.: _ - - ,.7.• ii •Y@� t o Fn ti ffi li l9e�j x s •;�'J.-.s'.:'.?�;:.:._'..�.,:..":"Y�:.I_ ..-�...{"..•jl: _ I i2 ���2'�6 q ���� 13e! •• •'.,��, E " f Q �'.' �� ".• IY i i f a TIM I • `I I❑(❑❑❑ r I, '• i • Ir I•} Z 33ss } oa I p p 10 LU ~--S _~—`—_�0'Elddl�Nf Hf•3N1'IID�1� 1 � �1�� City of Meridian Department Report 70 ® ® z Mill 0� ® V .' c, 02r ova a ° o � C7 ® u o � ® E I 4�i ® — — o ai II IN 6 yp m� i gR -�TDf gin �Ri S# a3 3! C ® II A F r ® ® I I $lop N fee Q [AqD i OD oil W n s � W a s� City of Meridian Department Report 71 NO ID f IUSN Q}WJ iON-AWN I W 113 W 8 s a� a � u! 0 �+ 1 a 5€ LI7 0 0 s 0 Y � No WW Y ag Y 1�1 €a PP E 0 0 City of Meridian Department Report 72 H. Open Space& Site Amenity£xmit (ke: julyl2 "! 12/O5-REVISED � §� d � � { \ | ((\ � •�|�|� � { , � e a a , e » e e » e � » t � . . ' ^ » \ } 22 ° ' » e | * f §deeeeeeeeeeeeno n , \ � 2 , + � l --......................•-- e ; | y m f m � � � § d „ � � � ^ � §•: � § � G• � § � �. City of Meridian Department Reprt 1 Al jif �g ,I m 1. Conceptual Building 1 $ BRIG HTON POLLARD NORTH-Central Park City of Meridian f� BRIG HTON POLLARD NORTH-Carriage Lane Home a DepartmentIf 75 p s: y + BRIG HTON POLLARD NORTH-Carriage Lane Duet Homes ♦BR�GHTON POLLARD NORTH-Conventional Homes wr A �. A-4 m B RI G HTGN POLLARD NORTH-Home Types OB, =_ 11�=,11111. 11�!111111111{�y,� I -• .. �-� ... III 111�-" DepartmentConventional A Carriage Lane B- Duet Carriage Lane C Conventional D City of Meridian po [77] `i' B RI G HTaN POLLARD NORTH-Carriage Lane "B" Due#s ■ IIII - IF�IIIIIIIIII,-;IIr3illf1l��,,:-= fl ��ll�ll 1� Il�llll�.��lllt�l�l_�u1�1111���91�1�1=1�=71i,=;lllll�llf�ilf, �; ' `i' BRIG HTGN POLLARD NORTH -Carriage Lane "C" Mal rrT ■■ �, ■■■ HOC � �111� _��IIIlIIlt�IL 91I1l1�i1=-IPE +711, ,f111f a City of Meridian I Department Report 4`� B RIG HTGN POLLARD Fill I-Conventional s City of Meridian `�� BRIG HTGN POLLARD NORTH-Conven#ianal"D" �xy '"�11111 II�IIi�IM11M, _ - III ��I�i1111■11�; : ' Departmentpo F79] J. Original vs.Revised Preliminary Plat PRI �WAR PST --�T k DO TMOL- p olC f3 'n -; C900ODc7 " 0- 6 §q ¢3 51 { D O ] W ) 0 1 & D 6 s i r,'...�'a' ,y e:' 2S 4S 49 ➢Q4 R e�'C?,� $ T I 177 RESIDENTIAL LOTS ' ' ' L W 21 LANDSCAPE COMMON LOTS z .� PRELIMINARY PLAT _- - - _ -- JI i ii }$ -'I 9 - - _----_--_ _----------_-_-M1-_--------__----------------------- Be OL f ; 157 RESIDENTIAL LOTS (-20) E Y 27 LANDSCAPE COMM43M LOTS (+6) City of Meridian I Department Report ■ E IDIAN;--- Applicant Presentation Pollard North Rezone , Preliminary Plat , and Development Agreement Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission March 6 , 2025 �;- BRIGHTON ORIGINAL Project Summary _ W �€ 111 v Illillilli l illllllli . . I II I II 111 � 111 . ,�111111 a 11� 11111 lip M - • , 49,11- BRIGHTON Project Feedback Commission