Loading...
2016 08-18 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda – Thursday, August 18, 2016 Page 1 of 3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. City Council Chambers 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. 1. Roll-call Attendance O Patrick Oliver X Rhonda McCarvel X Gregory Wilson X Ryan Fitzgerald O Steven Yearsley - Chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda Adopted 3. Consent Agenda Approved A. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval for CentrePoint Storage (H-2016-0069) by Chad Olsen Located 1/4 Mile North of E. Ustick Road and West of N. Eagle Road Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for a Self -Service Storage Facility on 18.7 Acres of Land in the C-G Zoning District B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval for Harmony Hills Assisted Living (H-2016-0063) by Derk Pardoe Located at 1521 and 1529 S. Tech Lane Request: Conditional Use Permit for an Assisted Living Facility on 1.72 Acres in a C-G Zoning District 4. Action Items A. Public Hearing For Silverwater South (H-2016-0082) by Trilogy Development Located at South of E. Victory Road and West of S. Locust Grove Road Recommend Approval 1. Request: Preliminary Plat Consisting of 48 Building lots and 4 (Four) Common Lots on 12.08 Acres of Land in an R -8 Zoning District B. Public Hearing for Silverwater North (H-2016-0083) by Trilogy Development Located at South Side of E. Victory Road and West of S. Locust Grove Road Recommend Approval MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda – Thursday, August 18, 2016 Page 2 of 3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. 1. Request: Preliminary Plat Consisting of 13 Building Lots and 1 (One) Common Lot on 4.12 Acres of Land in an R-8 Zoning District C. Public Hearing for Little Creek Subdivision (H-2016-0076) by David Alexander Located 1470 N. Locust Grove Road Recommend Approval 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of Seventeen (17) Acres of Land with an R-40 Zoning District 2. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a Multi-Family Development Consisting of 204 Dwelling Units in an R-40 Zoning District 3. Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Fifty-One (51) Building Lots and Three (3) Common Lots on 15.85 Acres of Land D. Public Hearing for Knightsbridge Subdivision (H-2016-0088) by Schultz Development Located 3870 E. Victory Road Approved 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 5.15 Acres of Land with an R-4 Zoning District 2. Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Seventeen (17) Building Lots and Two (2) Common Lots on 5.15 Acres of Land in the R-4 Zoning District E. Public Hearing for Paisley Meadows (H-2016-0089) by Hayden Homes Idaho, LLC Located at 2180 East Amity Road Recommend Approval 1. Request: Preliminary Plat Consisting of 75 Building Lots and Six (6) Common Lots on 20.18 Acres of Land in an R -4 Zoning District F. Public Hearing for 2016 City Initiated Annexation (H-2016-0093) by City of Meridian Recommend Approval ACHD Properties - Generally Located Near the Northeast Corner of S. Eagle Road and E. Amity Road; SEC of N. Meridian Road and E. Carmel Drive; East side of N. Ten Mile Road, North of W. Ustick Road; 3955 E. Ustick Road; 2910 W. Franklin Road; and 6175 N. Linder Road Idaho Power Properties - Located at 3275 E. Amity Road, 1635 S. Stoddard Road and 3539 N. Ten Mile Road Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda – Thursday, August 18, 2016 Page 3 of 3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. Blackrock Subdivision - Generally Located North of E. Lake Hazel Road, Between S. Locust Grove Road and S. Eagle Road City of Meridian Property - Located 3064 W. Malta Drive 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of Approximately 67.50 Acres of Land with R-4 (53.25 Acres), R-8 (11.64 Acres), R- 15 (30.10 Acres) and C-C (2.61 Acres) Zoning Designations 5. Other Items A. Ada County 2025 Comprehensive Plan Update Information by Brian McClure, City of Meridian Planning Department Adjourned at 8:53 p.m. Meridian Planning and Zoning August 18, 2016 Page 1 of 63 Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 18, 2016 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of August 18, 2016, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Steven Yearsley. Members Present: Commissioner Ryan Fitzgerald, Commissioner Rhonda McCarvel, Commissioner Gregory Wilson. Members Absent: Chairman Steven Yearsley and Commissioner Patrick Oliver. Others Present: Jaycee Holman, Ted Baird, Caleb Hood, Sonya Waters, Bill Parsons, Josh Beach and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call __X____ Gregory Wilson __O__ Patrick Oliver __X__ Rhonda McCarvel __X__ Ryan Fitzgerald __O__ Steven Yearsley - Chairman Fitzgerald: Good evening, ladies and gentleman. At this time I'd like to call to order the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for the date of August 18th and let's begin with roll call. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda Fitzgerald: Thank you, Ma'am. First up on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda and we have no changes. So, I will entertain a motion. McCarvel: Mr. Chairman, I move that we adopt the agenda as presented. Wilson: Second. Fitzgerald: All those in favor? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Item 3: Consent Agenda A. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval for CentrePoint Storage (H-2016-0069) by Chad Olsen Located 1/4 Mile North of E. Ustick Road and West of N. Eagle Road Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for a Self-Service Storage Facility on 18.7 Acres of Land in the C-G Zoning District Meridian Planning and Zoning August 18, 2016 Page 2 of 63 B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval for Harmony Hills Assisted Living (H-2016-0063) by Derk Pardoe Located at 1521 and 1529 S. Tech Lane Request: Conditional Use Permit for an Assisted Living Facility on 1.72 Acres in a C-G Zoning District Fitzgerald: As we move down we have -- excuse me. Losing my mind. We have the Consent Agenda that includes Findings of Fact and -- I am losing my mind. Thank you. And Conclusion of Law for CentrePoint Storage and Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for approval of Harmony Hills Assisted Living and we will move the adoption of the minutes until the next meeting. Are there any questions or changes or actions? McCarvel: Mr. Chairman? Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I move that we adopt the Consent Agenda. Wilson: Second. Fitzgerald: All those in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Fitzgerald: Before we go onto the next time I kind of want to explain the process we do here at Planning and Zoning Commission before we get started. We will open each item in order. We will start with the staff report. They will present their findings regarding whether the items adhere to the Comprehensive Plan and Uniform Development Code with the staff recommendation. After staff has completed their presentation the applicant will come forward to present their case for approval. Their application. And, then, respond to any staff comments. The applicant will have up to 15 minutes to do so. After they complete their presentation we will open it up for public comment. Every person will have three minutes to make their presentation. If you're speaking on behalf of an HOA or a larger group, we will give you up to ten minutes to make that presentation, but we'd ask that the HOA -- people that they are presenting for don't also come up and restate what has already been stated. After the audience has a chance to testify, we will invite the applicant to come back up and close testimony and we will allow the Commission to deliberate. So, hopefully, we can move this thing forward and we have got kind of a large agenda tonight. Item 4: Action Items Meridian Planning and Zoning August 18, 2016 Page 3 of 63 A. Public Hearing For Silverwater South (H-2016-0082) by Trilogy Development Located at South of E. Victory Road and West of S. Locust Grove Road Recommend Approval 1. Request: Preliminary Plat Consisting of 48 Building lots and 4 (Four) Common Lots on 12.08 Acres of Land in an R-8 Zoning District Fitzgerald: So, I will get started and hand it over to Sonya to kick it off. Watters: Thank you, Chairman, Members of the Commission. The first application before you tonight is a request for a preliminary plat. This site consists of 12.08 acres of land, zoned R-8, located south of East Victory Road and west of South Locust Grove Road. Adjacent land use and zoning. This site is surrounded by existing and future single family residential homes , zoned R-8. The Comprehensive Plan map designation -- approximately half of the property is designated mixed-use neighborhood with a neighborhood center overlay and the other half is medium density residential. A little history. This property was annexed with a development agreement and a preliminary plat back in 2006 as part of the Tanana Valley Subdivision. In 2007 a new preliminary plat was approved for Cavanaugh Subdivision, which included the subject property. Several time extensions have been approved for the plat. Since approval of the preliminary plat individual parcels have been sold off and are now under many different ownerships and are being developed separately, rather than as a single master planned project as intended. The subject developer is developing all the property north of the Ridenbaugh Canal and east of Standing Timber Way. Because the previous preliminary plat depicted all of the site amenities for the overall development north and south of the canal to be provided on the north side of the canal, staff didn't feel it was reasonable to require this development to provide all of the amenities for the overall subdivision. Therefore, with the last time extension staff recommended that the remainder of the property be resubdivided and meet current development standards . So, that is why this preliminary plat is before you tonight. The applicant is now proposing a new preliminary plat consisting of 48 building lots and four common area lots on 12.08 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district, basically in the same configuration as the previous preliminary plat. The minimum lot size is 6,827 square feet, with the average lot size being 8,698 square feet. The proposed density is 3.971 dwelling units per acre, consistent with the medium density residential future land use map designation, but below the density desired in the mixed use neighborhood designated areas. Access is proposed via internal local streets within the development. The applicant is proposing .44 of an acre or 3.65 percent of qualified open space consisting of a 50 -by-100 plus area -- open space area, six foot wide parkways and micropath lots and a pathway as a site amenity. In the overall development, which encompasses 54.14 acres of land, a total of 7.38 acres or 13.63 percent of qualified open space and a gazebo , basketball court, pathways and a tot lot, will be provided as amenities for Silverwater that's north Meridian Planning and Zoning August 18, 2016 Page 4 of 63 of the Ridenbaugh Canal. The applicant is requesting that the overall common area is allowed to count toward that required with this development and staff is amenable to his request. Conceptual building elevations were submitted as shown for the future homes within this development. Building materials appear to consist of a mix of horizontal lap siding and vertical board and batten siding with stone veneer and brick accents. Written testimony has been received from Scott Wonders, the applicant's representative, in agreement with the staff report. Staff is recommending approval with the conditions contained in Exhibit B of the staff report. Staff will stand for any questions. Fitzgerald: Any questions of staff? Would the applicant like to come forward? Wonders: Good evening. Scott Wonders with JUB, 250 South Beechwood in Boise. 83709. I'm here representing the applicant. I don't have too much to add. Sonya did a great job of kind of introducing this. It was part of the original Cavanaugh Subdivision, so this preliminary plat for the southern portion is pretty much identical to the original plat. Again, it was divided during the downturn. It was divided up into like a ton of owners and so this is all -- basically now that Silverwater is all under one ownership and so we are just kind of been consolidating that. We do have 13.6 percent open space and all the amenities are being provided in the previous three phases. Those have all been completed and recorded. The last phase three, which is the one previous to -- south will be the next one that we actually build next year if approved . But phase three, which is the previous one, was just finished about a month ago and they are in the process of finalizing the landscaping and putting in all the amenities that were in that phase and other than that I'm just here to answer any questions that you guys might have. Fitzgerald: Commissioners, any questions? McCarvel: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: My question involved the amenities are -- it's already in or will be by the time -- Wonders: Yeah. I can't -- that phase, which was phase three, which is immediately north of this one -- so, yes, basically, right there. That's actually been built and recorded and the roads are all in, so I think they are just finalizing some of the landscaping and, then, they will be putting in those amenities. So, that will be completed before we start this -- this southern phase. McCarvel: Okay. Fitzgerald: Any additional questions? Thank you, sir. Meridian Planning and Zoning August 18, 2016 Page 5 of 63 Wonders: Thank you. Fitzgerald: I'm going to open it up to public testimony. I have Nancy Buckley. Come up and state your name and your address for the record, ma'am. Buckley: My name is Nancy Buckley and it's 3181 South Novara in Meridian. 83642. My biggest concern is the overdevelopment that's happening in Meridian. I know growth is great for the city. It is. But there is just too much happening and there is not schools to support all these homes that are going in. There is not roads to support them and that's really my biggest concern . I'm not against the growth and I'm not really against these homes. I just think that the planning commission needs to take a look at the future farther ahead at what -- what is happening here. We moved here because it was quiet, you know, and a very nice place to live. Now it's becoming overwhelming and the traffic is atrocious already. When these homes go in it's going to be even worse. My concern is when we lived in Illinois the same thing happened to us and kids ended up going to split session school. I have no children. I didn't there. But some kids would go to school at 6:00 in the morning. The other ones would get home at 6:00 at night. And I don't think that's fair to the children . But that's really my main concern. That and I was wondering are there impact fees charged to each lot for these homes? That's my question. Because we paid like 3,500 dollars in 1993 to cover schools and roads and we had no children, but that's what each lot was supposed to pay and we don't have a problem . If you can afford a home you can afford impact fees, because, otherwise, it's all going to come to the taxpayers and our taxes are just going to keep going up, up, up. And the only other concern I have is police and fire . Are we hiring more police to cover? Because we don't see the police in our subdivision anymore. We used to see them once a week maybe, now we never see them unless we have to call them for something. So, that's kind of my concern, too. But that's really the only problem that I really have. So, thank you very much. Fitzgerald: Thank you, ma'am. Mr. Buckley, would you like to come and speak? Okay. I have John Schilling. Okay. I don't have anyone else that's signed up to testify on this application. Is there anyone else in the audience that wants to testify? Okay. If not, would the applicant like to come to close? Wonders: I don't really have anything further to add. I mean we do pay -- they do pay when they submit for building permits, obviously, for that and, then, ACHD does collect for impact fees, but other than that I don't really have anything further to add, unless you have any other questions. Fitzgerald: Any other questions for staff or the applicant? Thank you very much. Wonders: Thank you. Meridian Planning and Zoning August 18, 2016 Page 6 of 63 Baird: Mr. Chair? I can answer Mrs. Buckley's question about the police and the fire and fill in some details about the city's impact fees. Fitzgerald: Would appreciate it. Baird: Currently the state doesn't provide -- does not provide for impact fees for schools. That's something that is being looked at, but that's something for the school district to advocate. The city does collect impact fees on each building permit, as mentioned, for parks, fire, and police capital improvements. As part of those impact of those impact fees we have to plan out ten years in advance for what we will need to keep up with this growth, how many additional police officers, how many additional firefighters, additional equipment, that type of thing. So, the planning is going on within the city for the -- for the items that we have control over. Unfortunately, schools and roads -- schools are the West Ada and the roads is Ada County Highway District. Fitzgerald: Thank you, sir. I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing. Wilson: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Wilson. Wilson: I move we close the public hearing. McCarvel: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion to close the public hearing on Silverado South, H - 2016-0082. All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Fitzgerald: Okay. We have a -- it is properly before the Commission. Comments? Thoughts? McCarvel: Mr. Chairman? Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I really don't see an issue with the current plat that's in front of us. I think it looks good. It, obviously, flows in with the rest of what's around it and I think it's good that they are coordinating this now altogether. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Wilson? Wilson: Mr. Chair, I agree. I have driven by this area many times and kind of seen an empty space and now that I kind of see what's being filled -- I mean it Meridian Planning and Zoning August 18, 2016 Page 7 of 63 looks good. That being said, I as a resident of the city am also concerned about schools and transportation, but, obviously, our purview is whether it fits with the Comprehensive Plan and city code. So, along those lines I will be voting in favor of this. Fitzgerald: I would tend to agree with both of their comments. I think we have a job to do to provide counsel to City Council. We make recommendations based on what our code says, not based on all the pieces. They get to decide on that and that -- you elect them to do that. So, we provide them guidance and -- from there, so -- but I would agree. I think -- this is in-fill. It's something that was planned a long time ago that I think is good to finalize under one ownership and under one master planned plat and I appreciate the staff's work to get it all back to where it's workable now, so I'm also in favor. So, with that I will entertain a motion from -- McCarvel: Mr. Chairman? Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number H-2016-0082 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of August 18th , 2016. Wilson: Second. Fitzgerald: All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. B. Public Hearing for Silverwater North (H-2016-0083) by Trilogy Development Located at South Side of E. Victory Road and West of S. Locust Grove Road 1. Request: Preliminary Plat Consisting of 13 Building Lots and 1 (One) Common Lot on 4.12 Acres of Land in an R-8 Zoning District Fitzgerald: Okay. We will open the public hearing on Silverwater North, file number H-2016-0083 and we will start with the staff report. Watters: Thank you, Chair. The next application is also a preliminary plat. It is within the same development area, just north of the previous project. This site consists of 4.12 acres of land. It's zoned R-8 and is located on the south side of East Victory Road, west of South Locust Grove Road. This site is surrounded by existing and future single-family residential homes, zoned R-8 and RUT and a church zoned L-O. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is Meridian Planning and Zoning August 18, 2016 Page 8 of 63 mixed-use neighborhood with a neighborhood center overlay. This -- as I said, this property was also originally part of the subdivision development. This property was intended to develop with a public school. Since that time the school district has decided that they don't need a school in this location and it was included as one large lot in Silverwater Subdivision No. 3. As part of that subdivision the road Mesa Way here was platted. The road along the south here of these lots and also a landscape street buffer along Victory. So, the proposed plat consists of 13 building lots and one common area lot on 4.12 acres of land in the R-8 district. The minimum lot size is 8,295 square feet, with an average lot size of 11,218 square feet. The proposed density is 3.16 dwelling units per acre, which is below that desired in the mixed -use neighborhood designated area. However, because the future land use map designation locations are conceptual and medium density residential designation exists to the south, staff does deem the proposed plat is in substantial compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. This development is proposed on the plat from East Spring Lloyd Street. That's the road along the south boundary of the plat. Some internal local streets proposed to be constructed with phase three of Silverstone -- excuse me -- Silverwater Subdivision by way of South Mesa Road via East Victory Road or by the internal local streets from South Standing Timber Way, which exists to the west of this property and is a collector street. Parkways are proposed along internal streets. Because this development is below five acres in size, qualified open space and site amenities are not required. However, as with the previous development, there is open space and site amenities in excess of UDC standards for the overall Silverwater development. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the future homes within this development . They do match those that you previously saw for the development to the south. Building materials appear to consist of a mix of horizontal lap siding and vertical board and batten siding, with stone veneer and brick accents. Written testimony was received from Scott Wonders, the applicant's representative, in agreement with the staff report. Staff is recommending approval with the conditions in the report. Staff will stand for any questions. Fitzgerald: Any questions for Sonya? Thanks, Ma'am. Would the applicant like to come forward. Wonders: Again, Scott Wonders. JUB. 250 South Beechwood in Boise. 83709. For the record. Again, it's the same -- pretty much the same as the previous one. Unfortunately, we couldn't submit it as one preliminary plat, since they weren't contiguous, so these were just split up into two separate preliminary plats. So, that's why there is two separate applications. As you can see on this exhibit on the preliminary plat, just directly to the south is pha se three that I spoke about on the last application. You can see the open space park with the amenities directly across the street from this proposed phase. This was actually proposed originally back in 2006 as a school site, but the school district decided this is not something that they want to develop on. So, we are just converting it into two Meridian Planning and Zoning August 18, 2016 Page 9 of 63 cul-de-sacs and, again, we are in agreement with the staff report and I'm here to answer any questions you might have. Fitzgerald: Any questions for Mr. Wonders? Thank you, sir. Wonders: Thank you. Fitzgerald: Mr. and Mrs. Buckley, would you like to speak again? Because you're signed up -- if you want to -- ma'am. State your name and address for the record again. Buckley: Nancy Buckley. 3181 South Navaro. Meridian. 83642. My problem is that we are right -- our house is right behind there and all of these cars going in and out are going to impact us. That's the problem. But I understand it's -- ACHD is the one that put Mesa through, so that gave us even more traffic than we already had. But our bedroom is in the back side there and every car that comes and goes we are going to hear it. So, that's the only thing that -- that's the only thing that's bothering me about the whole thing. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Mr. Schilling, would you like to speak? Thank you. Scott, do you have any comments? Okay. I don't have anyone else signed up to testify. Anyone else? Okay. With that I would entertain a motion to close this public hearing. Wilson: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Wilson. Wilson: I move we close the public hearing on H-2016-0083. McCarvel: Second. Fitzgerald: All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Fitzgerald: Thoughts? Mr. Wilson. Wilson: I mean to kind of add on to my thoughts on the -- you know, the community we just approved to the south of this, I mean I think -- I think it looks good. I think if you look across the street the houses that are going to be built there fit with that neighborhood. The two cul-de-sacs I can't help but think there is going to be a high -- you know, with those amenities and those two cul-de- sacs, I mean it's going to be a nice place to raise a family and I think it's a good project. Meridian Planning and Zoning August 18, 2016 Page 10 of 63 McCarvel: Mr. Chairman? Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I'm in agreement. I liked it when -- I mean, obviously, these plans have come in and they are way below the density that they could have done. I think it's a good use of the land that's there and it will -- I think in the long run, obviously, it would be better than the open ground that's been there. Fitzgerald: And, Nancy, your -- I think -- Mrs. Buckley, to your point, I think Mesa isn't part of this application. It's cut off from this and it's -- and it's already been approved and so I -- I have a tendency to want to move forward to get this thing tied together, so there is amenities for the property and there -- the HOA can all work together to make it a nice community and so in that regard I would be in favor as well. So, with that any thoughts or motion? Wilson: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Wilson. Wilson: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I would move to recommend approval to City Council of file number H-2016-0083 as presented in the staff report. McCarvel: Second. Fitzgerald: Any comments or thoughts? All those in favor? Opposed? Okay. Thank you. Congratulations. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. C. Public Hearing for Little Creek Subdivision (H-2016- 0076) by David Alexander Located 1470 N. Locust Grove Road 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of Seventeen (17) Acres of Land with an R-40 Zoning District 2. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a Multi-Family Development Consisting of 204 Dwelling Units in an R-40 Zoning District 3. Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Fifty-One (51) Building Lots and Three (3) Common Lots on 15.85 Acres of Land Meridian Planning and Zoning August 18, 2016 Page 11 of 63 Fitzgerald: Okay. We will move on to -- and we will open the public hearing for Little Creek Subdivision, which is H-2016-0076 and we will start with Sonya and the staff report. Watters: Thank you, Chairman, Commissioners. The next applications are a request for annexation and zoning, conditional use permit and preliminary plat. This site consist of 17 acres of land. It's zoned R-40. Located at 1470 North Locust Grove Road, which is at the southeast corner of North Locust Grove and East Wilson Lane. Adjacent land uses and zoning. To the north are commercial businesses zoned C-G. To the east is a multi-family residential four-plex development, zoned R-40. To the south is vacant, undeveloped property and an ACHD storm drainage facility zoned C-G and L-O respectively. And to the west are single family residential attached homes in Locust Grove Place, zoned R-40 and a wrecking yard zoned C-2 in Ada County. This property was previously platted as lots in Pleasant Valley Subdivision. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is high density residential. The applicant is proposing to annex 17 acres of land with an R-40 zoning district, consistent with the high density residential future land use map designation for the site. The proposed zoning and multi-family residential use of the property is consistent with the multi - family residential property to the east, which is also zoned R-40 and is a duplex -- or excuse me -- a four-plex development and provides a transition between the commercial uses to the north and the future of mixed use development to the south on Pine Ridge. A conditional use permit is requested for a multi-family residential development consisting of 51 four-plex structures containing a total of 200 -- 204 dwelling units in a proposed R-40 zoning district. A gross density of 12.87 units per acre, with a net density of 16.68 units per acre is proposed, which falls within the density desired in medium high density residential designated areas of eight to 15 units per acre, which is below that of the 15 plus units per acre desired in high density residential designated areas. The proposed density will require approval of a step down in density from high density residential to medium high density residential by City Council. The Comprehensive Plan does allow for one step in either direction in density without an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan if approved by Council. The units consists of a mix of two and three bedroom units. Parking is provided on the site in excess of UDC standards. One building elevation -- oops, I didn't get it in here. One building elevation was submitted for the multi-family structures. Staff is recommending additional building types with a mix of colors and materials are provided for variety within the development as set forth in our architectural standards manual. A preliminary plat is proposed consisting of 51 building lots and three common area lots on 15.85 acres of land. Excuse me. A phasing plan was submitted as shown that shows two phases of development, starting at the eastern portion of the site. The plat submitted with this application depicts two accesses via Wilson Lane and -- let's see. That was the original plan there. At the north boundary with no access via Locust Grove and because congestion is currently a problem at this intersection for traffic accessing Locust Grove via Wilson, ACHD's traffic engineers determined a full access via Locust Grove Road would help to improve Meridian Planning and Zoning August 18, 2016 Page 12 of 63 the situation, rather than having all the traffic flowing through Wilson. A traffic impact study was submitted to ACHD for this project and was reviewed as part of their staff report. A revised plat was submitted based on ACHD requirements is as shown there. Staff supports the proposed access as shown on the revised plat if Council approves a waiver to UDC 11-3A-3 for an access via an arterial street. City code currently requires if access is available via a local street, such as Wilson, that access be taken from the local street. However, it does allow for Council to approve a waiver for access to collector arterial streets in certain situations. A 25 foot wide landscape buffer is required along Locust Grove Road. A total 3.07 acres or 19.36 percent of qualified open space and site amenities consisting of half the street buffer along Locust Grove, a 20 foot wide linear open space area along Wilson Lane. A common area where the clubhouse, swimming pool, and tot lot is located and miscellaneous open grassy areas that are a minimum of 20 by 20 feet in area, are proposed within this development, which complies with UDC standards. A ten foot wide multi-use pathway is also proposed in accord with the master pathways plan along the Settlers Canal. This is a copy of the landscape plan, but it has not been revised per the preliminary plat with the accesses that were shown on the revised plat. Because there is an existing common area -- that's the east boundary of this site in the adjacent multi- family development and that is -- let's see here. Right in this location right here. Staff is recommending the open space, which is shown as a dog park right here, along the south sides of Lots 20 and 21 be relocated to the north side of those lots, which will provide a view corridor to the existing common area, instead of walling it off with buildings. The Settlers Canal and Jackson Drain exist along the south boundary of the site within this green area here. Because it is a large facility, the applicant requests a waiver to the UDC from City Council that requires a waterway to be piped in order to allow it to remain open and not be piped. Written testimony has been received from Greg Ramp from Air Incorporated, a business that exists down the street here from this site. He opposes the project based on the traffic concerns at the Wilson Lane and Locust Grove intersection. However, he says that if Wilson Lane is extended to the east and connects to a north-south road between Fairview and Pine as planned prior to development of this site, that he would not be opposed to the project. Scott Wonders, the applicant's representative, also submitted written testimony. He is in agreement with the staff report. Staff will -- is recommending approval with conditions and will stand for any questions. Fitzgerald: Any questions for Sonya? Sonya, I do have one. In regards to possibly on the access from ACHD onto Locust Grove, about possibly limiting that access -- because it's full access right now; correct? The access -- the internal access to Locust Grove is full access, not right-in, right-out? Watters: Chairman, yes. They are requiring a full access via Locust Grove. Fitzgerald: Can we recommend that it be right-in, right-out? Meridian Planning and Zoning August 18, 2016 Page 13 of 63 Watters: You certainly may. Fitzgerald: Okay. McCarvel: Mr. Chairman? Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: Sonya, do you know how soon that is on the books to have that street -- the north-south and the access down to Pine? Watters: Chairman, Commission McCarvel, that is dependent on the Pine Bridge Development, when that goes forth, and that's -- that's been in process for probably the last ten years or so. We have been having recent discussions with them about development of the property, but I have no time frame. McCarvel: Okay. Fitzgerald: And one last question, Sonya. You're shifting those -- the access to the -- or a sideline to that eastern boundary. Which would -- is that a four-plex or would you drop them all to the south or just two of them? Watters: Chairman, just two of them. Right now there is a dog park open space area shown right here. Staff is recommending it in between these lots right here. Fitzgerald: That makes sense. Thank you, ma'am. Any other questions for staff at this time? Would the applicant like to come forward? Mr. Wonders, it's just -- Wonders: It's my night. Fitzgerald: It is. Wonders: Scott Wonders. JUB. 250 South Beechwood Avenue in Boise. 83709. Here representing the applicant on this project. We do have the architect and landscape architect and the developer here should there be any other questions. I will try to tackle everything as we go through. Again, we are requesting annexation. This is currently in the county. A rezone to R-40. A conditional use permit for the multi-family and a preliminary plat. It does consist of 204 units and 51 buildings. A couple things. We are providing roughly 19 percent open space, which is a little bit over what is required. That's about a 3.1 acres or 3.07 to be exact. We are at -- 2.76 is required. A big thing as we go through this is parking. I know a lot of these projects are always at issue with parking. The required parking spaces in this development is 408 and we are actually providing 482. So, we have an additional -- do the math there. Seventy- four additional lots there or spaces. We do have a significant about of amenities that we are including in this, including two gazebos, a swimming pool and Meridian Planning and Zoning August 18, 2016 Page 14 of 63 clubhouse, which is approximately 5,800 square feet in size that includes exercise room and -- and kind of a meeting area. We have walking trails throughout. As mentioned we do have the dog park along the east boundary and we recently eliminated a little bit of parking on the revised preliminary plat when we redid the amenities, which I will go through in a minute just below the clubhouse and we are adding a tot lot in that area. To go over the dog park, what we would propose is to move the four building cluster down adjacent to the parking and actually put the dog park on the north side of those buildings. So, it's still in line with that open space to the east, but I think that would be a little bit easier. That would be our request. Along the southern boundary we are along the Jackson Drain and we also have the Settlers Lateral that runs along that as well. We are proposing to do the ten foot pathway as was discussed along the Jackson Drain, which is part of the regional pathway plan for the City of Meridian, but we are requesting the waiver to not tile the Jackson Drain. I don't know if you have seen it, but it's like 15 or 20 feet deep and our property line only goes to the center of it. So, it would be difficult to tile it anyhow without having the ownership. We are tiling the Settlers Lateral, so we are not requesting the waiver to tile the Settlers, because we are going to be piping that as part of this development. Going through the staff report, we are in -- I should say 95 percent in agreement with the staff report. The only one condition that we are requesting be removed is under 1.1.1D and that is requesting that multiple building types be provided. The developer is proposing -- and we actually have a fly through I'm going to show here in a minute that kind of demonstrates -- it's a 3-D rendering of the project and it will kind of show what they are planning on. The building product has no rear sides. It's -- it's got a front entrance on every side, so there is four units and each one has an individual -- individual entrance on every side. So, there is no rear or -- there is, basically, no rear sides and there is windows on every side and what they propose in exchange for not doing -- they have three -- or color palettes and building material types that deviate and change the look of the -- of the product. So, that's just a condition that we are requesting modification to. Other than the dog park location, which we -- I clarified earlier. We are requested to put in 20 bike racks or 20 spaces in bike racks. We are in agreement with that. The other requirement was for a safe location for a school bus pick up and we can work with the school district and the busing company to figure out where that is and provide maybe a wider area for the kids to stay in , so they are not staying in the street. Let's see. I guess that's it as far as the conditions. Going back to ACHD, last week we got an ACHD staff report, all the initial conversations in regards to traffic, and we are all well aware of what the traffic is on Locust Grove and Wilson. When we had our neighborhood meeting really there was a DMV representative that came to both. I almost ended up having two neighborhood meetings just because of the timing and their concern was pass through the commercial area, which, unfortunately, we don't really have control over, but, you know, we were really dictated to having two entrances off -- two entrances off of Wilson Lane and that's what ACHD required, because they didn't want it off of the arterial, which is Locust Grove. Last week we got the condition that because of the intersection and the left -turn movements off of Meridian Planning and Zoning August 18, 2016 Page 15 of 63 Wilson onto Locust Grove going south, that they would suggest putting the entrance in at the existing location. There is an existing driveway approach where we actually placed it and so that's -- we kind of had to jump through some hoops over the last few days to get this site plan updated. So, we are keeping the original entrance off of Wilson that's further east and, then, putting in the one on -- on Locust Grove and to get to the left turn, right turn movement I think the idea behind that from ACHD to alleviate the stacking on Wilson for left turns. So, limiting that to the right-in, right-out might counteract what ACHD was proposing in addition to move that location. We are required in the ACHD staff report as well to dedicated an additional 11 feet along Locust Grove for a future widening. So, that -- that will actually go to seven lanes and that may become turn restricted at that time, but at this point ACHD would like to keep that as a full access. And that's -- I don't know if you can run it? This is just a -- probably a two or three minute video kind of showing the residents. So, this is Wilson Lane going eastbound to the entrance that we still have on Wilson Lane. And, then, this, obviously, is turning into -- from the Wilson Lane south end of the main development and as you can see, you can see the clubhouse there on the right and the landscaping, I was told to say, this landscaping is pretty much identical to what the landscape plan indicates and so what you see here is actually what's going to be planted. Obviously maybe a few years down the road. So, this is going back to the west on the internal street that runs parallel to Wilson Lane and you can kind of see the building types and how they are -- the color schemes and the way they are oriented, kind of break up that -- and here in a minute you will see the clubhouse and the pool area that are going to be constructed in the first phase. That's another point that we wanted to make, that with the first phase we will be building the clubhouse and the pool. And then -- so, this is going back to the east, kind of on the southern internal road. We are providing a number -- it's about 200. I can double check through the staff report. There is going to be a lot of covered parking as well. So, that's a picture of the -- kind of the rear view of the clubhouse with the pool. And, then, just get to the south, that green area, that's going to be the tot lot area. And you kind of get a view of the front of the clubhouse. Fitzgerald: While we are watching can I ask you question? Is it appropriate to have this tied to the development agreement? I mean is it something that you can do? Baird: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, the development agreement needs to be in print form so it can be recorded with the county. So, I would suggest that you encourage the developer to provide some sort of a printout that captures the essence of what you have just seen if that's your desire. Fitzgerald: Thank you, sir. Wonders: So, I don't have anything further to add. I do have -- I could show the different elevations with the different color schemes if you wanted to see them. I Meridian Planning and Zoning August 18, 2016 Page 16 of 63 do have them available, but I only have them in hard copy. But you kind of got the concept with that rendering that they put together. I'm here to answer any other further questions that you might have or stand for any -- Fitzgerald: Are there any additional questions for the applicant? McCarvel: I have one. Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: Okay. Trying not to get dizzy going through the -- going through the video there. They are the same footprint, but have different outsides and they are offset, so the buildings don't look the same going down -- Wonders: Yeah. As you can see they are all staggered and, then, some are oriented 90 degrees from others and, then, they have three different color palettes that they use to break that up as well and , then, again, I guess they call it a pinwheel design. I'm not an architect. But basically -- so, the concept is is that every side is a front feature, so you don't get a rear -- rear view, so it makes the building look -- there is no, you know, rear side. McCarvel: Okay. You got every other -- there will be every other one. This is what it really looks like from the front? Wonders: Correct. Yes. McCarvel: So, it does look different, even though it's the same. Fitzgerald: Mr. Wonders, can you provide the -- the copies you have to -- so staff has it at least? Wonders: Absolutely. Fitzgerald: And, then, my question -- are you comfortable with the dog park -- I mean shifting the cluster, you're okay with moving all four of those down? Wonders: Correct. Fitzgerald: Okay. And are you okay with that? Okay. McCarvel: Yeah. So, you want the dog park north of Lots 20 and 19? Wonders: I believe that's correct. So, it would be just south of that parking street and, then, it will kind of tie in the city just south of that park in the street to kind of tie in again -- actually, it would probably look better, because, then, it will tie in Meridian Planning and Zoning August 18, 2016 Page 17 of 63 with the open space across the street and the tot lot, so it will kind of be all centralized. So, we don't have any issue with doing that. Fitzgerald: Any additional questions? Thank you very much. Wonders: Thank you. Fitzgerald; So, I only have John Peterson signed up, but he doesn't want to testify. Has that changed, Mr. Peterson? Please come up to the podium and state your name and address, please, sir. McCarvel: He said he doesn't want to testify. Fitzgerald: Oh, you don't want to -- oh, I thought you said you did. Is there anyone else that would like to testify on this application? Seeing none, I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing. McCarvel: Mr. Chairman? Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I move that we close the public hearing on H-2016-0076. Wilson: Second. Fitzgerald: All those in favor signify that saying aye. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Fitzgerald: Okay. What is the will of the Commission? Your thoughts? McCarvel: Mr. Chairman? Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I like the overall concept and I think I would be okay with not having to show different floor plans, just because they do look different and okay with, you know, the other dog park and the waiver on the canal to the south, but I wish there was a different answer to that traffic right now, because without all these -- that is just a nightmare getting out at -- trying to take a left out of there and I just -- I don't -- I guess ACHD has given their recommendation. I think this would be better having it out onto the Locust Grove. Fitzgerald: I think I will comment -- I agree with you. I think -- I'm okay with the pinwheel concept, as long as the applicant provides the color palettes and those things that can go into a development agreement with staff . I think that they are Meridian Planning and Zoning August 18, 2016 Page 18 of 63 going to limit the traffic by putting up concrete in the middle sometime. I mean it's going to be the Eagle Road fix I would guess. So, if we limit access, even though I would like to, to right-in, right-out and it may have defeated the purpose of the two accesses, which I understand, so -- Wilson: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Wilson. Wilson: I think they are going to -- I know there is a cone barrier there, so you're talking about them extending that. Fitzgerald: I think -- well, the ones they have right now is the pylons that everybody runs over. Wilson: Oh, that's right. Yeah. Fitzgerald: So, I think the answer is probably going to be what Eagle Road turns into, which is concrete and U-turn access and whatever -- whatever that is. But it will be very limited of who can turn left. McCarvel: Yeah. I think we just -- with what ACHD has proposed and with the road going in that will connect down to Pine , that will give a lot of relief on it, which I think is needed there already. But overall I think the project looks good. Wilson: Mr. Chair, I would agree. I mean if -- you know. I mean I think to the -- to the east there there are other apartment s. I think there is -- and I know this area well. I think there is -- there is family. There is duplexes over there. So, I think it fits with the neighborhood. This is, obviously, a very nice development, open space amenities, a dog park, so -- but, yeah, the traffic is a concern and -- McCarvel: Yeah. Wilson: Yeah. McCarvel: Yeah. I think overall -- I mean it is the perfect place for the high density, knowing the surrounding areas. It's just the roads are going to have to catch up with that traffic. Hopefully sooner than later. Fitzgerald: And I -- I mean I agree with both your comments. I think it's -- the location is perfect for housing for -- additional commercial that it will eventually be at Pine Bridge, but I mean Scentsy is not very far away and there is multiple property -- you know, work -- I mean there is multiple locations that are down Pine. I would hate to limit this development until a north-south access becomes available. I think that's -- that's a little Draconian if you will, but -- so I -- I'm okay Meridian Planning and Zoning August 18, 2016 Page 19 of 63 with leaving the full access onto Locust Grove. I think the staff -- that was their guidance and I will -- McCarvel: Okay. Fitzgerald: -- take Sonya's recommendation. But that would be my thoughts. I think the dog park shift is a good one. I am okay with the pinwheel of color palettes and I would go with the recommendation to not tile the drain. McCarvel: Okay. Fitzgerald: Any additional thoughts? McCarvel: Mr. Chairman? Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council a file number H-2016-0076, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of August 18th , 2016, with the following modifications: Grant the condition 1.1.1D is waived and the developer can use the floor plans as shown with the varying colors and 90 degree offset . That the dog park be located north of Lots 20 and 19 and shift the remainder down and that we approve the waiver on not tiling canal to the south. Wilson: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor? Watters: Mr. Chair, excuse me. Fitzgerald: Yes, Sonya. Watters: The motion regarding the lots -- I believe you said 19 and 20 to have the dog park above? McCarvel: The four -- Watters: Was it your intention to just shift all four of these to the south? Because Lot 20 is one of these on the south end. McCarvel: Oh. Yeah. Watters: Just a clarification on that. McCarvel: Yeah. I think the developer requested all four of those go south. Meridian Planning and Zoning August 18, 2016 Page 20 of 63 Watters: Thank you. McCarvel: So, what lots do you want in the motion then? Watters: Just to the north of the proposal -- McCarvel: North of the four -- Watters: Right. Fitzgerald: Do we feel comfortable that everybody understands the motion? Watters: Yes. Fitzgerald: Okay. The second or -- Wilson: I re-second second. Fitzgerald: Okay. All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Fitzgerald: Okay. Congratulations, Scott. Wonders: Thank you. D. Public Hearing for Knightsbridge Subdivision (H-2016- 0088) by Schultz Development Located 3870 E. Victory Road 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 5.15 Acres of Land with an R-4 Zoning District 2. Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Seventeen (17) Building Lots and Two (2) Common Lots on 5.15 Acres of Land in the R-4 Zoning District Fitzgerald: Okay. Moving on to -- we will open the public hearing on the Knightsbridge Subdivision, file number H-2016-0088 and we will start with the staff report. We are going to the bullpen for Mr. Beach. Wilson: Our middle reliever. Beach: Good evening, Chair, Commissioners. As you said, this is an application for both annexation and zoning and for preliminary plat. This site consists of 5.15 Meridian Planning and Zoning August 18, 2016 Page 21 of 63 acres of land. It's currently zoned RUT in Ada County and is located at 3870 East Victory Road. To the north we have single family residential properties in the Sutherland Farm Subdivision, which is zoned R-4. East we have single family residential property zoned RUT in Ada County. To the south we have East Victory Road and single family residential property zoned RUT also in Ada county. And to the west we have single family residential zones -- zoned property, zoned RUT in Ada county. There is no history on this property. As I said, this is an annexation. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation for the property is medium density residen tial. The applicant has applied for annexation and zoning, as I said, of approximately 5.15 acres of land with an R-4 zoning designation. Staff believes the proposed zoning and density is consistent with the vision of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed plat consist of 17 building lots and two common lots on 5.15 acres of land. The R-4 zoning district is proposed for the development . The development proposes a gross density of 3.3 dwelling units an acre and the average lot size is a little over 9,000 square feet. There is an existing single-family home on the site that will be demolished as part of this project and the home must be removed prior to obtaining the city engineer's signature on the final plat. Vehicular access is proposed for this site via an extension to South Proud Way. Just for reference south is to the right here. So, south -- the stub street here on the -- on Proud Way from the Sutherland Farm Subdivision. Have direct access to East Victory Road down here -- or to the south or on the -- the left side of the screen. All streets depicted on the plat are public. A total of 40 feet right of way is proposed for South Terry Drive, which is the street here, and with 33 feet between the back of curb and a total of 50 foot right of way is proposed for South Proud Way with 36 feet between the back of curbs. The master street map indicates a roundabout located at the intersection of South Terry Drive and East Victory Road, which is here. ACHD has indicated that they are in support of removing this from the master street map, but in order to do so the applicant is going to request that from the ACHD commission at a hearing to be scheduled at some time in the future. ACHD is requiring that the applicant construct South Proud Way as one half of a 36 foot street section with curb, gutter and a five foot concrete sidewalk within 50 feet of right away , plus 12 feet of additional payment beyond the center line and 33 foot wide gravel shoulder beyond the existing terminated roadway to the Proud Way slash Moon Dipper Street intersection. So, currently there is kind of a half of the street -- I will go back here to the aerial views so you can kind of see what's going on. So, if you look here, a portion of the road was constructed with the Sutherland Farms Subdivision here on the west side of the street. The applicant would be responsible for paving half of the street there and a half a street down, if that makes sense, to connect with what they are proposing as the Moon Dipper -- Moon Dipper Street that runs east and west. A 25 foot wide street buffer is required along East Victory Road, which is considered an arterial street, and is required to be landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC. The buffer shown on the landscape plan meets the requirements of the UDC. However, because there are single -- single family common lots -- lots had to be placed along the interior edge in accord with UDC. Meridian Planning and Zoning August 18, 2016 Page 22 of 63 The plat doesn't differentiate between the common lot for the 25 foot landscape buffer and the buildable lot. Our current code would require that the fencing be installed here, thus, making the open space and the current owner open space for the development being along Victory Road and required to comply with the qualified open space and site amenity requirements listed in the UDC, which requires a minimum of ten percent qualified open space and one site amenity for a development of this size based on the area of the preliminary plat, like I said, is 5.15 acres, a minimum of 0.51 acres of qualified usable open space is required to be proposed and open space in this development consists of eight foot parkways along Terry Drive and two passive open space lots, which are greater than 50 by 100 that include the required street buffer adjacent to Victory Road. As noted above, staff is concerned about the location of the proposed open space for the development. The majority of the proposed open space is adjacent to an arterial roadway that will be widened and will become busier with future development in the area. The applicant is proposing a landscape buffer along East Victory Road and as I mentioned there is some fencing requirements that will require any -- use of that to be on the other side of the fence adjacent to East Victory Road. In addition to the open space provided for this development, the applicant requests this property be allowed to be included in the open space and site amenities calculations for the Sutherland Farm development and that the qualified open space and site amenities for the overall development be considered to cover this portion of the site as well. A total of 13.24 acres or 11.3 percent qualified open space has already been constructed within the Sutherland Farm development with the following site amenities: A quarter mile pathway along the Ridenbaugh Canal. An approximately 5.9 acre park. A 2.5 acre park, a tot lot, a gazebo, swing set and horseshoe pits. The applicant has discussed incorporating the subject property into the Sutherland Farm HOA. However, the official agreement has not yet been agreed with the HOA to do so. The applicant is proposing to provide -- calling a future amenity within the Sutherland Farm existing 5.9 acre park and the condition for the applicant was to provide details of that prior to this evening's hearing. I'm not sure if the applicant has that information for us yet. I e-mailed him earlier this afternoon and he said that they had not decided what type of amenity they woul d obtaining, nor has he finalized the agreement with the HOA to include that in their development. Secondly, because the applicant is proposing to include in the Sutherland Farm HOA and be subject to their CC&Rs, staff supports the applicant's request provided that those things take place, that they are included in the HOA and be -- provide that amenity. If that does not happen staff recommends the plat is revised to provide the full ten percent qualified open space and one site amenity on their site and if an agreement cannot be reached between the two parties staff recommends that the applicant bifurcate the landscape buffer from the passive open space, which are Lot 1, Block 1, and Lot 7, Block 3. Include a more central open space lot and -- with one for the Knightsbridge community and so we can use that as their open space and amenity. The applicant intends to contribute detached single family homes and he submitted -- just for references sake, this is the outline of the Sutherland Farm Subdivision. The applicant did something similar with a recent Meridian Planning and Zoning August 18, 2016 Page 23 of 63 project called Bancroft Square where they have now reached an agreement to include that within the Sutherland Farm Subdivision and this is the site that we are talking about now that they are proposing to do something similar with, just for reference sake. Here are the elevations. The conceptual elevations proposed by the applicant. Building materials consist of a mix of horizontal lap siding, board and batten with stone accents. Staff is supportive of the proposed elevations. Written testimony was received by Matthew Schultz, the applicant's representative in agreement with the staff report and as well as comments from Trevor and Katherine Grubbs. Staff is recommending approval of the application and I will stand for any questions you have. Fitzgerald: We have questions for Josh? McCarvel: No. Fitzgerald: Josh, one question. In regards -- can you put the road back up that -- in regards -- was that a Snoopy back in the day? Like what was -- is there going to be a roundabout or a -- kind of a planter in the middle of this thing when it's all built out? Beach: You're referring to the -- Fitzgerald: No. Back in Sutherland Farms attachment, back in the -- so, what -- is that -- it's going to be a giant opening; right? Is there going to be a planter in the middle of that road when it's all said and done or is it just going to be kind of a -- I mean where Proud Way comes down and it matches up with Maxi Drive, is that -- was that a turnaround of what was -- why was it half built or -- I guess that's the question. Beach: If you look at the -- the property here, we wanted to provide a stub street and I guess for them -- I'm not sure the full history, but it seems to make sense that if they were going to do that that they would do it on a shared property line, so that they would be only responsible for building half of that road at the time. It eventually comes into what they are calling Moon Dipper -- Fitzgerald: Yeah. Beach: -- as well as a stub street to this property to the -- to the west. Fitzgerald: Okay. Beach: But there is nothing -- there is no planter in the middle, it's just a normal street section. Fitzgerald: Got it. Okay. Thank you. No further questions? Would the applicant like to come forward? Meridian Planning and Zoning August 18, 2016 Page 24 of 63 Schultz: Matt Schultz. 8421 South Ten Mile Road in Meridian here on behalf of the application. I have a few little exhibits I want to show that I didn't have prepared in time for the -- yeah. If you could -- if you could put up that overall, please, Josh. The one that I gave you that showed the overall. Beach: Now we are up there, so I have to turn this off to get back to -- Schultz: Sorry about that. Beach: So, are you talking about the -- Schultz: Yeah. Right there. Yeah. Thanks. All right. Well, thanks for having me tonight. As Josh said, we were here before you fairly recently on a -- kind of a similar deal in that we were adjacent to Sutherland Farm over on Bancroft Square over there on Eagle Road. We successfully got R-8 approved -- 33 lots on five acres. Somehow we got into the HOA. They liked us. We are paying Bancroft Square, like 15,000 to come in. We are subject to their ACC guidelines and that's the Berkeley homes and used that amenity -- they actually approached us and said you're going to use our amenity anyways, there is a big central park that everybody kind of uses there in the middle of that 5.90 acres. Why don't you join our HOA and pay the dues. We worked through that, which is kind of amazing, because every homeowner has a vote and you have to get two -thirds majority to get in and that got accomplished very recently. It took a little while to work through the details, but it got done successfully. We are kind of approaching this one in the same way, except have about half as many lots on the same acreage. We are planning for R-4, instead of R-8. Not that it's better or worse, it's just different because of the different location, it was more appropriate for R-4 in this area on the south coming off of Victory and our neighbors versus R-8 over on Eagle where the neighbors are a little bit different. So, we -- we could have maybe applied for R-8. Your comp plan says medium density, which would allow for an R-8, however, we felt R-4 was appropriate. We left a few lots on the table, but we felt it was the best fit for that area. So, we would ask for 2.3 to the acre overall Sullivan Farm is 3.1. Very similar and average size. Good size lots. R-4 is considered low density. Usually that's a pretty easy fit. In this case there is a few little details I'm going to talk about concerning open space. We did meet the open space regulation of ten percent. We are not asking for any waivers or special things with that. We meet it with some passive open space in the front and with our park strips. However, if you jump back and look at this map you're looking at here now, you can see that, hey, it's been put in the middle, maybe we should -- we have chosen to do an extra impressive front entry and, then, join the HOA, contribute monetarily to a regional facility. They haven't decided what they want to build yet. It will be a combination of Bancroft funds, our funds and, then, more funds from the HOA to build something else within that park that they haven't determined yet and that's why I wasn't able to bring any details on that yet. But preliminarily we have at Meridian Planning and Zoning August 18, 2016 Page 25 of 63 least this looks good, we need to work through a few details. Other than that we want to meet their HOA. Build the same size home that the regular Sutherland Farm builds, which is a -- their minimum say 1,600 in 2002 and we are willing to just do that. Those pictures that you saw were taken from Sutherland Farm. We want to match that and be subject to their ACC guidelines. We want to be a good neighbor. We want to be part of them and so far it sounds like we are going to be able to do that. But for some reason that goes off the rails -- if you could switch over to this other one, see if it comes in the right way. Is there like an on button? Or am I just not seeing it? There it is. There it is right in front of me. So, north is up. First of all, on this road entry it has to line up with Te rry Lane across the way, so that dictates where the entry road is. And then ACHD wanted a stub street on Moon Dipper east and west and, then, we connect into Proud Way, make it a full street, where it was a half street split right on the property line, which was a little bit awkward, but we are going to make it right with ours and working with our neighbor to the side to be able to get the utilities and to get the sewer in the proper corridor into our property, because you have sewer on side of the road and water on the other and both need to get into our site. So, we are working through that right now with them and that seems to be working out. But this is an alternative that would move that open space -- the same amount of open space with a 25 foot landscape buffer, which is standard, and just going to flip it, you know, in the middle and make it more central, put a little amenity, if we can't get the -- this approved, which is what we have submitted. We have submitted that, which is a substantial 80 fo ot -- 75 foot landscape buffer where 25 is required, so it's a very substantial entry, felt that that would be a greater entry statement and meet your code. There is nothing wrong with it. We meet the two percent. It's just if you were going to put in an amenity in there, probably wouldn't feel quite right and that's what staff has said and we would concur, because this is going to be a passive area. Certainly meets code and that's why we are going with the amenity, that -- anywhere from five and 20 acres you require one amenity. We are 5.1, so we are required to have an amenity. We are going to contribute roughly 8,500 we propose to the HOA, which would pay for a decent little amenity. We would give it to the Sutherl and Farm HOA and put it more centrally located to the overall site. So, hopefully, this meets with your approval. We don't usually work with HOAs like this, but it's worked out well and I'm proud to say that we worked out the other one and we see this on e working out the same. So, with that we would stand for your approval. Fitzgerald: Any questions of the applicant? Thank you, sir, very much. Schultz: Thanks. Fitzgerald: Josh, real quick question for you. Would you be amenable to moving that through the central corridor if that was -- and is there a time frame that we would have on this or is that tied to final plat? Meridian Planning and Zoning August 18, 2016 Page 26 of 63 Beach: Chair, Commissioners, I think that some of that has to do with your comfort level on what you think the reason -- the reason why staff wanted kind of the details hammered out prior to coming to hearing, so that you could see what they were proposing and, again, it's up to you whether or not you're comfortable moving this forward without seeing what that amenity is. Discussing with staff here, we are comfortable with his proposal for the development if the agreement is amended to go into the HOA. We think that that -- that open space -- and we would like to -- based on your comfort level tie that -- to that in the DA if that -- if this doesn't work out with the HOA and the amenity. But, yeah, I don't see any problem necessarily with his proposal or the amenity, it's just that we haven't seen what that is, so I'm a little uncomfortable. Fitzgerald: Bill. Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, you are correct, the intent would be -- I don't anticipate the applicant submitting a final plat until they have reached that agreement with the HOA and so if he didn't do that, as Josh pointed out, we definitely want to get that revised exhibit in the DA, so that we have a clear understanding of what that open space looks like with the future final plat. So, that really is the expectation is if they get a concurrence from the HOA we envision him coming in with what you're seeing tonight. If it isn't, then, we envision a final plan that comes in with the open space moving into the internal portion of the development and him including that amenity within -- within the boundaries of this plat and that's how the DA is structured right now. So, all -- I think for your purview tonight I would just ask the applicant to maybe e-mail us that exhibit, so that we can move it forward if you're choosing to move this on to City Council this evening, that we would include that as an exhibit in -- in the development agreement. Fitzgerald: Thank you very much. You guys comfortable with that? Okay. With that I will check to see -- the audience. Matt Schultz, would you like to -- oh, you are Matt. Sorry, man. I have several folks who do not wish to testify. I will just go down the list. So, Donna Reese? Annie Bollar? Okay. William Bollar same thing, sir? Okay. I have Robert Seiver. No? Okay. Is there anyone who does wish to testify on this application but didn't sign up? Can you approach, sir, we can chat about it. Bollar: I live directly across the street -- Fitzgerald: Can you state your name and your address for the -- Bollar: Okay. William Bollar. 3815 East Hickory Road. Fitzgerald: Thanks. Meridian Planning and Zoning August 18, 2016 Page 27 of 63 Bollar: Been out there for 30 years. Seen a lot of development. We know we can't stop it, more or less. I want to know about the well and sewer. Private well. Community well. Fitzgerald: Okay. I will have the applicant -- Bollar: Okay. Sewer. Community sewer. Septic. Okay. Because there is no sewer out there; right? Fitzgerald: I believe, sir, there is sewer coming across the property to the west. I believe. And so -- and I will have the applicant address that when he comes back up to comment. Bollar: Okay. And I'd like to know about the house that exists there right now on the property. A nice house. Are they tearing that down? Fitzgerald: They are required to move the property -- or remove that house -- Bollar: Okay. Fitzgerald: -- before development. Bollar: Also we run a daycare across the street. Might be an impact on that, too. Like I say, I'm not against the development, I just want that to be on record. Okay? So, there is a lot of traffic of people dropping off their kids and we are directly across -- I'm on the corner of Victory and Terry, so -- been out there 30 years. Okay? Fitzgerald: Appreciate it. Thank you very much, sir. Is there anyone else who wishes to testify? Matt, do you want to come back up and close? Schultz: Thanks. Matt Schultz again. Thanks. The site is to be provided with water and sewer. It's already in on our boundary. Sutherland Farm will extend it. In fact, the city wants us to put a dry line in Victory to serve future properties to the south when the connection is made further to the west. We drain to the north, but regionally the property has an order that -- so, we are responsible to put that in, even though we are not going to use it, so that's one of the conditions of our development. We will put full frontage water and sewer and the existing well will be abandoned in accordance with the Department of Water Resources regulations and the septic will be abandoned and the house, we hate to say, is just in a really bad spot. We might end up picking it up and moving it and using it someplace else. Worst case scenario we will have to get rid of it, obviously. We are not sure where it's going yet, though. Whether it's going -- and tearing it down or we are going to try to salvage it. We are not sure. As far as traffic and all that, yeah, Victory is an arterial. We are actually giving -- or ACHD wants another 23 feet on top of the 25 they have for a 48 foot half. So, it will be almost Meridian Planning and Zoning August 18, 2016 Page 28 of 63 a hundred foot wide right of way there, probably five lanes at build out. We are not building it now, but at some point in the future -- you know how ACHD works, you know, they come in after and widen things like ten years later. So, they are reserving that corridor with our plat and I -- actually, I didn't read the fine print on the ACHD staff report, I didn't know I had to go to a hearing to get that roundabout out of there. I'm not sure how a roundabout got on their master plan, but -- but it did. So, I got to go to a hearing and get that removed and it will be easy, there is no reason for it, you know, but I guess talking to ACHD previously about it, they put them in for placeholders regionally. You know, if there are collectors there it might make sense to reserved that, but in this case it certainly doesn't. So, that roundabout would take out Mr. Bollar's house if they wanted that and probably some of our lots, too, but it's just not necessary in that location. So, we are confident we will get that removed. So, I appreciate your time. Fitzgerald: Thank you, sir. Any questions for the applicant? Schultz: Thanks. Fitzgerald: I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing. McCarvel: Mr. Chairman? Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I move we close the public hearing on H-2016-0088. Wilson: Second. Fitzgerald: All those in favor say aye? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Fitzgerald: What is the will of the Commission? McCarvel: Mr. Chairman? Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I think the R-4 looks great. It, obviously, fits in with the surrounding and, hopefully, that will help him get in with Sutherland Farms HOA and I kind of like the idea of a nice big welcoming entrance. If I were going to have one of those lots that would be nice to pull into, but I think it does -- definitely would get - - we would need to tie it into -- but that's only okay if he gets into the HOA. If not I'm thinking -- I mean -- pardon me, but I think this was kind of just an afterthought. I think if you had open space that you had to put in here I don't think you put it just behind the first lot I think you want to see something else and Meridian Planning and Zoning August 18, 2016 Page 29 of 63 we would want to see those amenities -- what amenities you had planned if that HOA plan falls through. Wilson: I agree. I like the way it looks and I also agree with the Commissioner about sort of that -- if they don't -- you know, aren't accepted into the HOA maybe having that alternative plan. Fitzgerald: Yeah. Wilson: I'd like to hear what you have to say. Fitzgerald: And could we put that up just so we could look at it again? Yes. It's already in the record. Thanks, sir. And I definitely want to put it in the DA, so it gives the ability -- Commissioner McCarvel, do you want it to come back to us if it is a matter of -- it does not get into the -- they don't get into the HOA? McCarvel: I think either to us or the staff would have -- at least it would need their okay one way or the other. I mean -- because just to slap a green space up here -- I mean -- Fitzgerald: Yeah. McCarvel: -- I just -- number one, I don't think that's where it would go. If you could put it farther back in and it needs to show something but just have the dog park. Wilson: Does staff have -- well, yeah. And does staff have a recommendation in terms of process, what might be -- Fitzgerald: In the form of a motion? Wilson: Yeah. Beach: I think it becomes tough to dial this back and maybe step back after we have already given approval and Council's already made their approval of the preliminary plat. Now, it could change in the final plat, but once the preliminary plat is recorded that way and been approved, I don't know that there is a way that we can make them put the open space someplace else. I don't know if Bill has got a different opinion. Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Code gives us flexibility between the preliminary plat and a final plat. So, in that -- under that specific section of our ordnance they are allowed to shift their common open space to a different location in a development, as long as they maintain that same amount. They can reduce it, they can increase it -- or maintain the same amount. So, we have that flexibility already to look at this with a future final plan application . I Meridian Planning and Zoning August 18, 2016 Page 30 of 63 don't see this being much of a substantial change from what you're seeing tonight. It's -- it's, basically, doing exactly what staff has conditioned in the staff report. Fitzgerald: Yes. Parsons: We said plat common lots for a street buffer and, then, if you can't get in with the HOA, then, we expect to have open space central within this development, so that we don't have kids playing along Victory Road in the future when it gets widened. We want that amenity internal -- the open space and that amenity internal to the development and so that's what I think he's trying to show you that, yes, he's recognized that DA provision and that's how he's -- this is how he's going to comply with the DA provision that we have -- as it's currently written in our staff report and Josh can certainly pull that up for you and have you read that and see if that gives you any assurances that it doesn't need to come back to the Commission for -- for approval. Fitzgerald: And I would feel comfortable giving staff the leeway to make that happen within the DA, as long as we include in our motion that the applicant is required to get this to the staff to be included in the DA -- McCarvel: Right. Fitzgerald: -- if they are not included in the Sutherland Farm HOA. McCarvel: Okay. Fitzgerald: Okay. McCarvel: Mr. Chairman? Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: After considering all staff, application, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number H-2016-0088 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of August 18th , 2016, with the following modifications -- I'm sorry, Bill, is it already in the staff report that that's a condition? Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, it is, but you can just say and attach an exhibit to go along with that DA. McCarvel: Okay. Parsons: As shown at the hearing. Meridian Planning and Zoning August 18, 2016 Page 31 of 63 McCarvel: With the modification that it's approved as long as the plan goes forward to be attached to the Sutherland Farms HOA and that the -- if that does not happen that they work with staff before the final plat to redirect the amenities. Wilson: Second. Beach: Was it your intent -- I didn't hear. Did you intend to have the exhibit attached to the DA that you showed on the overhead projector? McCarvel: Yes. Beach: Okay. Just wanted to clarify that. Wilson: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. E. Public Hearing for Paisley Meadows (H-2016-0089) by Hayden Homes Idaho, LLC Located at 2180 East Amity Road 1. Request: Preliminary Plat Consisting of 75 Building Lots and Six (6) Common Lots on 20.18 Acres of Land in an R-4 Zoning District Fitzgerald: Okay. Thanks, Matt. Appreciate it. Okay. Moving on through our agenda. I would like to -- or I would open the public hearing on Paisley Meadows, application H-2016-0089 and we will come back to Josh for the staff report. Wilson: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Wilson. Wilson: Before we begin this I just want to disclose that I am a resident of Bellingham Park. I have consulted with the city's attorney about a conflict. They have indicated that I don't have one . I feel like -- considering our role as a recommending body to City Council about whether this, you know, fits with the Comprehensive Plan and city code, that I can be objective in that role. Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel, do you have any issues? Meridian Planning and Zoning August 18, 2016 Page 32 of 63 McCarvel: No. Fitzgerald: That's an open conversation. McCarvel: Yes. I don't have a problem. Fitzgerald: I have no problem. So, thank you for the disclosure, sir. And, Josh, would you like to proceed, sir. Beach: Very good. This is an application for preliminary plat. The site consists of 20.18 acres of land. It's currently zoned R-4. Located at 2180 East Amity Road. To the north, as has been said, are residential properties in the Bellingham Park Subdivision, which are zoned R-8. To the east are rural residential or agricultural properties zoned RUT within Ada county. To the south is East Amity Road and the rural residential or agricultural property zoned RUT also in Ada county. And to the west are single family residential properties in the Estancia Subdivision, which are currently zoned R-4. Some history on this -- on this property. In 2006 the property was granted annexation and zoning and a preliminary plat for 62 single family lots and nine common lots on the same acreage for what was called the Cotswold Village Subdivision. In 2008 the final -- the property was granted final plat approval for 19 single family residential lots and seven common lots on 6.7 acres of land, which subsequently it expired. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation for this property is low density residential. The proposed plat consists of 75 building lots and six common lots, which I believe due to some changes since the application was submitted it has been reduced to four common lots, instead of the prior mentioned six. So, 75 building lots and four common lots. The plat is proposed to develop in -- in two phases. So, the site plan -- as you see here this has since been revised and I neglected to -- the revised plan in here that shows a street coming here, instead of what is shown as a common lot in a pedestrian pathway. There was an issue with the block length here that has been -- since been revised and this is what it looks like now. This is the phasing plan. So, if you see this dashed line here this is phase one and towards Victory this is phase two. The property is designated low density residential on the Comprehensive Plan future land use map. Low density residential areas are anticipated to contain single family residences at densities up to three dwelling units per acre. The proposed preliminary plat includes 75 residential building lots on the dimension of 20.18 acres of -- of land for a gross density of 3.72 dwelling units per acre. The gross density is slightly above the density outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. That is consistent with the maximum density requirements of the R-4 zoning district, which is right in these, because this piece has already been annexed and given a zoning designation, so just to insure that the project is in line with -- and it is. The average lot size within the development is 8,480 square feet. The applicant indicated in the application that the minimum home size for the development would be 1,200 square feet. However, in subsequent discussions with the applicant they are aware th at the minimum lot size for this -- minimum Meridian Planning and Zoning August 18, 2016 Page 33 of 63 home says -- I should say for properties within the R-4 zoning designation is 1,400 square feet. So, that will be what they will be held to. There is an existing home and outbuildings on the site and the home i s proposed to be removed, as well as the outbuildings. The development is required to comply with the dimension standards listed in UDC for the R-4 district and staff has reviewed that and found that they are in compliance with those standards. ACHD did not require a traffic impact statement for -- for this development. Access to the site is currently divided via -- currently provided via East Amity Road, which is considered an arterial street. The access will be terminated with the development of the proposed subdivision. The plat as submitted does not depict direct lot access and is not in accord with the -- with the UDC access being proposed from South Rangewood Way on the north here and from -- from the west via East Melwood Street, which are both local residential streets. Just so -- to be aware, I did receive an e-mail from a staff planner at the Ada County Highway District in regards to this application. They had indicated their support in maintaining the access to -- to Amity Road strictly for construction purposes of the development, which will be terminated upon development of phase two, so that you're aware of that. East Melwood Street and South Rangewood Way are stubbed to the site and the applicant is proposing to stub to the property to the east and staff is supportive of that, which is -- which is proposed for this development. A 25 foot wide street buffer measured from the back of curb is required along East Amity Road, a residential -- which is clearly a residential arterial street per UDC Table 11-2-A5 and shall be landscaped in accord with the standards of the UDC. The applicant has proposed a 35 foot, plus or minus, wide buffer to be located along the arterial street there. A ten foot wide compacted gravel shoulder meeting the construction terms of the transportation authority and landscaping, which is lawn or vegetative ground cover is required along East Amity Road in accord with the UDC. A minimum of ten percent qualified open space is required to be provided for this development, based on the area of the preliminary plat, which is approximately 20.18 acres. A minimum of 2.01 acres of qualified open space is required to be provided. A total of 10.01 percent qualified open pace is proposed, consisting of half the street buffer along East Amity Road, a micropath lot, a drainage lot, and internal common open space areas, which comply with the requirement. And just so that -- as an aside, the applicant is also proposing two pedestrian connections to the proposed sidewalk along Amity Road that will extend from these cul-de-sacs on the south. The open space proposed, the applicant indicates will be benches, a tot lot, and some amenities for -- it's not technically considered a dog park, but they are going to have some amenities f or pet owners as well on their common lot. Staff is recommending approval of the application. Because homes on lots that back up to East Amity Road will be visible, staff is also recommending that the rear or sides of those structures incorporate articulation through changes in material, color, modulation and architectural elements, both horizontal and vertical, to break up any monotonous wall plains and roof lines. Did receive written testimony from Kathy Martin, Todd Woodward, Miranda Carson, Jerri Teibel, Kathleen Mercer, John Walker, Clarissa Amos, Katherine Steinhauser and at Meridian Planning and Zoning August 18, 2016 Page 34 of 63 about 5:00 o'clock this afternoon I received an additional e-mail from -- pardon me -- Bill Manning, which I'm giving you a copy of. As I said, staff is recommending approval and I will stand for any questions you have. Fitzgerald: Thanks, sir. Is there any questions for Josh? Thank you, sir. Would the applicant like to come forward. Please state your name and your address for us. Erickson: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I'm Ross Erickson with Erickson Civil. 6213 North Cloverdale Road in Boise. Here tonight representing the applicant. First off, thanks, Josh, for the concise staff report and presentation. Certainly appreciate your efforts. We agree with staff that the proposed development is consistent with the surrounding areas. We are proposing 75 single family detached units on just over 20 acres. The development directly to the west is Estancia, which is also zoned R-4, which is consistent with our zone. To the north is Bellingham, which is R-8, and, then, to the northeast would be Messina Meadows, which is also R-8. The RUT parcel directly to the east is, obviously, not within the city, but the parcel directly to the east of that parcel is also zoned R-8. So, we feel that we have got a good -- a good I guess mesh of meld with the surrounding developments with regards to the zone and the use for the proposed plat. The access to the site was, basically, predetermined for us. We have got stub streets at the north and stub streets at the west from Melwood Street. Direct access to Amity Road will not be allowed, nor requested and the reason being is that, number one, it won't work for ACHD. Number two, we just don't need the additional access to Amity Road and it doesn't fit with the city's codes. So, that's not being requested. Josh was correct that we did talk with ACHD about a temporary construction access to Amity. The intent would be to minimize construction traffic on the local streets per the residents to the east -- or to the west and to the north and that's something that we would be open to if -- if the Commission thought that would be a good idea. How that would work is it would -- it would be utilized in the initial phase of development and, then, upon construction of the frontage improvements along Amity Road, obviously, that temporary access would need to be removed, so we can build our landscape buffer and fencing and -- and do our improvements to Amity Road. The interior streets are 34 feet wide. They accommodate parking on both sides. They will include detached sidewalks with eight foot planter strips with trees and grass and sprinklers. At the northeast corner we have reserved a common lot for an ACHD storm drain facility. The portion of that lot that is not encumbered by the storm drain pond would be landscaped to the extent that ACHD would permit -- include trees and shrubs and grass and irrigation and things. In the central portion of the development is where the -- there is a larger open space that will include a tot lot and we are also going to put a pet station, if you will, that will include some refuse bags and a disposal container for pet owners that are walking their dogs that -- that may need to use that. We are also proposing to put some benches in that area for Meridian Planning and Zoning August 18, 2016 Page 35 of 63 sitting. We have got a two block connection -- can you see what I'm pointing at when I touch the screen? Fitzgerald: Pick a color. Erickson: Okay. Oh, pick a color? We will do that connection there that will include a pathway with landscaping on both sides and as Josh pointed out, we have got pedestrian connections from the terminus points of those bulb outs to Amity Road for pedestrian connectivity. The city requires a 20 foot wide landscape buffer along arterial roadways. We are actually proposing a 37 foot buffer along Amity and the reason for that is to have a little bit better setback for the homes that will be located along Amity, just to get a little bit further away from the road and provide a little bit better buffer at that location. That pretty much sums it up. With that I will stand for questions. We have reviewed the staff report and we are in agreeance with all the conditions that are included therein, so -- yeah. I would stand for questions. Fitzgerald: Any questions for the applicant? Thank you very much. Erickson: Thanks. Fitzgerald: Okay. I have several people signed up to testify tonight, so I'm just going to go down the list and go from there. Crystal Dickerson. Please state your name and your address for us, ma'am. Dickerson: Crystal Dickerson. 1889 East Brentwood Drive. I'm a resident in Bellingham Park and -- I'm a resident of Bellingham Park and the main concern for me is that there is no access point to Amity for 75 homes. There are multiple children in Estancia, as well as Bellingham Park, where these people are going to be driving to get to their properties. Just from Locust Grove to Rangewood I estimated about 38, 40 students just in that area. In addition to that, there is also a pool and a park right there on Wrightwood Drive, which would be one of the main access points. That's very concerning, especially during the summertime with all of the kids going to and from the pool and the park . Another concern is that our school district or elementary school is Sienna and it is within walking distance. There is no busing. So, we are going to have multiple children going to and from school on bikes, on scooters, walking, which is also another concern if we are going to bring in 75 more homes. There is four entrances off of Amity between Locust Grove and -- and Eagle Road, but there are ten entrances between -- on Locust Grove in between Victory and Amity. So, I'm not sure why there is not going to be an access point off of Amity for this subdivision. If they can put 75 homes in to the original proposed 62 , I think they can put a road in to keep the other subdivision safe and our children safe and keep the traffic down . We already have an issue with speeding cars on Wrightwood Drive, as well as on Rangewood. You know, they are just access points and people just zoom through and so that's a major concern for me. Meridian Planning and Zoning August 18, 2016 Page 36 of 63 Fitzgerald: Amy Shinsel. Shinsel: Amy Shinsel. 1867 East Wrightwood Drive. I actually live next door to Crystal and I would agree that we have a major speeding issue there and to increase the traffic that much is only going to make that worse. My biggest question is why a traffic impact study was not done. I think that the findings would show that it's -- it's needed and if it was done at the exit, then, it is also very necessary. Also I'm concerned about the amenities. We have a pool in Bellingham Park. We have an ongoing issue with neighborhoods that are close by that don't have similar amenities, constantly trying to use ours. We pay for those. We maintain those. Add in another community that doesn't contribute to that will only make that problem worse as well. So, I am also concerned about their amenities and what their intentions are there. If it's just a park, if it's a gazebo -- I'm curious exactly what they plan to do that's going to be incentive enough to keep them from coming to our neighborhood and using all of that. Also a speed and traffic study of some kind was done a couple of months ago and I'm sure there is a record of that somewhere with the county and I think you would see that -- I want to say it was less than ten cars that we missed being eligible for speed bumps on that main drive on -- on Wrightwood Drive and so, again, I'm curious why a traffic impact study wasn't done considering an additional 75 homes and how that would affect the traffic on that road , especially with the high density of children that Crystal mentioned just in that area. Thanks. Fitzgerald: Jared Perry. And entourage. Perry: Jared Perry. 4690 South Glenmere, Meridian. We are in the Estancia Subdivision. We are actually representing the HOA board and I'm deferring it to John Walker. Walker: John Walker. 4592 South Glenmere Way in Meridian, Idaho. Fitzgerald: Thank you. Griffin: Earl Griffin. 1920 East Daulby Street, also in Estancia Subdivision. Walker: Hi, Commissioners. Not to beat a dead horse here, you're going to hear a lot about -- from us of what you have heard from them. Essentially, traffic is what we are -- our biggest concern and not having access from Amity into the subdivision. As Mr. Baird alluded a little earlier, it's not, you know, your guys' area as far as building the roadways. ACHD -- it's a back-and-forth battle, but we do decide where the homes go and when they go in. So, you know, my question to that is is that in line with city growth, as far as where we are putting these homes and how we are putting them in and access to the homes. The staff mentioned that Melwood would be to access mode. It’s not a through street from anywhere in the neighborhood. It actually dead ends in the middle of the Meridian Planning and Zoning August 18, 2016 Page 37 of 63 neighborhood, so anyone coming into our neighborhood would have to come in from Locust Grove and go around through Adelaide and /or Daulby Street and connect onto Glenmere Street to, then, go on Melwood into the new subdivision. That's a lot of traffic cruising through the neighborhood. In addition, Melwood -- or, excuse me, Glenmere from the south is going to probably take the bulk of the traffic for our neighborhood, as well as Wrightwood through our neighboring north neighborhood. So, all that traffic is mentioned -- you guys mentioned through several of these it seems like a good place to raise a family, so I assume that you have families, you would be concerned about your children, too. At 75 cars -- or 75 homes averaging probably two cars per home, coming and going at least twice a day, that's 300 vehicles passing through there every -- every day. If we missed it by ten cars for speed bumps, we are definitely going to need it now. I appreciate them saying, hey, we will put a construction entrance there for that. That -- you know, noise pollution was a big concern of ours, but at the same time, you know, they started phase one in the north to move south and I think initially that's just because that's where the roadways were and they thought that maybe they could appease some people by putting a construction bridge through there during construction, but to say that once construction is done and we have 75 homes and another 150 vehicles cruising through our neighborhood, that's what our biggest concern is and as my personal opinion I don't feel like this flows with the neighborhood as you all approved the first Silverwater application based on the flow of the plat with the neighboring neighborhoods, I would have to disagree with this -- with this situation. I'm going to pass it onto to Earl and ask if he has anything he would like to add. Griffin: Yeah, Commissioners. I would -- I would agree with John. I live right on the corner of Glenmere and Daulby. There is a drainage in the street there and that's pretty much a straight through. There was a study done, because several of the neighbors in that corner complained about the speeding. There is no stop signs on any of the corners. I have watched cars coming through there and bottom out coming through so quickly. Almost had several accidents there. I guarantee if we have 200 more cars a day going through there it's going to cause issues. We have got nothing but children in all the homes along Glenmere. They play out in the street. The park is on Melwood on the backside. They are constantly walking over there to go to the park. I don't disagree with putting in the homes, I think it's a great idea. I think the growth is something we can't stop, but I do think we need to think about traffic and I understand we can't control everything, but we can control some things and we need to think about the flow of traffic of how things are going to be. We really don't want Meridian PD having to come out here and work a fatal on one of our children in the street. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Thanks, gentlemen. Mario Whitlock. No? I have two Whitlocks. Is there multiple Whitlocks in the room? Okay. Clarissa Amos. Meridian Planning and Zoning August 18, 2016 Page 38 of 63 Amos: Hi. I'm Clarissa Amos. I live at 4417 South Mitman Way. I'm also on the board for our HOA. I have talked with Josh Beach and Ada County Highway Division a lot. Well, him not too much, but Ada County Highway Division a lot over the last two years over the speeding issue, because I'm right at the corner of Mitman and Wrightwood, so right around the roundabout. The speeding issue has been a problem for the last two years. I did have a speed test -- or speed -- my gosh. The study done in January. The peak hour was 83 and I guess the policy is 800. They said that we only had at the average 24 miles per hour speed coming in, which is -- I'm sure because they see the strips. On a regular basis I hear people shift coming through my house and I'm right at the entrance and, you know, there is no reason for that. We do have a lot of kids that are playing on the roundabout, that travel over to the park and the pool and everything and, you know, we have had a lot of neighbors express concern over the potential of them getting hit, which was why I was advocating to have speed bumps put in, but we didn't quality. I know that I spoke with John Wasson with Ada County Highway Division Wednesday, yesterday, and he talked with planning and, then, called me back and let me know that I know -- I think the 2017 White Oak -- or was it White Bark across -- I just went brain-dead up here. White Bark on the south side of Amity plans to expand on the north side and, then, they will share entrance with Paisley Meadows. But until then we have to deal with the traffic coming through Wrightwood and it's not just that they are right there, they have to come in from our main entrance, go all the way through our subdivision and our subdivision on Wrightwood, it goes to Bellingham Park, it goes to Estancia. We have Tuscany in the back. So, we already have a lot of through traffic and with all of that -- I mean the increase of the 75 homes and -- we have a huge concern for the speeding and the safety of our children. I don't know what else to say. Kind of tongue tied now. Fitzgerald: It happens to me constantly. So -- oh. And that was the other thing. I didn't know until I looked at the packet for their proposed plans. They only notified homeowners within 300 feet of the address, but it affects everybody from the entrance of Bellingham Park all the way down to Rangewood and none of us knew about it. It was only I think ten people in attendance for that meeting. I mean it seems a little sneaky. So, I would add -- and on top of the -- I know they are having a construction entrance on Amity, but I would also like to see that we have no construction signs posted at our entrances, so that we don't have to deal with the constant construction coming all the way from Locust Grove down to Rangewood on a daily basis for an unlimited known time. That was my beep; right? Fitzgerald: Thank you. I'm going to try this one. Okay. Is it Corey Cleaver? Or Cleveland? No? Annie Moore. Thank you, ma'am. Please state your n ame and your address, please, ma'am. Moore: My name is Annie Moore. I live at 4398 South Rangewood Way, Meridian, Idaho. I have a very huge problem with this. I am literally next door. Meridian Planning and Zoning August 18, 2016 Page 39 of 63 What used to be this beautiful cornfield that I like to look out onto is now turning into a subdivision. Not super pumped about that. I know I can't stop that. I have a huge problem with the entrance being on Rangewood. Right now Wrightwood is the only entrance to Bellingham Park. Estancia has two entrances. Tuscany has three or four entrances. But Wrightwood is the only connection for Bellingham Park. So, this -- Wrightwood is actually connecting -- will be -- currently connects four subdivisions. This will be the fifth one coming in. Whereas other places around this city have smaller concerns that leave a main road and, then, subdivisions or streets off of that main road. Officially Wrightwood is a residential street. There are houses that face Rangewood. There is a basketball court outdoor -- or basketball hoop out there where kids play. This is also where the pool is and two major parks for Bellingham Park. If you create all of this traffic without leaving an entrance on Amity, emergency vehicles not only have to do the travel down Wrigh twood and continue all the way through to get to the very back end of this new subdivision on Amity or they have to travel through Estancia, that's going to delay time anyway, that's going to make emergency vehicles speeding through our neighborhoods to get to help. If I was living in the very back corner next to Amity I would be livid that it took them that long to get there. I also was a renter on Mitman in Bellingham Park right across the street from Clarissa and I can attest to the fact that people fly in through that neighborhood at 40 miles an hour. We have screeching tires. We have heard shifting gears. We have heard everything. It's ridiculous how fast they go. There are no stop signs. There are no speed bumps. There are no nothing. And this is not just coming into Bellingham, this is coming into Estancia. Nobody travels down the road to the other entrances, they only go through Wrightwood and that's where five subdivisions will now be coming down. You guys got to consider something on Amity, because having that many cars come through one place -- in addition to impacting Locust Grove even more, it's -- I waited in a 20 car back up today to travel down Locust Grove three times for cars turning in and out of there. School buses and everything else. It took me 15 minutes to drive a quarter of a mile . That is only going to get worse with another 300 cars in and out of there all day long. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Thank you, ma'am. John Walker. Okay. Thanks, John. Ross Branson. Okay. Thank you. Rhonda Walker. Okay. Katherine Steinhauser. No? Michael Thompson. Sir. Thompson: Michael Thompson. 4668 South Glenmere Way. I apologize. I have a little bit of a dry mouth waiting here for so long. So, in 2014 moved to Estancia and had beautiful views of the mountains and everything else, right? And we moved there for two reasons. One, because of Sienna. My daughter is autistic and we had a choice to move to various locations after my company went public and the reality is that this, it's one of the better schools there. So, I like the area booming. It's great for business, so on and so forth. Here is the problem. 2015, September 15th, actually, I asked Ada County to do a study -- traffic study. Here is the reason why. I have eight video cameras at my house pointing on the Meridian Planning and Zoning August 18, 2016 Page 40 of 63 street because of the field I'm in. Reality is simple math can tell how fast people are going. I offered to give them 15 clips in a four day period, the people going back and forth on the road in excess of the speed limit. They came out, they went ahead put out a little sign and also went ahead and did a -- I guess a radar gun that registers stuff. They said there is no need for anything. There is no solution to the problem. What I found in my career is that we typically react to anomalies and overact; right? Someone getting hit by a car is an anomaly. Low probability, high impact event. But when we talk about making money, adding a few extra homes and the entrance, right, we typically ignore anomalies. That's so low risk, you know, we don't need to worry about it, because money is on the way. Bottom line is my autistic daughter has problems. She just learned how to walk, you know, here this year. So, when she's walking she can go certain places. We watch her like a hawk. But she just got a bike, you know, she's getting ready to go to a special new school that we just built down the road. Congratulations on that by the way. And I'm worried for her. I'm worried for her, because she doesn't have the capacity to advocate for herself or be fully aware of the situation and by increasing the number of cars that are going to be present on this road, one thing is going to occur, right? Risk. The risk dimension is going to change. How do I mitigate my child's risk with no entrance; right? What's -- you know, these are things I don't have the math to right now. But I do know that increased cars does increase the risk. Which means I'm going to have to go ahead and reduce how much time she can spend by herself out front. You know, the Perrys live next door, they have a couple kids, they play, we try to watch them, but kids are kids. I know for a fact that people speed. Can't do anything about it. At the end of the day if we have to make concessions to have the construction to go through the -- from Amity into the development, there is a problem with that. You've already said that can't be done. Thank you. Fitzgerald: I have an Earl -- and I can't read your last name? Thank you, sir. Pete Nelson. Mr. Nelson, if you would state your name and your address for the record, please. Nelson: Sure. My name is Peter Nelson at 1803 East Wrightwood Drive. 83642. I appreciate the opportunity to -- to express some concern this evening and I echo what my neighbors have said. All of us on Wrightwood Drive are very concerned, because it is the main entrance in and out of almost every place around us. But I also want to lift up the emergency egress. It is blatantly ignored in this. If something happens in the south end of this 20 acre lot, everything has to come through a very circuitous route, delay emergency folks, fire, EMS, et cetera, and the solution is very simple. An egress on Amity Road would make it very very easy for folks to get in and out, especially for -- for kids to get to the two new schools, but for public safety and public concern about fire, police, and emergency vehicles coming in and out. It just makes sense and if I had a chance I would love to present to the highway department saying why in the world won't you do a study and why in the world do you say we don't need an access there, Meridian Planning and Zoning August 18, 2016 Page 41 of 63 because I think it's just common sense to have an access on Amity Road. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Laura Dahl. Dahl: Could I use this right here? Fitzgerald: Yes, ma'am. Dahl: Overhead? Fitzgerald: Josh, can you set that up for her? Dahl: So, I'm Laura Dahl. 4358 South Mitman Way. Thanks for taking time to listen to me. So, I have a rudimentary drawing of how many neighborhood entrances are on Locust Grove, which is here and, then, how many neighborhood entrances run along Amity, which is here. So, approximately, what, two, four, six, eight, ten -- ten'ish along Locust Grove between Amity and Victory and we only have three neighborhood entrances between Eagle and Locust Grove. I just think it's a poor design. I'm not sure why planning would not agree to put an entrance off of Amity. If you look at the amount of homes, 882, you will see an asterisk by some of them and they were a guess. I didn't know the exact amount of homes. So, I put an asterisk. Probably Tuscany -- the Lakes is a little higher than a hundred homes coming out of there. That is a major entrance to Tuscany here. That's quite a bit of traffic right there in between Victory and Amity and where you're adding 75 more homes of traffic coming out on Locust Grove, where we could have a simple solution of routing it off of Amity instead and not coming through Bellingham Park. I just think it's a bad design. I also feel like the notification was poor. Now, mind you the closest exit, if it does come through Rangewood, would be out Bellingham Park. You're also going to have people peeling out through Tuscany; right? So, they can come out and they can go -- their quickest exit would be off through Bellingham Park down Wrightwood. Yet they could also go right around the curb and weed through Tuscany. Those people were not notified of this hearing and I'm not sure of any other hearings. I assume the posting and the notification was by code, but this -- this -- if this entrance is put in off of Rangewood, it will affect those homeowners tremendously, as well as Bellingham Park and I would say don't put it -- don't make the entrance off Rangewood, make it off of Amity, you know. If it comes down to money and safety, I would pick, you know, spending more money on safety; right? So, that's all I had to say. Fitzgerald: Thank you, ma'am, very much. Russ Damyan? Maybe butchered that horribly. I apologize. Damyan: Russ Damyan. 1819 East Wrightwood, Meridian, Idaho. 83642. I live across the street from the pool and also I contacted the sheriff's department Meridian Planning and Zoning August 18, 2016 Page 42 of 63 multiple times about speeding. Everybody's talking about speeding, speeding, speeding and it is correct. On Monday -- on Sunday I came home from a teen's camp and the police department already put a meter over on -- working with Fisher, Russ Fisher, and on Monday I was cleaning my trailer and I'm seeing a car driving 45 miles an hour in our subdivision and that's not acceptable. I'm looking at the meter and I'm seeing 45 miles an hour. I was shocked. And you guys going to be putting another subdivision, 75 more homes, that's going to be crazy, crazy busy, not acceptable. Also we have guests come over all the time on Sundays and the kids -- family has eight, ten kids. They always like to run across the street and play at the park and multiple times I'm looking across the street, across -- in my window across the street and I'm seeing a car flying by and a child wasn't getting hit. That's not acceptable. I moved into the subdivision from Caldwell when I was buying a house and I like the subdivision , because it is quiet. It was really nice. Everyone is being friendly. Being said with a speed issue, that's a big problem, because on Wrightwood -- and there is a park and there is a swimming pool -- there is a swimming pool and that on right -- if we are going to be adding another subdivision in there, there is going to be big traffic and there is a lot of kids that are running across the street back and forth and hopefully nobody is not going to be hit. If someone is going to be hit from a child, then, you guys will be happy, but right now nobody cares and also I contacted ACHD -- actually, they were at the party and they said they are going to be putting another meter out sometime soon. I'm not sure when they are going to be putting it out. They said within a couple of weeks. So, I ask the HOA to contact them again, make sure they put it up and make sure they test how many cars are going to be passing by that, so they can take action for that. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Is there anyone else who would like to testify that isn't signed up on the list? Josh, real quick, can you talk about code in regards to notification, just so that's on the record and everyone understands distance from the property and those kinds of things, so we can -- Beach: The city code requires us to notify property owners within 300 feet of the subject property. We did do that. So, it meets the minimum -- meets the minimum requirements. We also put the posting on the website and it's also in the paper. So, there are multiple ways that we notify the neighborhood of what's going on with these developments. Fitzgerald: Thank you, sir. No, ma'am. Sorry. If the applicant would like to come and close? Erickson: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Ross Erickson again representing the applicant. I tried to keep some good notes here, I will, hopefully, respond to some of the -- the comments that the neighbors had made. We have got the right map up here to address the first comment. As we look at the overall plan for this area, ACHD's plan for this is to actually construct a connection Meridian Planning and Zoning August 18, 2016 Page 43 of 63 through the parcel to the east to align with the newly constructed approach at Marsala that comes out of White Bark, which if you look at the aerial perspective it -- it makes sense and, then, basically, what happens would be -- yeah. Exactly. Right where the cursor is there. There would be an approach that would connect into that RUT piece and that, then, would connect to Melwood, which would be stubbed to the east of our property to provide additional connection to Amity for the Paisley Meadows Subdivision. So, there will be additional point of connection to Amity at some point, it's just going to be timed with development and that's out of our control as far as when that will happen. We have a number of approaches. The minor arterial street -- the goal of ACHD and the cities is to try to minimize the amount of -- of access points, instead of increasing them, and for a minor arterial ACHD's policy is to not allow local streets to connect to arterial roadways and in addition to that, the spacing between Glenmere and Marcala is actually less than -- it's like about 1,240 feet and the spacing for our driveway approaches on a minor arterial street needs to be a minimum of 660 feet. So, it physically will not fit between those two approaches, even if we wanted to put it in and still meet ACHD's policy. So, hopefully, that addresses that there would be an additional connection made to Amity at a point in the future, which will distribute trips differently once that connection is made, as opposed to just, you know, using the Novara connection to the east and the Rangewood connection to the north. A traffic impact study was not required by ACHD. Their threshold is a hundred units. We are at 75. So, it's not something that they required of us, so we didn't do one. The first neighbor asked about the amenities and I will just clarify what those are again. We have an open space located kind of centrally that will include a tot lot. We are also going to include some -- like a pet station that includes a -- a refuse container and some bags for pet owners, as well as a seating area. We have also got some pedestrian connections out to Amity that will provide some good circulation for folks that want to go on walks and things and get out to the front without having to go through the Estancia Subdivision. With regards to traffic, we are sensitive to traffic. It's always an issue. I think it's one of those things where the neighbors are on the right course with enforcem ent in getting with the sheriff and talking to ACHD about perhaps what can be done on that street. It sounds like it's something that they may need to address at some point. But I think it's kind of -- I don't know, it's just something that sounds to me like they are on the right course as far as trying to fix that. Noise pollution was brought up. Our work hours for development will be in accordance with the city's code and we are not going to do anything outside of that with regards to work hours that would create, you know, undue noise burden on any of the neighbors. I think Josh explained the noticing. We weren't trying to be, you know, sneaky or undermine anybody, we just -- you know, we got the list from the city and we mailed it out like we were supposed to and had our meeting. So, I think we kind of did our due diligence there. There was a mention about construction -- no construction traffic signs at Glenmere at the Amity entrance and, then, also at -- what's the other street? At Wrightwood at the Locust Grove entrance. I think that's something that we could certainly do and basically both signs would be, you know, installed at the Meridian Planning and Zoning August 18, 2016 Page 44 of 63 same time as the construction access will go in and when the construction access was removed, then, those signs would, obviously, be removed, because we would need to get access to our property, because we could no longer have the temporary access. But we would be open to that, if that's something that the Commission wanted to impose on us. With regard s to EMS, I believe all the -- the service providers have reviewed the plat and I don't think there were any special concerns notified with regards to response times or, you know, access getting to the end of the project. So, I don't think there is anythi ng that's too out of the ordinary there. I think that hits most of the -- most of the highlights. Do you guy have any additional questions for me? Fitzgerald: Any additional questions for the applicant? Thank you very much. Erickson: Thank you. Fitzgerald: And, Josh, just to be clear, there is not an emergency access bollard and grasscrete access required off of Amity; correct? Beach: No. The fire department did not require that. Fitzgerald: Thank you, sir. With that I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing on -- Wilson: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Yes, sir. Commissioner Wilson. Wilson: I move we close the public hearing on H-2016-0089. McCarvel: Second. Fitzgerald: All those in favor say aye. Okay. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Fitzgerald: You want to take a shot, Commissioner McCarvel, or do you want to -- Mr. Wilson, you want to start? McCarvel: You know, I think it, obviously, fits in with the zoning. I -- I wish there was another -- I mean with ACHD's plan to have another street, I know they have got their codes in how traffic best flows, having fewer entrances to the main arterial streets, I think the answer to this is really enforcement of current laws and getting help from the police and having the traffic obey the traffic laws that are already there and I know growth is hard and just -- I mean there is going to be another -- there will be an access to Amity out another way. It's just not on this area. Meridian Planning and Zoning August 18, 2016 Page 45 of 63 Fitzgerald: Commissioner Wilson. Wilson: Mr. Chair, traffic is an issue in this area. I mean there is no doubt about it and there is no doubt that the residents -- my neighbors in the area are addressing that. It's also clear that there is going to be an Amity entrance to that -- that development, you know, that section development that's occurring to the south -- the north of Amity, but it's going to occur in this parcel. You know, it's a conundrum, because some of the remedies to traffic that were being discussed, like road bumps, happen if this -- you know, with these 75 additional houses and I don't know all the details of that, but, you know, if these 75 additional houses occur, some of those remedies that the neighbors are working with ACHD might be possible. On the other hand, if there is an Amity entrance that's premature and, again, not with what ACHD is planning on doing, so -- I mean that's kind of a clear conundrum. But, again, within the scope of what we are making a recommendation to City Council on, I mean it's clear this fits with the Comprehensive Plan and I think in terms of what could develop there, I mean this is a good development. Fitzgerald: And I -- I tend to agree. I know this is not -- this is not an easy one. It's -- it's difficult. I know very personal situations that come into it . It's an R-4. It's a low density and I think with the zoning it could be R-8. And so I think that density wise it's a good -- it's a good project in that regard. It matches up to lot lines to Estancia to the west, and I think they try to match up. I think, hopefully, the community -- I mean, obviously, you guys are involved. We talked to ACHD about the speed bumps, talked to them about possibly adding some stop signs at some of those locations, because that's -- but to limit this development because of -- only because of that is -- it meets our code and it meets the develop -- or meets our future land use map and so for us the recommendation -- it makes sense to me. It's difficult, because ACHD has -- and our code don't allow us to add an access there, because that's not in the plan and so we have Fire and -- Fire and Police tell us what to do in regards to emergency accesses and what they need and so they have access in four different -- or will be three different locations. So, they feel comfortable that they can get to houses in that neighborhood with relative speed and so my -- this one is hard, because development comes to your neighborhood and it's not easy and so I -- I understand the concerns. But I think in looking at the plan and -- and how it matches up with our city code and development -- future land use map, I think it matches pretty well, so -- McCarvel: Mr. Chairman? Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel. Meridian Planning and Zoning August 18, 2016 Page 46 of 63 McCarvel: I do think we want to add the provision for the signs of no construction traffic through the existing subs, that they use the designated construction entrance off Amity. Fitzgerald: Agreed. And I do -- and, Josh, is there a requirement -- we put the construction entrance into a motion to that as part of the -- it's -- okay. And I appreciate the -- the applicant working to put that in place. I think it will be invaluable to start the construction piece, so -- Beach: Chair, Commissioners, just -- just as you're making that motion maybe you want to make it clear that -- that, obviously, once that landscape buffer is constructed, which in this case it's likely to be in phase two, that that construction entrance would, then, go away and, then, the construction would, then, go through the existing streets, not through that Amity entrance. And so whenever that -- whenever that time period occurs. Fitzgerald: Does that make sense? McCarvel: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, I think -- I have a question I guess for staff. Is that landscape going to be finished at the beginning or the end of phase two? Beach: So, this is not annexation, this is a preliminary plat. Typical with annexation we would require that the landscape buffer be installed with phase one. That's not something we can require at this point, because it's already been annexed into the city and we don't have that negotiating tool a nymore, so that's part of phase two. Now, the applicant can agree to do it with phase one if they want to. I don't know that that makes sense in this case, because they are asking to have a -- McCarvel: It's got to be at the end or the beginning -- would the landscape be finished at the beginning or the end of phase two? Beach: That's something you can ask the applicant. McCarvel: Okay. Beach: Yeah. Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, let's be clear that when we are talking a construction entrance into the development and it's meant for the installation of the roads, the water and sewer, as the developer -- as the process finishes up, then, the home builders come and they have to come in and start dropping off the building materials to start constructing the homes. So, I think that construction entrance is meant to be only for the subdivision improvements, it's not for -- not during the construction of the physical homes on the site. So, that's something that we need to probably take into consideration as well. Meridian Planning and Zoning August 18, 2016 Page 47 of 63 Fitzgerald: So, this is a final plat and, yeah, when we start pulling building permits that construction entrance is gone. Parsons: That's the way the application -- the applicant has explained it to me this evening and I don't -- I'm not sure if that's how ACHD intended that to work as well. Fitzgerald: Could we -- so, we need to reopen the public hearing and have the applicant come and explain this? McCarvel: I think so. Fitzgerald: Okay. McCarvel: Mr. Chairman? Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I -- I move that we reopen the public hearing to address our question regarding construction on Item No. H-2016-0089. Wilson: Second. Fitzgerald: All those in favor of opening the public hearing to hear about the construction entrance? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Fitzgerald: Ross, can you come and discuss that specific issue only, please? Erickson: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Ross Erickson again . The initial intent of the -- the construction entrance concession was for development-related construction. Semis. Lowboys. Earth movers. Diggers. Dozers. Trackhoes. Heavy equipment. Big stuff. Not the guy with his pickup truck or his -- you know, your Toyota Camry that is a framer or something, you know. So, that was our initial intent. I suppose if -- if the Commission, you know, would prefer that we actually construct some sort of a temporary gravel access for home builder traffic as well, I think we could consider that. But as I mentioned, the intent was for heavy equipment, to keep the -- the big stuff off of the neighbors' local streets. But the guys that are driving the -- the conventional small passenger vehicles and pickup trucks would take access through the local streets just like everybody else. And I guess we would be open to -- you know, if it's something that's a deal breaker for us that we would need to provide a -- you know, a gravel access in until that landscape buffer was built, then, we could certainly do that, but -- Meridian Planning and Zoning August 18, 2016 Page 48 of 63 Fitzgerald: What's your schedule for the landscape buffer off of Amity? Erickson: So, that landscape buffer will not be required to be built in phase one; is that correct, Josh? Beach: That is the understanding that we currently have; correct. Erickson: That is a good thing for the temporary access, because that means it could remain open for the construction traffic for phase two without having to be rebuilt. So, the time frame would be -- you know, phase one would probably start in the spring and depending upon how quickly the lots get taken up, we may -- phase two will start, you know, before all the lots are sold in phase one, so it may be later in the year, it may even be the following year, depending on how -- how quickly the lots are sold, so -- Fitzgerald: And Josh or Bill, is there a -- is there a way to lay that out? Say we wanted to maintain a construction entrance through phase one -- because it's already going to be there. Is that -- is there something we need to -- something we need to follow in regards to compliance or -- Beach: I think that -- if it's something that you feel like you wanted to do to have them -- I mean there is probably a way to do that, so that there is a way to keep that access open for the framers or the construction crews going in there and maybe have a condition that they can't have -- it has to be removed prior to any signature on a final plat, you know, with the understanding that that's not going to remain that way. It will go away as soon as it's recorded now that -- in my mind that's how that would make sense, with the recording of the final plat for phase two, that that be removed. Erickson: Right. And it's important to note also that, yo u know, when we say phase one is built out and we go in to build phase two, we end for the heavy equipment access, we are using this temporary access that we have been discussing. So, with the infrastructure construction in phase two, that temporary access is going to be removed, because we will be constructing the landscape buffer through there. So, at that point, you know, the signs need to come down and we need to be able to allow the home builders to be able to access the project, you know, be at the local streets. Fitzgerald: So, signature on final plat for phase two, is that -- Erickson: For phase two. Beach: Or you could say prior to the construction of the landscape buffer for phase two, which would deal with theoretically the end of the -- Meridian Planning and Zoning August 18, 2016 Page 49 of 63 Fitzgerald: Does that make sense? Erickson: That would be acceptable, yeah. McCarvel: Okay. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Ross. Anymore questions for the applicant? Baird: Mr. Chair, procedural -- Fitzgerald: Yes, sir. Thank you. Baird: -- issue. With the reopening of the hearing and the taking of the new testimony, there is a new issue on the table. Fitzgerald: Okay. Baird: I would recommend that you allow individuals in the audience to testify for the purpose only of the information that was just provided with the intent that it looks like you're heading in -- in the direction of specifying the -- and extending as long as possible that temporary construction entrance. Or temporary access. Fitzgerald: Thank you for the guidance. With that being said, is there anybody that wants to testify specifically on the emergency road access. I will start to the right. The construction access. I'm sorry. Construction access. Please. And that's the only issue we are going to allow testimony on. Please state your name again for -- Thompson: Michael Thompson. 4668 South Glenmere Way, Meridian. Fitzgerald: Thank you, sir. Thompson: So, just want to say thank you for your working with us and all that and you're not a bad guy and, you know, hopefully, everyone can respect you for what you're doing. All right? So, with that said, I just want to say thank you. On this matter, the construction entrance, I think there needs to be clarity on -- on what the issue is from start to finish, because what I just heard is that for phase one or phase one of this construction effort, right, your terms and conditions -- conditions associated with what type of vehicles can come -- access the construction site; right? So, the majority of the problems I have, like -- and we saw this in portions of Tuscany and other areas were being built is -- you know, it's not the big trucks you have to worry about, it's the small trucks not properly loading up their gear, doing things that are violating, you know, probably something else somewhere, but the majority of the traffic -- my Land Rover has had six nails in them, you know, and it happens correlated around the time construction is going on. No one pays for that but me. Again, I think it's a good Meridian Planning and Zoning August 18, 2016 Page 50 of 63 solution, but is -- are there any assurances that we can get around making sure that our vehicles will be going through this construction entrance and not just the large backhoes, you know, so on and so forth? Because it sounds like there is a little bit of conflict in the information there. Fitzgerald: We will clarify that. Thompson: Okay. And one more question. Is code for mailing out addresses from the address on Amity, which it doesn't have the entrance, so there is a funny Amity address or is it from the property line? Baird: Mr. Chair, that issue has already been discussed. Thompson: Okay. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Ma'am. Dickerson: Crystal Dickerson. 1889 East Wrightwood Drive. So, the issue I have is, okay, they want to use the temporary construction entrance for the big equipment. That's great. But it's still going to bring the traffic -- the painters that drop paint in the middle of the road that my neighbor drove through that she ended up having to pay for it, because who are we going to talk to? It's the roofers that fly through there. It's in all of the construction people that are working on the homes. My husband works for a big construction company. I do know that those access points are easily moved for construction and if it's going to be a temporary issue -- I mean I want to know how temporary. Through phase one doesn't -- it doesn't cut it. There is still going to be the traffic through these two. It's still going to be the -- the painter that's running late to work that could possibly hit my kid. That's a big issue. We need to make sure that those access points are there through the end of constru ction, whether it, you know, is with his timeline landscaping or not and he doesn't live there. So, I'm sure he doesn't care. We who live there and have kids do care and to where it is a walking distance school zone, we are still going to have all of those kids walking to and from school, riding their bikes to and from school, riding their scooters to and from school, having the painters and the roofers, the framers and the sheetrockers dodging our kids, that's an issue. That temporary access needs to be there through the end of phase two, however long that is going to be, and if it's a temporary one, I don't -- that they are going to allowed to be there, I don't know why it can't be permanent if it's going to be temporary. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Thanks, ma'am. Anyone else that wants to speak? Yes, ma'am. Moore: Annie Moore. 4398 Rangewood Way, Meridian, Idaho. I am in the construction field, so I am acutely aware of construction access. Unfortunately, as many signs as you want to put up there, I can guarantee you that not everyone is going to pay attention to them . You can say no construction access Meridian Planning and Zoning August 18, 2016 Page 51 of 63 and people will still find a way to get down there. Deliveries will be made. Everything will happen unless there is absolutely no access to the construction zone for that point. So, you need to leave Rangewood and Melwood closed off completely and have only one access from the temporary access through Amity. Also another thing I'd like the Council to consider is we already know that there is now going to be a connection to Amity through the new White Bark Subdivision. Why can we not make that connection now as a part of this phase, put that in. We would no longer need temporary access to Amity, they can contribute -- they can bring all construction traffic through the entrance that everyone keeps saying we are now going to have through Amity and, then, eventually through the phasing connect the other streets. They have that anyway open right now. It's going to be there anyways, why not start off now and avoid all of this? Fitzgerald: Thanks, ma'am. Ross, do you have anything to close, sir? Oh, sorry. One more. Is there someone else who wants to testify? Oh, sorry, ma'am. I apologize. Dahl: Laura Dahl. 4358 South Mitman. I would agree with Annie, you know, why don't we go ahead and put the road into Amity out there to reduce traffic and all. But if that doesn't work, I didn't quite understand either the wording of maybe, probably, can we, as far as the temporary access. Phase one, phase two, I wasn't quite sure what you guys were talking about or the timelines, but what it sounded to me was like, okay, and once phase one is done we are going to close it up. So, you can sell your homes and your landscape will be done, but yet now the traffic's going to come through Bellingham Park. So, that didn't sit well with me; right? So, why don't they just leave it open until it's done and construct that area last, as opposed to closing it halfway through or when they are done with phase one and leaving it open? Why is our neighborhood going to have to take the brunt of the traffic for their phase two? Why don't they take the brunt of the traffic and finish that around that area and leave it open? Fitzgerald: Thank you, ma'am. Anyone else wish to testify on this issue? Yes, sir. Walker: Don Walker. 4592 South Glenmere Way. And, you know, I think a lot of us do appreciate the -- the temporary construction inlet, but even my greatest concern would be, you know, if it's only for heavy vehicles and not the carpenters and the roofers and the painters, you know, the -- the 150 cars going through there are going to be residents of that neighborhood. They might go a little slower because they live there and tha t's their community. These are coming in to do a job for a day or a week, they don't care. They're going to -- they are going to speed if they are late for work, like I mentioned. Not to mention that typically those people -- you know, blue collar workers or whatever, they're showing up at the job site at the same time the kids are getting picked up by buses. So, it's just going to be -- they are going to be crossing paths inevitably. You can't stop it. It's going to happen. So, as far as, you k now, temporary for Meridian Planning and Zoning August 18, 2016 Page 52 of 63 heavy equipment, I have a problem with that. I would like to see it for all construction, home building and heavy equipment through the -- all of phase one and the majority of phase two. I mean that's what -- I don't understand why that isn't the last thing done, the landscaping. It has to be important on Amity it can't be done last, because on the Tuscany side just east of that, that new -- that last phase of theirs, that's pretty much the last thing they did was the -- the landscaping right there on Amity. So, I don't see why it couldn't be done here either. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Okay. Last call. Parsons: Mr. Chairman? Fitzgerald: Yes, sir. Parsons: I think we have some solutions. I'm over here trying to think how we can try to accommodate both the neighborhood and the applicant. I think there is a couple ways we can handle it. One, the applicant can change their phasing plan and maybe go north-south, have the first phase kind of bifurcate the property north-south, bringing that road in and, then, that way the can keep all of their construction, all of their equipment on the other -- the east half of the property and still work towards the east of that property. That could work. The other thing that they could do is under our codes they are allowed to put up surety for improvements. So, that's typically how it works. When we get into bad weather and landscaping and those things can't go in, the developer has the option to put up money to -- to basically guarantee the construction of those -- the landscaping and those amenities. So, if we were able to work with the applicant, maybe we can hold surety until the last home is developed in the site, keeping that access open, and at that time we hold that surety guaranteeing that once a portion of that landscaping was complete he would do those improvements, we would give him money back and, then, that way we would have less impact on the adjacent neighbors. So, we have some tools here. I think it just needs to f ine tune, one, the phasing plan, so that we have the least amount of impact in the neighborhood and, then, two, stall or delay those -- the Amity Road improvements, with a surety insuring -- again, preserving the neighborhood, so construction traffic can continue to take their temporary access through Amity Road. But I think we -- I think that's the solution here is we just have to have a revised phasing plan or at least the applicant can come up with something different to maintain that construction access onto Amity and, then, delay a portion of that Amity Road landscape buffer to a surety process and we will have to monitor it through our database system that we have in place and notify our building department. But there -- there may be some options there. Fitzgerald: Thank you. Sir, please, come -- Erickson: Once again, Ross Erickson. Are we clear as mud yet? Meridian Planning and Zoning August 18, 2016 Page 53 of 63 Fitzgerald: Yes, sir. Erickson: The concern I have is that I believe that when ACHD suggested the construction entrance, they are referring to development related equipment and I guess what I don't want to do is -- is commit to something that ACHD will not allow us to do. So, you know, what I'm envisioning here is a full functioning access that -- how are you going to stop people from inside the development living there from using this access when it's not being intended to be used. So, if there is any way that we could -- you know, when developing or in this condition that we could include something there, like to the extent that ACHD will permit perhaps, because what I don't want to do is get us in a position where our hands are tied and we are basically -- we are conditioned to do something that we physically can't do based on what ACHD requires. So, if we could add that, if it's a condition -- I mean it's going to allow us to do whatever we can -- we want to -- we want to minimize construction traffic on local streets. That's the whole idea. But we don't want to commit to something that we can't do and, then, be stuck. Fitzgerald: And what's your thoughts on reversing the p hasing? Erickson: The challenge with revising the phasing is sewer is coming from the north and all of our drainage is going to the northeast for the entire development. So, it was strategically planned to start at that end in order to basically bring the drainage and utility infrastructures south from the north. But with regards to Bill's suggestion about sureties and -- you know, if ACHD will allow us to leave a temporary access open, we are more than willing to -- to post a surety for that remaining landscaping to get phase two recorded and get in there and build houses and use that access, but I just -- what I don't want to commit to is saying that we are going to do that and, then, ACHD says, no, just that was intended for heavy equipment and development related traffic, not home builders and, then, we are stuck. Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: Your phase two, it's kind of hard to see, but that's like two -thirds of the way down this -- Erickson: Yeah. It's just south of the -- McCarvel: You have about 25, 26 lots there in phase two, so the bulk of it would be in phase one. Erickson: That's correct. Fitzgerald: Any additional questions for the applicant? Thank you very much. Meridian Planning and Zoning August 18, 2016 Page 54 of 63 Erickson: Thank you. Fitzgerald: Bill, I think I'm okay with the phasing currently, but if we could do -- I think it's allowing that surety to be put in place to make sure that we have a -- some type of a mechanism to insure it gets done and, then, tie into final -- to signature on final plat on phase two. I know it doesn't cover it all, but it gives -- it gives the majority -- it's the majority -- two-thirds of the houses. It does give a little bit of relief to the neighbors, which I understand -- understand their concerns. Does that give us the ability to do that? To put a signature on phase two and the surety to close the access when -- when it's done? Parsons: Chairman, Members of the Commission, I think that would work. The other option you have on the table tonight is to continue the project out, allow us to contact ACHD to see what they would allow and come back in two weeks and give you some assurances on what they would allow for that construction entrance. I mean that's your -- the other option, why try to work something this evening when you have it within your purview to continue this out and get more information. McCarvel: Mr. Chairman? Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I move to close the public hearing for the second time on H-2016- 0089. Wilson: Second. Fitzgerald: All those in favor by saying aye. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Fitzgerald: Okay. Thoughts, Commissioners? McCarvel: Mr. Chairman? Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I have to admit my first thought was that construction traffic meant all construction traffic, not just the construction of the -- the loaders and stuff coming through there, but because I -- you know, living in the construction zones and I realize -- I mean paint and nails and everything, that does become an issue and so if we can mitigate that I think that would be helpful and I think just requesting it during the phase one -- because when you start looking at phase two it's not just the landscape down there, but you're looking at not being able to build on those lots down there, because that's going to -- those lots get closed off. That closes Meridian Planning and Zoning August 18, 2016 Page 55 of 63 off to Amity. So, you -- I mean I don't think it's fair to ask them not to be able to build on those lots until that's done. So, I think -- I mean phase two that would only be 26 homes that would have potentially construction traffic going out the other road to Amity. That's -- Fitzgerald: Your thoughts. McCarvel: -- I guess that's my thoughts. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Wilson. Wilson: I guess -- so -- I mean I guess I would be open to continuing. I don't know if -- I don't know if that's necessary. If we can't get there -- I mean we are trying to go down a route -- we are mitigating construction traffic. Can we get there by continuing, anymore answers from ACHD to kind of where we were trying to get, kind of that hundred percent solution or are we going to be back here in two weeks kind of where we are at and I would like to hear your thoughts on that. Fitzgerald: To be totally honest, I think we will be exactly in the same conversation we are tonight. McCarvel: Uh-huh. Fitzgerald: I get a sense on where we are headed. I don't -- I mean I -- honestly, ACHD has given the applicant and the staff direction and they are amenable to a temporary access, which I think we are going to direct how to use it. So, I -- again, I think we are doing our best to try to help the community with the issues that they presented. We can't cut access to a property that the applicant doesn't own, which is to the east. That's not an option. We can't direct that that road be built, because we don't know what's going to be built there . So, I appreciate that, but -- I mean I would love to be able to master plan some things, but that doesn't -- isn't in our purview right now. That's a county piece of property and it's not in this application. So, we are dealing with that application right now. And so my thought is I would -- I think if we continue it I think we are back in the same conversation in two weeks that we are now. But I will -- I will give you all the judgment on how we proceed. But I think we -- the phase two line is pretty generous. It's two-thirds of the subdivision and I think we can make it work to give as much relief to the community surrounding it as we can. McCarvel: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, I say even if we had information from ACHD -- I mean I don't know that you're going to hang -- I don't know that it would stop it anyway. I did want to comment -- and correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought I -- I did want to address one of the comments about, you know, making that road out to Amity now instead of in the next subdivision, I think the method in the Meridian Planning and Zoning August 18, 2016 Page 56 of 63 madness there I think it was lining it up with the street that's already existing across from Amity. Did I hear that right, Josh? Yeah. Beach: That's correct. There is a street here that theoretically the street would line up with White Bark, so -- McCarvel: Yeah. I think that's the reason on the -- doing it then instead of now. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Wilson? Wilson: Well, I mean bottom line there is going to be an Amity entrance. The problem with the way this is developing and the fact that this parcel doesn't go all the way out and -- because it is still county property to the -- to the east means that, yeah, I mean what we have before us is what we have and I think we have done our best to mitigate that construction traffic and I hope the community continues to handle their traffic problem, you know, that -- Fitzgerald: Yeah. Wilson: -- pursue with ACHD handling the traffic problem. McCarvel: I guess -- Mr. Chairman, I guess I feel like, you know, we can't -- we can do the best we can here, but we can't control every speeder and we can't control every pickup that might come through with a nail. I mean you can't control people that break the rules. So, the effort there needs to come from the police department. Wilson: And that being said, we are not the final place. I mean we are a recommending body. I think the -- Fitzgerald: Absolutely. Wilson: -- the neighbors -- neighbors can go to the -- you know, to the City Council, their elected City Councilors and also express their concerns with this project and I would encourage them to do so. Fitzgerald: Absolutely. McCarvel: Uh-huh. Fitzgerald: So, do we have a general consensus? McCarvel: I think so. Fitzgerald: Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning August 18, 2016 Page 57 of 63 McCarvel: Okay. Mr. Chairman? Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number H-2016-0089 as presented in the staff report for the hearing of August 18th , 2016, with the following modifications: That pending ACHD allowing, that signs for no construction vehicles be posted and that construction vehicles use the access to Amity for as long as it is possible and possibly coinciding with the recording of phase two and the landscape being done. Is that -- Fitzgerald: The landscape surety being put in place. McCarvel: And the landscape surety being put in place, but that entrance probably needs to be closed to coincide with the recording of phase two. Wilson: Second. McCarvel: Does that get you there, Josh? Fitzgerald: Does that -- Beach: I think that will get us there. I think that -- I think we can make that work. Wilson: Second. Baird: Mr. Chair, and Members, if the maker of the motion might consider adding to that to recommend that the applicant have specifics for the City Council on the exact location of that temporary access and will have final information from ACHD as far as what they would allow, so that those issues could be presented to City Council. Fitzgerald: Would the motion maker be amenable to that change? McCarvel: Yes. Fitzgerald: And the second -- Wilson: Second. Beach: Would the motion maker also designate the location of the signs for no construction traffic? McCarvel: I would say at the entrance of Wrightwood Drive and the entrance of Glenmere Way. Meridian Planning and Zoning August 18, 2016 Page 58 of 63 Beach: So, a sign here or a sign up here on Wrightwood? McCarvel: Yeah. And Rangewood. Fitzgerald: Three signs, so -- McCarvel: Yeah. Beach: So, on the corner of Locust Grove and Wrightwood, the dead end of Rangewood, and the entrance to Estancia, which -- I'm not sure what the name of this street is here, but -- Fitzgerald: Are you still seconding, sir? Wilson: Second. Fitzgerald: Any further discussion? All those in favor say aye. Appreciate it. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. F. Public Hearing for 2016 City Initiated Annexation (H- 2016-0093) by City of Meridian ACHD Properties - Generally Located Near the Northeast Corner of S. Eagle Road and E. Amity Road; SEC of N. Meridian Road and E. Carmel Drive; East side of N. Ten Mile Road, North of W. Ustick Road; 3955 E. Ustik Road; 2910 W. Franklin Road; and 6175 N. Linder Road Idaho Power Properties - Located at 3275 E. Amity Road, 1635 S. Stoddard Road and 3539 N. Ten Mile Road Blackrock Subdivision - Generally Located North of E. Lake Hazel Road, Between S. Locust Grove Road and S. Eagle Road City of Meridian Property - Located 3064 W. Malta Drive 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of Approximately 67.50 Acres of Land with R-4 (53.25 Acres), R-8 (11.64 Acres), R-15 (30.10 Acres) and C-C (2.61 Acres) Zoning Designations Fitzgerald: Good Luck. Thank you, guys. Take this to the City Council or to ACHD and let your views be heard. Okay. So, last component on the agenda is Meridian Planning and Zoning August 18, 2016 Page 59 of 63 a city annexation of file number H-2016-0093. Hello, how is it going, sir? I thought Caleb was going to come see us. You don't want to do this? Come on, man. McClure: You guys don't get to see me often enough, so -- good evening, Commission. I'm here today to discuss with you an application for a city initiated annexation. Last year City Council approved a small budget for this project. Part of this was a request to -- and direction for staff to do some map clean ups of enclaves and the other was to close the loop on a 2005 agreement for service s and annexation. That agreement allowed the Black Rock Subdivision to develop in the county with city services, even though it was not contiguous at the time. So, this application is for a Category A annexation. All of these properties are now contiguous with city limits and they all have provided some type of consent. The Ada County Highway has six properties. Idaho Power has three properties. The City of Meridian has one property. And, then, there is the Black Rock Subdivision made up of approximately 49 properties . ACHD has indicated that they will not contest the annexation. Idaho Power has provided a signed consent agreement. The city is obviously supportive of this property being annexed and in terms of the Black Rock Subdivision -- I will put this on in a second. The Black Rock Subdivision was allowed to develop in the county with city services under an agreement that it would be annexed when it became contiguous. The agreement was recorded with the county, memorialized in the titles, and, then, listed in the CC&Rs for the Black Rock Subdivision . The Black Rock Subdivision also described meeting city standards for architectural features and things like that. With the development of Sky Mesa to the north Black Rock Subdivision became contiguous and, thus, eligible for annexation. It is also contiguous in the southwest corner as a result of this south Meridian annexation earlier this year. This area is also rapidly developing. There is subdivisions all around it. New YMCA. New regional park on Lake Hazel. And a number of development interests. Total acreage for this annexation is approximately 67 acres. Land use for these properties include low density residential, medium density residential, mixed use commercial, commercial and civic. The proposed use for these properties are all consistent with the future land map and include 53 acres of R-4, 11 acres of R-8 and 2.68 acres of C-C. For the ACHD, Idaho Power, and City of Meridian there are no real impacts as a result of this annexation. While there may be some opportunities for expansion on a number of these properties, the Idaho Power and ACHD sites are all -- have existing facilities, mostly power substations and stormwater drainage ponds. The city's property is a small pathway connection between Heroes Park and Ten Mile. In terms of service and impacts, utility, roads, schools and library services will remain unchanged. Fire service will remain the same, since Meridian Fire services Meridian Rural Fire, but that assessment will be removed off of the -- of the tax rolls. Trash service will remain with Republic, but there are some differences between the county and the city accounts. Police services will now be in Meridian, instead of Ada County Sheriff. Tonight city staff is requesting a recommendation for approval to City Council. It will, then, go to City Council for their consideration and, then, Meridian Planning and Zoning August 18, 2016 Page 60 of 63 depending on how this goes, we may be back next year for some additional map of cleanups. I do have some additional maps if you guys want to go through these one by one, but I will otherwise stand for questions. Fitzgerald: Commissioners, do you have any questions? McCarvel: No. Baird: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Yes. Baird: I'd like to have Brian explain that you had a neighborhood meeting and you sent individual notices out to affected properties just so -- there is nobody here tonight, but I think it's important that you note for the record that an effort has been made to notify folks. Fitzgerald: Thank you very much. Beach: Definitely can do that. So, on -- I think -- I think May -- no. June 23rd we had an open house. We invited all the people of the Black Rock Subdivision to attend that if they had any questions regarding services, what the changes -- what the impacts would be. How code enforcement deals with things. At that meeting we had legal available, we had Republic Services there to answer any questions. We had code enforcement there if they had any questions. Only one person showed up. I believe -- I think his name was Tim Foster, but he was the HOA president at the time. As a result of that meeting and code enforcement agreed to attend their -- their annual subdivision meeting, which I think was a week or two later. In terms of the notifications -- so, the 300 rule, discussion about previous applications, it's a little bit different for this. When you -- there was a number -- so, we have properties all over the city, including the Black Rock Subdivision and so when you hit so many people we do an extra PSA and you don't -- you don't hit 300 radius for all these people, because there is just so many. I did, however, want the Black Rock residents to know that they were -- we were doing this tonight, so we sent out what legal decided should be called courtesy notifications to those stakeholders specifically, just so they would -- in case they didn't read it in the papers, basically. Fitzgerald: Very good. Any additional questions for Brian? Do we need to take a look at the maps or are we -- Wilson: Weren't the maps in the -- McCarvel: Yeah, they were in the staff report. Meridian Planning and Zoning August 18, 2016 Page 61 of 63 Fitzgerald: They were in the staff report. So, Black Rock is the only major chunk. We are just talking about little substations and different things and -- McClure: Correct. Yes. Fitzgerald: Okay. I think we are good. Thanks, Brian. Appreciate it. Is there anyone in the audience -- Caleb, do you want to come and talk to us? Is there anybody that would like to speak on this application? Okay. McCarvel: Mr. Chairman? Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I move that we close the public hearing on H-2016-0093. Wilson: Second. Fitzgerald: All those in favor say aye. Okay. Close the public hearing. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Fitzgerald: Thoughts? Comments? Yeas. Nays. McCarvel: I'm in favor. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Wilson? Wilson: As am I. Fitzgerald: I think it's great. I think it's great that the city is cleaning up random parcels. With that, Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: Mr. Chairman. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number H-2016-0093 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of August 18th, 2016. Wilson: Second. Fitzgerald: All those in favor say aye. All opposed? Nobody? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Fitzgerald: Brian, thank you very much. Thanks for all the work you guys did. Caleb, thank you. We appreciate it greatly. And that being said, if there is nothing to come before the Commission, I would -- Meridian Planning and Zoning August 18, 2016 Page 62 of 63 Wilson: There is another -- Fitzgerald: Oh, there is one other thing. Wilson: You could cut it off. Item 5: Other Items A. Ada County 2025 Comprehensive Plan Update Information by Brian McClure, City of Meridian Planning Department Fitzgerald: No, I was going to cut it off. Oh, Comp Plan amendment. Brian, you want to come back and talk to us again? I forgot there was a fifth item. I was just going to leave you hanging, man. McClure: This is unheard of. I'm here twice tonight. So, this -- this next item is just a very minor update for you. Ada county is in the process of updating it's comprehensive plan. They are calling it Ada County 2025. Right now they are in the public comment period and if you would like to read that or provide any comment, they would certainly appreciate that. The city has been involved with that process and we have made several comments and phone calls, but wanted to let you be aware of that, too. I think their website is adacounty2025.com. Fitzgerald: Is this a master plan or is it kind of a future land use -- McClure: It's a comprehensive plan. Fitzgerald: Comprehensive. Okay. McClure: So, their future land use map is a little bit different from ours. They don't have as many low density residential -- it's medium density residential and they only cover the areas that aren't within an area of city impact, so a lot of that is -- is the foothills, it's the BLM land, things like that. But they do have a future land use map. Wilson: Is there an airstrip out there? Fitzgerald: There is no airstrip. Is there an airstrip in -- Wilson: There is an area that -- it definitely makes things easier. Fitzgerald: Any additional questions for Mr. McClure? No? Thank you, sir, very much. Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: August 18,2016 ITEM NUMBER: 3A PROJECT NUMBER: H-2016-0069 ITEM TITLE: CentrePoint Storage Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval for CentrePoint Storage (H-2016- 0069) by Chad Olsen Located 1/4 Mile North of E. Ustick Road and West of N. Eagle Road Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for a Self -Service Storage Facility on 18.7 Acres of Land in the C -G Zoning District MEETING NOTES mll' APPROVED CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2016-0069 Page 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER In the Matter of the Request for Conditional Use Permit for a Self-Service Storage Facility on 18.7 Acres of Land in the C-G Zoning District for CentrePoint Storage, Located Approximately ¼ Mile North of E. Ustick Road and West of N. Eagle Road, by Chad Olsen. Case No(s). H-2016-0069 For the Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: August 4, 2016 (Findings on August 18, 2016) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of August 4, 2016, incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of August 4, 2016, incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of August 4, 2016, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of August 4, 2016, 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-2016-0069 Page 2 upon the applicant, the Planning Department, the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. 7. That this approval is subject to the conditions of approval in the attached staff report for the hearing date of August 4, 2016, incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the Planning & Zoning Commission’s authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11- 5A and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant’s request for conditional use permit is hereby approved in accord with the conditions of approval in the staff report for the hearing date of August 4, 2016, attached as Exhibit A. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits Notice of Two (2) Year Conditional Use Permit Duration Please take notice that the conditional use permit, when granted, shall be valid for a maximum period of two (2) years unless otherwise approved by the City in accord with UDC 11-5B-6F.1. During this time, the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground. For conditional use permits that also require platting, the final plat must be signed by the City Engineer within this two (2) year period in accord with UDC 11-5B-6F.2. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11-5B-6.F.1, the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the use not to exceed one (1) two (2) year period. Additional time extensions up to two (2) years as determined and approved by the Commission may be granted. With all extensions, the Director or Commission may require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11. E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis 1. The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code 67-8003, a denial of a conditional use permit entitles the Owner to request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than twenty-eight (28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review may be filed. 2. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian. When applicable and pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521, any affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the final action of the governing board may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. F. Attached: Staff report for the hearing date of August 4, 2016 By actin of the Planning & Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the > , 2016. COMMISSIONER STEVEN YEARSLEY, CHAIRMAN COMMISSIONER PATRICIZ OLIVER, VICE CHAIRMAN COMMISSIONER RHONDA MCCARVEL COMMISSIONER RYAN FITZGERALD COMMISSIONER GREGORY WILSON e— day of VOTED VOTED VOTED VOTED_ VOTED u 40�ATE D q U GO�C s� G l ti's' 1y o„ /rr@y City of E IDIAN m �OANO Copy served upon the Applicant, the Planning and T eAs�nt Services divisions of the Conununity `a Development Department, the Public Works Department and the City Attorney. By: € _. ' Dated: City Cleric's Office CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2016-0069 Page 3 EXHIBIT A CentrePoint Storage CUP H-2016-0069 PAGE 1 STAFF REPORT HEARING DATE: August 4, 2016 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Sonya Watters, Associate City Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: CentrePoint Storage – CUP (H-2016-0069) I. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant, Chad Olsen, requests a conditional use permit (CUP) for a self-service storage facility on 18.7 acres of land in the C-G zoning district. A request for alternative compliance (ALT) to UDC 11-3B-9C was also submitted to reduce the landscaping requirements adjacent to the residential uses to the west in Champion Park Subdivision. See Section IX Analysis for more information. II. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposed CUP as requested by the applicant. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission heard this item on August 4, 2016. At the public hearing, the Commission moved to approve the subject CUP request. a. Summary of Commission Public Hearing: i. In favor: Jonathan Seel ii. In opposition: None iii. Commenting: None iv. Written testimony: Jonathan Seel and Chad Olsen (in agreement with staff report) v. Staff presenting application: Bill Parsons vi. Other staff commenting on application: None b. Key Issues of Discussion by Commission: i. None c. Key Commission Changes to Staff Recommendation: i. None III. PROPOSED MOTION Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2016-0069 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of August 4, 2016, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications.) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2016-0069 as presented during the hearing on August 4, 2016, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial.) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2016-0069 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) EXHIBIT A CentrePoint Storage CUP H-2016-0069 PAGE 2 IV. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS A. Site Address/Location: The site is located approximately ¼ mile north of E. Ustick Road and west of N. Eagle Road, in the SE ¼ of Section 32, Township 4N., Range 1E. B. Owner: Blue Marlin Investments, LLC 1940 Bonito Way, Ste. 160 Meridian, ID 83642 C. Applicant: Chad Olsen 12790 W. Telemark St. Boise, ID 83713 D. Representative: Jonathan Seel, JRS Consulting 2906 Haven Drive Eagle, ID 83616 E. Applicant's Statement/Justification: Please see applicant’s narrative for this information. V. PROCESS FACTS A. The subject application is for a conditional use permit, which requires a public hearing before the Planning & Zoning Commission; and alternative compliance, which requires Director approval, consistent with Meridian City Code Title 11, Chapter 5. B. Newspaper notifications published on: July 18 and August 1, 2016 C. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: July 15, 2016 D. Applicant posted notice on site by: July 20, 2016 VI. LAND USE A. Existing Land Use(s): This property consists of vacant/undeveloped land, zoned C-G. B. Character of Surrounding Area and Adjacent Land Use and Zoning: North: Rural residential property, zoned RUT in Ada County West: Single-family residential properties in Champion Park Subdivision, zoned R-8 South: Multi-family residential (Timbergrove) and commercial retail uses, zoned C-G East: Vacant/undeveloped property, zoned C-G C. History of Previous Actions:  This property was annexed (AZ-03-025, Blue Marlin) in 2003 and zoned C-G; a development agreement was required as a provision of annexation recorded as Instrument No. 105048793.  A modification to the development agreement (MI-05-017, Nesmith Annexation) was approved in 2005, recorded as Instrument No. 106060856, to add 1.5 acres of property to the provisions of the development agreement and reduce the landscape buffer along the west property boundary adjacent to the EXHIBIT A CentrePoint Storage CUP H-2016-0069 PAGE 3 residential uses in Champion Park Subdivision to 10 feet.  A preliminary plat (PP-06-063) for CentrePoint North Subdivision was approved in 2007.  A final plat (FP-07-011) for Phase 2 of the development which includes the subject property was approved in 2007 but has not yet been signed by the City Engineer and recorded. Several time extensions (TE-08-028, TE-10-020, TEC-12-002, TEC-14-002; H-2016-0011) have been approved to extend the period of time in which to obtain the City Engineer’s signature on the final plat. The applicant states that they are moving forward with construction of CentrePoint Way and recording the final plat. Construction drawings are currently under review with the City.  A new development agreement (MI-06-008) was approved in 2006, recorded as Instrument No. 106191305, which replaced the two earlier agreements (#105048793 and #106060856). This agreement removed the requirement for a conditional use permit/planned development to be submitted and included a conceptual development plan for the site. The Kohl’s parcel (#S0532449210) was excluded from this agreement and is still subject to the two aforementioned agreements.  A modification to the development agreement (Inst. #106191305) (MDA-12-007) was approved in 2012, recorded as Instrument No. 114002255, which amended the conceptual development plan and associated provisions of the agreement to allow the development of multi-family residential uses within CentrePoint Subdivision.  A modification to the development agreement (Inst. #106191305 & 114002255) was recently approved to allow the development of a self-service storage facility with outdoor storage on this site (H- 2016-0057). VII. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS This property is designated Mixed Use – Regional on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. The purpose of this designation is to provide a mix of employment, retail, and residential dwellings and public uses near major arterial intersections. The intent is to integrate a variety of uses together, including residential, and to avoid predominately single-use developments such as a regional retail center with only restaurants and other commercial uses. Developments should be anchored by uses that have a regional draw with the appropriate supporting uses. The applicant requests approval to construct a self-service storage facility on the site, which requires conditional use permit approval in the C-G zoning district. Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this property and apply to the proposed use (staff analysis in italics):  “Require all commercial and industrial businesses to install and maintain landscaping.” (2.01.03B) The applicant is required to provide street buffer landscaping along Centre Point Way, a collector street, and a buffer to residential uses as set forth in UDC Table 11-2B-3 in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B.  “Protect existing residential properties from incompatible land use development on adjacent parcels.” (3.06.01F) Staff feels the proposed self-service storage facility should be a compatible use adjacent to residential uses due to the fairly low traffic and noise associated with a storage facility use. Additionally, the facility will provide nearby storage options for residential properties in the nearby vicinity.  “Require screening and buffering of commercial and industrial properties to residential use with transitional zoning.” (3.06.01E) EXHIBIT A CentrePoint Storage CUP H-2016-0069 PAGE 4 Although transitional zoning is not proposed, a 6-foot tall solid fence exists along the west property boundary and the applicant proposes to provide a 10-foot wide landscape buffer to the residential uses along this boundary. A 25-foot wide buffer is proposed along the south boundary to future multi- family residential uses. These buffers should assist in screening and buffering the proposed use to residential uses.  “Minimize noise, odor, air pollution, and visual pollution in industrial and commercial development adjacent to residential uses.” (3.06.01B) Staff believes any visual pollution created from the storage units should be minimized by the perimeter fencing and landscaping, and noise associated with the use should be minimal. Further, there shouldn’t be any odor or air pollution associated with the proposed use.  “Require pedestrian access connectors in all new development to link subdivisions together to promote neighborhood connectivity as part of a community pathway system.” (3.03.03B) A pathway stub currently exists at the west boundary of the site from Champion Park Subdivision; however, the Council required the pathway to be fenced off from the subject storage facility for security purposes (H-2016-0057).  “Locate industrial and commercial uses where adequate water supply and water pressure are available for fire protection.” (3.04.02A) There is adequate water supply and pressure available to the site for fire protection. In accord with the above policies and for the above-stated reasons, staff believes the proposed use is appropriate in this location. VIII. ANALYSIS 1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: The applicant submitted a request for a conditional use permit (CUP) for a self-service storage facility with internal outdoor storage on 18.7 acres of land in a C-G zoning district; the storage facility will only encompass 5.31 acres of the site once the final plat is recorded. Specific Use Standards: The proposed use is subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3- 34, Storage Facility, Self-Service as follows: (Staff’s comments are in italics) A. Storage units and/or areas shall not be used as dwellings or as a commercial or industrial place of business. The manufacture or sale of any item by a tenant from or at a self-service storage facility is specifically prohibited. The applicant shall comply with this standard. B. On site auctions of unclaimed items by the storage facility owners shall be allowed as a temporary use in accord with chapter 3, article E, "Temporary Use Requirements", of this title. The applicant shall comply with this standard. C. The distance between structures shall be a minimum of twenty five feet (25'). The distance between buildings as depicted on the site plan complies with this standard. D. The storage facility shall be completely fenced, walled, or enclosed and screened from public view. Where abutting a residential district or public road, chainlink shall not be allowed as fencing material. The rear wall of the proposed storage structures will enclose and screen the facility from public view; chainlink fencing is not proposed. E. If abutting a residential district, the facility hours of public operation shall be limited to six o'clock (6:00) A.M. to eleven o'clock (11:00) P.M EXHIBIT A CentrePoint Storage CUP H-2016-0069 PAGE 5 There are existing residential uses and zoning on the abutting property to the west and future residential uses to the south. Therefore, the hours of operation of the facility are restricted from 6 am to 11 pm. F. A minimum twenty five foot (25') wide landscape buffer shall be provided where the facility abuts a residential use, unless a greater buffer width is otherwise required by this title. Landscaping shall be provided as set forth in subsection 11-3B-9C of this title. The development agreement recorded in 2005 includes a provision that reduced the buffer width to 10-feet as shown on the landscape plan (Instrument No. 106060856). G. If the use is unattended, the standards in accord with section 11-3A-16, "Self-Service Uses", of this title shall also apply. The only standard listed in UDC 11-3A-16 that applies to this development is as follows: The entrance or view of the self-service facility shall be open to the public street or adjoining businesses and shall have low impact security lighting. The applicant shall comply with this requirement. H. The facility shall have a second means of access for emergency purposes. The site plan depicts a secondary emergency access driveway near the northeast corner of the site as required that has been approved by the Fire Department. I. All outdoor storage of material shall be maintained in an orderly manner so as not to create a public nuisance. Materials shall not be stored within the required yards. Stored items shall not block sidewalks or parking areas and may not impede vehicular or pedestrian traffic. There is no outdoor storage of materials proposed with this development. If outdoor storage is proposed in the future, the applicant shall comply with this requirement. J. The site shall not be used as a "vehicle wrecking or junk yard" as herein defined. The applicant shall comply with this standard. K. For any use requiring the storage of fuel or hazardous material, the use shall be located a minimum of one thousand feet (1,000') from a hospital. (Ord. 13-1555, 5-14-2013) The site is not located within 1,000 feet of a hospital; the application does not state that fuel or hazardous material will be stored at the facility. Dimensional Standards: Development of this site is required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2B-3 for the C-G zoning district. Staff has reviewed the proposed site and landscape plans and found them to be in compliance with the aforementioned dimensional standards. Hours of Operation: The proposed hours of operation are as follows: office hours from 7:00 am to 6:00 pm Monday thru Friday with access remotely by keypad until 9:00 pm; office hours from 7:00 am to 3:00 pm Saturday with keypad access until 9:00 pm; and keypad access on Sunday from 7:00 am to 9:00 pm. The UDC (11-2B-3A.4 and 11-4-3-34) restricts hours of operation in the C-G district, and specifically self-service storage facilities, when the use abuts a residential use or district from 6 am to 11 pm. Because residential uses surround this site, the applicant is required to comply with this standard and the gate to the facility should be locked beyond these hours. Access: The main access to the site is located at the east boundary via Centre Point Way, a future collector street; a secondary emergency access is also proposed via Centre Point Way at the northeast corner of the site. The Fire Department has approved the location of the emergency access. The applicant shall construct that access in accord with Fire Department requirements. The gate should be constructed of a solid vision material so as to screen the facility. Parking: Off-street parking is required with development of the site as set forth in UDC 11-3C-6B.1. The EXHIBIT A CentrePoint Storage CUP H-2016-0069 PAGE 6 square footage of office space is 795; the square footage of the caretaker’s unit is 862 for a total of 1,657 square feet. The site plan depicts a total of 5 vehicle spaces which complies with UDC standards; one of which is located internally within the storage facility for the manager. Bicycle parking is also required in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C and 11-3C-6G. A minimum of one space is required per every 25 vehicle spaces proposed; based on 4 vehicle spaces provided, a minimum of one bicycle space is required. The site plan depicts a bike rack near the entrance of the office building which complies with UDC standards. Landscaping: All landscaping should comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B. A landscape plan was submitted with this application as shown in Exhibit A.3. A 10-foot wide street buffer is required along Centre Point Way, a collector street (Centre Point Way was formerly designated as a local street when the final plat was approved; therefore, a 20’ buffer was not required) and E. Jasmine Lane, a private street; landscaping within the street buffer is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. The entrance or view of the self-service facility is required to be open to the public street in accord with UDC 11-3A-16 as proposed. A minimum 10-foot wide buffer to adjoining residential uses is required along the west property boundary per the development agreement (Instrument No. 106060856) as proposed; a 25-foot wide buffer is required to future residential uses along the south boundary of the site as proposed per UDC Table 11- 2B-3 and 11-4-3-34F and should be planted in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-9C. The landscape plan should be revised to include a mix of evergreen and deciduous trees that allow trees to touch at maturity and vegetative groundcover; or, a minimum 6-foot tall wall or fence may be constructed to assist in buffering the future residential uses to the south along with a mix of evergreen and deciduous trees (1 per 35 linear feet), shrubs, lawn or other vegetative groundcover that results in at least 70% coverage at maturity. Parking lot landscaping is not required because fewer than 12 spaces are proposed per UDC 11-3C-8C.2. Note: The information pertaining to width of the street buffer (should be 10 feet) along E. Jasmine Lane and along the future residential uses to the south (should be 25 feet) noted under the Landscape Requirements table is incorrect and should be corrected as stated. Pathways: The Pathways Master Plan does not depict a regional pathway on this site. No other pathways are proposed or required. An existing pathway stubs to this site from the west from Champion Park Subdivision; however, Council required the pathway to be fenced off with H-2016-0057 for security purposes for the storage facility. Sidewalks: Sidewalks are required along all public streets as set forth in UDC 11-3A-17. A 5-foot wide sidewalk is required along Centre Point Way, a collector street, as shown (a detached sidewalk was not required with the final plat because at that time, Centre Point Way was designated as a local street). Fencing: No fencing is proposed on the plans. However, if a fence is constructed along the southern boundary of the site adjacent to future residential uses, the landscaping materials within the buffer may be reduced as set forth in UDC 11-3B-9C. Utilities: Street lighting is required to be installed in accord with th e City’s adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. All development is required to connect to the City water and sewer system unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. Pressurized Irrigation (PI): An underground PI system is required to be provided for this development as proposed in accord with UDC 11-3A-15. EXHIBIT A CentrePoint Storage CUP H-2016-0069 PAGE 7 Storm Drainage: A storm drainage system is required for the development in accord with the City’s adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. Design and construction shall follow best management practice as adopted by the City in accord with UDC 11-3A-18. Waterways: There are no open waterways on this site. Floodplain: This site does not lie within the Meridian Floodplain Overlay District. Building Elevations: The applicant has submitted elevations of the proposed office/caretaker dwelling which shows a portion of the rear wall of the storage unit structures as shown in Exhibit A.4. The rear wall of the storage units will serve as an enclosure/screen for the facility; the height of the rear wall of the structures is proposed to be 12 feet with 14-foot tall tower elements constructed of a stucco material. Enclosed storage garages are proposed around the perimeter of the site and approximately half of the interior space; the remainder is planned as open storage which will be screened by the perimeter structures. Note: Building designs are required to incorporate modulation in the façade plane as set forth in the Architectural Standards Manual; a continuous rear wall of the structures in the same height and form will not be approved (see pgs. C-13-15 in the ASM). Trash Enclosure: A trash enclosure is depicted on the site plan internally within the site. The current location does not allow enough room to service the dumpster. A detail of the enclosure should be submitted to Bob Olsen at Republic Services for approval prior to submittal of the Certificate of Zoning Compliance/Design Review application. Design Review (DES): An Administrative Design Review application is required to be submitted for approval of the proposed per UDC 11-5B-8. Development shall comply with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and in the Architectural Standards Manual. Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC): A CZC application is required to be submitted for approval of the new use and to ensure that all construction complies with the provisions of the UDC and the conditions contained in this report listed in Exhibit B. The DES and CZC application may be submitted concurrently. 2. ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE: Alternative compliance is requested to UDC 11-3B-9C to reduce the landscaping requirements adjacent to the residential uses to the west. If a 6-foot tall wall or fence is provided, the UDC requires 1 tree per 35 lineal feet, plus shrubs, lawn, or other vegetative groundcover. A 6-foot tall vinyl fence exists along the west boundary of this site adjacent to residential properties in Champion Park Subdivision. A 10-foot wide landscape buffer is proposed along this boundary with 1 tree per 35 lineal feet, as required. However, the applicant requests that they use trees/shrubs no shorter than 8 feet at maturity and no vegetative groundcover as no one will see anything shorter than 6 feet in height due to the fence that is already in place. At the Council hearing for the development agreement modification (H-2016-0057), the Council noted there preference for reduced vegetative groundcover within this buffer area and a gated entry at either end (north and south) of the buffer to restrict access. For this reason and because this area won’t be accessible or visible by the public, the Director approves the applicant’s request provided a minimum of one (1) bush, no shorter than 8 feet at maturity, is planted between the trees; no groundcover is required. The Director approves the ALT request and Staff recommends approval of the proposed CUP to the Commission with the conditions listed in Exhibit B. VIII. EXHIBITS A. Drawings EXHIBIT A CentrePoint Storage CUP H-2016-0069 PAGE 8 1. Zoning/Aerial Map & Approved Final Plat 2. Proposed Site Plan (dated: 6/29/16) 3. Proposed Landscape Plan (dated: 7/8/16) 4. Proposed Building Elevations B. Conditions of Approval 1. Planning Department 2. Public Works Department 3. Fire Department 4. Police Department 5. Sanitary Service Company 6. Ada County Highway District 7. Parks Department C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code Exhibit A.1: Zoning/Aerial Map & Approved Final Plat EXHIBIT A CentrePoint Storage CUP H-2016-0069 PAGE 9 !( !( ÚÚd ÚÚd 3541 3245 3547 3305 3475 3210 3386 22 1 9 2464 22 2 0 22 5 6 22 6 5 23 2 4 23 0 1 23 1 2 2336 23 0 0 22 7 1 22 7 6 23 2 5 3381 2363 22 7 0 23 3 1 3496 23 1 5 22 9 5 2237 2242 22 7 8 23 7 0 3759 23 3 2 2470 3692 3734 3740 3802 22 6 4 236 2 2452 25 5 9 25 8 1 23 9 0 25 2 6 3669 2491 3824 3703 3679 23 8 1 23 9 5 38992385 3842 3963 2421 2445 3756 3635 3667 3636 249 3 3674 3740 3763 3705 248 2 3707 3251 2680 25 2 3 3490 25 3 7 3468 3693 25 6 1 3671 25 0 8 3659 3335 25 0 1 3285 3350 25 2 9 2596 25 5 6 25 3 6 27 0 0 2 7 1 8 2737 2 7 3 6 3357 3559 3311 2710 3319 3563 3394 3272 3228 3261 2333 23 4 3 3542 3375 3506 2252 23 4 9 3470 1598 3415 3421 22 5 7 3340 3553 2344 22 7 3 22 3 9 2227 2217 3723 2416 3239 22 7 7 3670 3794 23 0 6 23 7 8 23 4 7 24 5 5 3550 24 6 5 3514 23 2 9 25 1 5 24 9 3 25 1 7 38 5 8 3792 2389 3668 23 3 5 23 1 7 3586 2372 3530 2354 3424 3723 3705 3402 2412 3658 2351 3273 2443 25 0 9 25 9 7 3314 2457 3338 3831 336 2 25 9 3 2724 2326 2748 2722 3637 3578 3530 3494 2498 3223 3321 2484 3645 2381 3773 2654 3682 23 4 1 23 4 2 3626 23 9 6 2663 3586 3487 2689 3531 22 9 8 3297 22 7 3 2345 25 9 3 3669 25 7 8 23 9 8 25 7 0 3687 25 3 0 2286 25 0 2 27 1 3 2293 27 0 7 3640 3813 3602 3875 3458 2380 3410 24 2 1 3374 24 4 3 3200 24 8 7 3423 247 7 3467 246 4 3517 2512 3810 3263 2718 23 1 3 3738 3564 3512 25 4 9 22 6 4 3264 23 0 7 3286 3302 24 8 4 25 1 5 3575 25 6 7 2705 23 8 6 2735 2701 2708 3590 3554 3338 3320 3250 23 7 1 22 4 5 2100 3651 3752 2000 2185 236 8 234 6 2233 232 6 3919 2242 2015 2286 14120 25 9 9 24 6 9 3722 3624 3644 3715 36123629 3795 2024 3725 3270 3450 3696 3443 3559 3637 20 2 0 2134 24 7 9 336133 5 9 25 8 8 25 7 4 1993 25 6 0 3374 3378 25 4 8 3382 25 7 9 3500 3461 25 8 6 20422064 3406 2721 3385 3365 13 9 9 9 3539 4084 3585 40424037 2754 3626 4053 3482 4075 3446 4146 3422 2740 3356 21752305 4078 1855 24992475 2740 2065 3275 31 6 0 2545 2345 2101 2610 3676 3410 3590 3423 3366 3388 3486 2116 3487 2123 3496 2035 3230 1974 3420 13 9 6 7 4068 4026 3661 2601 3664 2453 4135 3615 3647 4081 33 7 5 325125452035 3510 33391599 19 6 3 33273349 19 6 6 3561 3362 3460 3308 22 5 5 2080 23 6 1 2100 3353 2248 22 6 0 23 1 4 23 5 0 2057 23 2 0 2093 22 6 3 3687 3741 3389 3377 3777 2301 1968 2331 24 1 5 1998 239 0 3390 2397 3394 3853 3535 3941 3534 25 4 1 25 6 5 2088 25 8 9 2156 25 9 7 24 9 8 3564 24 5 4 3454 24 3 2 1964 24 1 0 243 6 4019 40522779 24 7 0 3826 4113 3784 3733 4162 3751 2672 2706 4125 3724 4114 24 9 5 25 2 2 24 6 8 3775 334 7 24252315 4063 2753 25 4 1 2725 2719 2651 4130 3652 3566 3300 2255 23602170 3400 3380 3629 3560 3362 3370 3055 3380 2645 3411 3501 3533 2645 2112 3696 3542 3381 3632 3398 2060 2019 1956 3595 3340 40124001 2031 3503 3489 2627 2044 2105 3373 3369 4103 3494 4025 4047 27032677 2180 2800 3503 23 0 9 3327 23 2 8 22 9 4 23 2 6 23 6 0 3509 3520 2259 2434 3741 3772 23 0 6 2268 2271 2373 2344 2396 2434 25 3 7 25 9 8 25 9 2 25 7 0 25 4 8 24 7 3 3657 24 6 1 2523 3738 3690 3640 3627 3685 3 7 1 6 3648 3548 3446 25 7 5 25 8 3 25 8 9 3326 25 5 3 25 4 2 25 1 6 3349 3518 3434 3392 19452115 2090 2290 3740 3679 3570 3540 3386 3392 2191 3560 3520 3472 3428 2079 2000 4024 2431 4157 4086 30852125 30 9 0 C-N C-C R-8 L-O R-2R1R1RUT R-8 RUT RUT R-4R1 RUT R-4 C-G N E a g l e R d E Ustick Rd ESum merd a w n D r EParadiseLn N P a n k r a t z W a y E Wainwright Dr N D u a n e D r ELobeliaSt N C e n t r e p o i n t W a y E Nakano Dr N T r o x e l W a y E Van Oker St N C o n l e y Av e N R o g u e R i v e r A v e E Koett e r St E Bowman St EStar Ln N B r o o k s b u r g Pl N Hawkins Ave NCafferty Way ESummerridgeDr N Hawkins Ave N Neith Ave E Conner St E Summer Dawn St E Satterfield St N D a s h w o o d P l EG arber Dr E Satterfield St ELeighFieldDr N Summerpark Ave NS u m m e r f i e l d W a y N P e t t y W a y E Jasmine Ln E OMera St E W i g l e D r N R e c o r d s A v e N L e s l i e W a y N L e s l i e W a y N Dixon Ave N Dixon Ave N L i n w o o d Wa y N S u m m e r c r e s t W a y N Dixon Ave N G a v i o l a Av e N R o g u e Ri v e r W a y E M a h o n e y S t N J u s t i n A v e ESwindellDr EXHIBIT A CentrePoint Storage CUP H-2016-0069 PAGE 10 EXHIBIT A CentrePoint Storage CUP H-2016-0069 PAGE 11 Exhibit A.2: Proposed Site Plan (dated: 6/29/16) EXHIBIT A CentrePoint Storage CUP H-2016-0069 PAGE 12 Exhibit A.3: Proposed Landscape Plan (dated: 7/8/16) EXHIBIT A CentrePoint Storage CUP H-2016-0069 PAGE 13 Exhibit A.4: Proposed Building Elevations EXHIBIT A CentrePoint Storage CUP H-2016-0069 PAGE 14 Exhibit B: Conditions of Approval 1. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1.1 The applicant shall comply with all previous conditions of approval associated with this site (AZ-03-025, PP-06-063; FP-07-011; MI-06-008; TE-08-028; TE-10-020; TEC-12-002; TEC-14-002; H-2016-0011; H- 2016-0057). 1.2 The amended development agreement (#H-2016-0057) shall be recorded prior to submittal of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance application for the proposed use. 1.3 The hours of operation for the storage facility are limited to those hours between 6 am and 11 pm in accord with UDC 11-2B-3A.4 and 11-4-3-34E. The gate to the storage area shall be locked beyond those hours. 1.4 Per UDC 11-4-3-34, storage units and/or areas shall not be used as dwellings or as a commercial or industrial place of business. The manufacture or sale of any item by a tenant from or at a self-service storage facility is specifically prohibited. 1.5 On-site auctions of unclaimed items by the storage facility owners shall be allowed as a temporary use in accord with chapter 3, article E, "Temporary Use Requirements", of this title, per UDC 11-4-3-34. 1.6 The entrance of the facility shall have low impact security lighting per UDC 11-3A-16A. 1.7 The northern access shall comply with Fire Department requirements for emergency access. 1.8 The site and/or landscape plans, as applicable, shown in Exhibit A.2, shall be revised as follows: a. Depict a mix of evergreen and deciduous trees within the southern landscape buffer to future residential uses that allows trees to touch at maturity and vegetative groundcover; or, a minimum 6- foot tall wall or fence may be constructed to assist in buffering the future residential uses along with a mix of evergreen and deciduous trees (1 per 35 linear feet), shrubs, lawn or other vegetative groundcover that results in at least 70% coverage at maturity in accord with UDC 11-3B-9C. b. The proposed location of the dumpster does not allow adequate area for servicing the dumpster; coordinate with Bob Olson, Republic Services (345-1265). c. The Landscape Requirements table on the landscape plan should be revised to include a 10 foot wide street buffer along E. Jasmine Lane and a 25-foot wide buffer along the future residential uses to the south as shown on the plan. d. Depict a minimum of one (1) bush/shrub, no shorter than 8 feet at maturity, between each of the trees within the buffer along the west boundary of the site (no groundcover is required). e. Depict a gated entry at either end (north and south) of the buffer along the west boundary of the site for maintenance access and to prohibit access by the public. f. Depict a fence across the micropath connection to this site from Champion Park Subdivision per the Development Agreement (H-2016-0057). g. The gate for the emergency access driveway at the northeast corner of the site should be constructed of a solid vision material so as to screen the facility; depict on the plans. 1.9 The construction of Centre Point Way shall be completed prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy per the Development Agreement (H-2016-0057). 1.10 The final plat shall be recorded prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for the site. 1.11 A Certificate of Zoning Compliance application is required to be submitted for approval of the new use EXHIBIT A CentrePoint Storage CUP H-2016-0069 PAGE 15 and to ensure that all construction complies with the provisions of the UDC and the conditions listed herein. 1.12 An Administrative Design Review application is required to be submitted for approval of the proposed storage facility, per UDC 11-5B-8. Development of the site shall comply with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and the Architectural Standards Manual. The Design Review and Certificate of Zoning Compliance applications may be submitted concurrently. 1.13 The Applicant shall have a maximum of two (2) years to commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval listed above. If the use has not begun within two (2) years of approval, a new conditional use permit must be obtained prior to operation or a time extension must be requested in accord with UDC 11-5B-6F. 1.14 Staff’s failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or terms of the approved conditional use does not relieve the applicant of responsibility for compliance. 2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2.1 Site Specific Conditions of Approval 2.2.1 The application includes an RV Dump Station, and therefore Meridian Pretreatment requirements will include, but will not be limited to: a. The identification of hours of operation b. A site security plan c. On-site signage informing users what not to dump d. Identification of how the RV dump station will be secured (e.g., fencing, lighting, other) e. Description of operations management of the RV dump station f. Documentation of how the site will be monitored to ensure only domestic RV waste is being dumped (no commercially-hauled waste) g. The RV Dump Station will be placed on an inspection schedule by Pretreatment Staff. 2.2.2 Applicant shall be required to extend a water main through the project to the north boundary for future extension. Sizing and routing of the water main shall be coordinated with the Public Works Department prior to development plan approval. 2.2 General Conditions of Approval 2.2.1 Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2.2 Per Meridian City Code (MCC), the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. 2.2.3 The applicant shall provide easement(s) for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way (include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall be dedicated using the City of Meridian’s standard forms. Applicant shall submit an executed easement (on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor, which must include the area of the easement (marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2” x 11” map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. EXHIBIT A CentrePoint Storage CUP H-2016-0069 PAGE 16 DO NOT RECORD. All easements must be submitted, reviewed, and approved prior to development plan approval. 2.2.4 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water (MCC 9-1-28.c.1). The applicant shall be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 2.2.5 All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be tiled per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work, the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 2.2.6 Any existing domestic well system within this project shall be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8 contact the City of Meridian Engineering Department at (208)898- 5500 for inspections of disconnection of services. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation if approved by Idaho Department of Water Resources Contact Robert B. Whitney at (208)334-2190. 2.2.7 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections (208)375- 5211. 2.2.8 All development improvements, including but not limited to sewer and water, fencing, micro-paths, pressurized irrigation and landscaping shall be installed and approved prior to obtaining certificates of occupancy. 2.2.9 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 2.2.10 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 2.2.11 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.2.12 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.2.13 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-1-4B. 2.2.14 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material. 2.2.15 The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 2.2.16 At the completion of the project, the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 2.2.17 100 Watt and 250 Watt, high-pressure sodium street lights shall be required on all public roadways per the City of Meridian Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. All street lights shall be installed at EXHIBIT A CentrePoint Storage CUP H-2016-0069 PAGE 17 developer’s expense. Final design shall be submitted as part of the development plan set for approval, which must include the location of any existing street lights. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. A copy of the standards can be found on the city of meridian Public Works Department’s website at http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272. The contractor’s work and materials shall conform to the ISPWC and the City of Meridian Supplemental Specifications to the ISPWC. 2.2.18 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20% of the total construction cost for