recommendation for denial : • The proposed rezone creates too much density for the area • The transition to lower density development to the north is not enough . Other concerns taken into consideration : • Amount of open space • TN-R allows for multi-family development • Increased traffic of cars coming through Fairbourne on Waverton 4 BRIGHTON REVISED Application 40 • Maintaining R-8 at the perimeter, rezone to R-15 internal '� .•' ' ' ' • oaw • Reduction of 20 residential lots RETAINR-8 pa444� ZONING TRAN5ITION a • Wider lots on Block 1 & 2 • Fewer paired carriage lane units " y • 6 additional common lots , a R-15ZONING WITH FLUM � �_ - MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL • 2 additional pedestrian connection points v � J z WC ffi A W CHINDEW9LVD - I L I z -- i I' W� 'I W.WAVERTON - I 157 RESIDENTIAL LOTS (-20) I New Pollard North 27 LANDSCAPE COMMON LOTS (+6) 5 BRIGHTON Future • Use Pollard North is designated "Medium Density Residential" in the Future Land Use Map. A range of 3 to 8 units per acre Future Land Uses 1 W H,phia CIVIC ` Old Town Mixed Use Neighborhood Mixed Use Community x i Mixed Use Regional �� ' C ® Mixed Use Non-Residential a emn Dr z Mixed Use - Interchange C Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential Med-High Density Residential High Density Residential z Commercial 1 Office Industrial W C HINDEN-BL•VD 6 BRIGHTON Revised Zoning W7y r f ti f 4 mow# - ►N ZONING 0314 ` i . ■ [C-N] Neighborhood Business RETAIN R-8 PERIMETER N'1 all [C-C] Community Business ZONING TRANSITION ■ a� [C-G] General Retail & Service Commercial ' LIP 91 ' i [R-4] Medium-Low Density Residential [R-8] Medium Density Residential (CURRENT) R-15 ZONING WITH FLUM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ■ [R-15] Medium-High Density Residential I, < (PROPOSED) r i ' J LM r 1�Vt'd_PM N[)EN 18 Q 7 49,11- BRIGHTON SITE DATA ORIGINAL Pollard North Details SITE DATA REVISED Pollard North Details Single-Family Residential Lots 177 Single-Family Residential Lots 157 MINUS 30 Total Landscape Common Lots 21 Total Landscape Common Lots 27 PLUS 6 Gross Density, Plat Area 8.959 du/acre Gross Density, Plat Area 7.947 du/acre Qualified Open Space Area 3.53 acres Qualified Open Space Area 3.94 acres o.4-1 AC. INCREASE Percent Qualified Open Space 17.86 % Percent Qualified Open Space 19.94 % 11.155% INCREASE Percent Required Open Space 15 % Percent Required Open Space 15 % Q ENHANCED / ADDED OPEN SPACE / AMENITIES (11.65% INCREASE) —J — _— _ —1 O O © O © O © O 10 11 12 1 O2 3O O4 OS O 7O g 9 10 1] 12 13 14 16 16 17 1 2O O O O O 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 18 _ ,..�. P OIIC SHELIEfl -; 16 4=��"' W.FLAT ROCK ST. 1] � BLOCK6 O O©O7 ©O9 30 1 12 13 14 15 16 1] 18 19 20 21 22 23 3] 38 39 40 41 42 q ® q6 46 48 16 12 5 O < 1 O O O O O O O O yy t O lg 19 20 21 22 23 O O 4 l3 O I6 17 1 a 11 q] 46 46 ® 43 42 41 40 39 38 7 36 36 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 26 � 35 34 33 32 31 3 29 28 27 26 2g 24 23 22 21 r 18 14 lU � 7O O6 42 ql O 39 38 37 36 36 31 30 29v 28 27 26 26 24 O BLOCK 6 BLOCN 5 iEST0.ilON 33 I 21 JYPRELIMI.NARY PLAT OPEN SPACE EXHIBIT YWIUEML -SE PATNWAY WASTE NGAaEa'" 22 OOG STATION 240 23 W.Ly AVER7pp OR. 8 49,11- BRIGHTON Pollard North Revisions C I I I N 0 3 mem mewcal I'A OR '.�- _ .'�w..��:n•:.`-W�---.�.ne.::-.' ii_.�_o--c.�h:icy:arc..-�=::�-�sr.'1sx^�a�a��sC�v ��..,t i - ' • • • � ' • ' • • . . • . NONE - ��.",�.' s-t.�;F.3•..•,.tin* �. INN _ Ao BRIGHTON Pollard North West Waverton Central Park Pollard North amenities include: - - • Covered Picnic Area W.FLPIT R(X7CST. k I • Tot Lot ' _ .10 _ f • Dog Park •` Pedestrian Walkways � - YY•1VA4EfiiE3N 4R, - - - j4 r Qualified Open Space: 19.94/0 YU _ w.RAT ROCKAp ST. -. I Y 10 -;- BRIGHTON Living Choices Waverton & Fla Carriage A . � • � • � }ram-�. � ��� 11 ! � h ��F mom • • - .. - • • • Ira ::: �:: :; 1 ,._ 1.MIN_ ri = Ly �1 -�1 �� ii iIrl�Ill - Conventional A Carriage Lane B Carriage Lane C Conventional s BRIGHTON Home Styles OO Conventional A Carriage Lane B Carriage Lane C entional D 24 Homes 70 Homes 45 Homes 18 Homes E.7MM 4V FEAT ROCK ST. o £ � ah �43i— T wti nvFRTon,oR. -- —. . t 12 BRIGHTON Street Scene Waverton & Flatrock Carriage Bmmmam z L MEN so, • ■® � � ...spa __ �_ r _.a�, �� ■ ■ i l ■■ i ■■■ � = Central P -;- BRIGHTON Street Scene �_•.��mac.�: - }; . 4 _, II ■■■ [ ■EMI �r ,. I - ■MEN ■■ ��� III �1 Conventional A Conventional D Amm- 1 Flatrock & Forest Oak Conventional A Flatrock Conventional A f �;- BRIGHTON Traffic Flow G 1 �IlfiflliE:111111�l11 ' 1 1 `'`! II' '111lil111 1111! - �IILLtI I�III! M1r Collector Roads Fairbourne Local Streets e - j Pollard North Local • • • Local BRIGHTON SH 16 STAR CAGLi= 1611 ITD will construct an _- - interchange at US-20126.The interchange will be a partial cloverleaf design. _ _ :' 7 __ ' jrr The loop ramp configuration allows free-flow eastbound to Wg�l northbound traffic, eliminating a high-volume left turn from the intersection. ME�CIDIA�4 , fVANkPA O 8 49,11- BRIGHTON Conclusion We concur with the Staff Recommendation of approval . We request Commission recommendation for approval of Pollard North Rezone, Preliminary Plat, and Development Agreement . Discussion -;- BRIGHTON Project Vicinity .� rr ml ✓ Nl 1001 Ur • 3 L'�I fl� ' + � • . � • . � • � .� _ �� � CUES � =� m� � • • • ' . • W . .� BI d W Chindon Blued W Chiil� Blvci W Ckiinden BI 1v { EN BLlD �andsa, Ca -;- BRIGHTON Project Vicinity ',tom F � ,`- '' • ', � rr r IMF loom Y 1�IIIIIE�illillllll IIM1311111 -� =111 111111111.. IIMAIN 111101 ,1111low 1001(mmu1 Ilk",U-1110111KI-1111111111 a; , .� • .� r il I ■a ioIIAIF ' - - - - rfl - �7�7!_- ram. _ - .r �� If BRIGHTON Future • Use Pollard North is designated "Medium Density Residential" in the Future Land Use Map. No FLUM modification is requested . Future Land Uses 1 W Hgphla CIVIC ` Old Town Mixed Use Neighborhood Mixed Use Community x I Mixed Use Regional W Wav ' C ® Mixed Use Non-Residential erton Dr z Mixed Use - Interchange C Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential Med-High Density Residential High Density Residential z Commercial 1 Office Industrial WCHlN6EN-BL•VD 21 BRIGHTON Current Z Zoning Districts Industrial Districts Light Industrial [I-L] r' ••* Heavy Industrial [-H] Traditional Neighborhood Districts L94 Old Tov,n [O-T] MIT �. Traditional Neighborhood - Center[TN-C] Traditional Neighborhood - Residential [TN-R] M1�'^ Commercial Districts Neighborhood Business [C-N] Currently R-8 ,,; Community Business [C-C] � Medium Density � Residential General Retail & Service Commercial[C-G] Limited Offlce[L-O] x Mixed Employment [M-E] ■ High Density Employment [H-E] Residential Districts d Low!Density Residential [R-2] Medium-Low Density Residential [R-4] Medium Density Residential [R-8] Medium-High Density Residential[R-15] High Density Residential [R-40] 22 BRIGHTON Proposed Zoning Pollard North is zoned R-8. Zoning modification is requested : R-15 area 14.901 acres Preliminary Plat area : 19.7 acres ZONING � � Residential Districts RETAIN R-8 PERIMETER La,,-/Density Residential [R-2] ZONING TRANSITION „ Medium-Low Density Residential [R-4] w old 5choul Ili Medium Density Residential [R 8] ■ f■• Medium-High Density Residential [R-15] I High Density Residential[R-40] Gross Density: 7.947 du/ac 0000 R-15 ZONING WITH FLUM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL REVISED 23 �;- BRIGHTON Surrounding Transitions zwm5ii VIEW- ago NO r }ill[ � � �� s�: `� �;��+■11�z'+ i ■ ■ � B � i ON ■ + � � r � JII�l� Ili ���;��.�!` 1���11AN1 � �_ � e �1lll,lS �• M1 �+111at � R�lk� � ��- � 11� Illlll Illir� - .. • •� ' 41 111 �� [� � IIImI r• � lrrlriru C_c R-15 : Iil 1 11 1 i 1 it Mill Ilurl� 1 1 1 1 i$Kill r! �1I f t 1 is =2 11 1 AI mf �11It<■ R�0 04 im— r Ir'n ���►r ■" Y..�t' ♦ # �I zo_ _ w ♦ � � ! *� —��� , ���� 11 1 pia �� �� s� �F RAltl■III : `w �: � i� ■11�11 Ifl� �C c11EI1 z i s i iai i�i Ii1�1� � rw� ■ 11■i��lrr Y�f71111 1 1 m 1 1 I A mll� ��. � �� '�*� -rr rr r 111 � � AA1 It1i1■►.. 1 1 I<I ��r i"G i G li 11 1 1 1 IIII I i~ � = 1/111111 ■ [11111 ■mlml � .; . .� IINIIIrIII � � ��sr+rll►►1�*�'� �� r �► � 1111111 � 1[I■■[1 ! �,�■� �_ 1 ``- .:r:Illll rl rlr►r r ► 1� i � -- ' WWI srra�� *� �♦ +lRilr �..■11111 ENINt■11VA r 1[[ ■ '► si >>y1 � � r■■I WC".. �r�11111� 7■[III milli � ► i 111■Iil1i - smm[ ■ I #�summon ■A1A■�rI11111f r � iF�a•- ,,��.= 1<mmli[[1 tf Ii►�:. lIm ■ii Imf� _ ,... M+ I1111[L� ■ - I111'111111 r 1011 �:�:.��„�_, �11 � r Ali m111 i1■1l �,•.���r _ _� _ '= mmmmm 1 '=�'�'�K`►�1: III1111 �i[I [1111[ ■m 1■ � =1; .� �■ 1■mm1 � � t.-r w� � 11ui 1 l Illllf ILIIII f � pill 1-17-;1—wIIi i ill Illilll I111 C i���i 1111111 R-E5 1111111111i11f 4x[ [ i!flmf '=� i'il1i411:111,i11 -;- BRIGHTON Pollard North Pre- Plat also, ��ni�i�r� ■ Polia ■ No.1 PoUard No.1x. t BRIGHTON Phasing Plan Mc.) ma�yy �� � 1 � //�� aa�� r � �;�c i 7 V O L•J ! O 1'f a C7 `l c7; '��> B =� C� t1 Q T1 �IUCz, ' �9� � � I u, Ft_]FOCI:Si — — — ———---- - — i { _ �_ - - - - - - ---- -�� if. ft .:ls •.; .� :l'::1 '1:• :f:. 1•.::6. l7 7L 1 �� rR. �ll <'1' •4)} �v� il -_ ti ]i ilil; ! 4J Lf LJ 1::J L•J�IJ V rg PHASE 2 a. ,�- _ _. _. ------"- : �1:,�1'rr�+'• :.i, ' ` ai j p Zi ND�, {� @ � � � � � � � � a x -W,WAYERTOM plt, '••r - .... -� w.WAvERTOft DR.J r PHASING PLAN 26 BRIGHTON Transition to Neighboring Developments ALDEN RIDGE (approved pre-plat; • , �, not developed) ` FAIRBOURNE b. yam. •A'. -ao. r. o --- � k � ��- —- 30' ALDEN RIDGE ' Landscape Buffer Pathway Corridor D LARD NORTH - _ .-- — •. s ILL -W l� AlmLU-, - �r '.�# Approved E ' - ITD Ri1Ro - r r' r t' 27 BRIGHTON Changes from Previously Approved Preliminary Plat Restiicci Hayes Earnest Schwenkfelder a me ram. - • • - • : - • Earnest Schwenkfelder MA • _ _ •_ Now • ",101011111P Pill 11 U1 Y { v f �;- BRIGHTON Transition to Neighboring Developments " I '* f i FAIRBOURNE up 7 � r ir* # "POLLARD NORTHr, r �r WN �;- BRIGHTON Transition to Neighboring Developments ALDEN RIDGE , - not developedk i 30' Pathway EN RIDGE Corridor i d School Lane 0000*easement) FE 16 + Itl 1 X ti BRIGHTON Transition to Neighboring Developments wit 0 14 .14 Y 31 �;- BRIGHTON Traffic Flow III�IIi11 : I11111M11iNUNN .,. ro — H � • • • • Ask ii-94 -No • � '�� - ti Ar !- rr if EIJI i j. 1 FFO 1"'M4 F r. low- -- _ Ar- _ y a aw ERNESTIPANTER J w id School Lang riVafe 0 C oogle Earth a Central Valley Plaza - - ALDEN MIDGE f t (approved pre-plat; - „ not developed) ALDEN RIDGE .T_ 3W Paths - Corridor 1 el (Old School Lane i t W-FLKT RDCKST, I _ ITT - f 35 r f' t k ; - - - 1 1 k I � PiI 1 F---W OLD SCFOOL LN -r- f J -- -- -- -- ^-- — '-- --- � — -- ` -- - — ..— - - � 16 ti ti ti r ti ti �ti r t� t; t� t� r t� t� � � � � t#k � �■ 5cu� I'=boo 36 �• 95 6-S$ 8.55 6•� g•55 . .............. ... . .. ..... ............... ......... :::.............. ... .. ..... . r 1_ I _a a'r . e'w w •w a•w a.w — __ - w .» �R'ss x•as C ss e�ss a ss q•� s a,R - r i ' ••:•: '• r I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I q �L - -- -_- -o.t-•• s - - - -- - - -- -- — - - — *'. 37 J J o a v ou ou z LAJ� F DW t�aoz onz 15, VARIES I LANDSCAPE (U R TO 15') W BERM LANDSCAPE BERM I � I I � � I I I Li � � w L LANDSCAPE �a MATERIAL. w � o 6' WOOD _ FENCE ±3:1 BERM_ OLD SCHOOL LANE LANDSCAPE BERM NTS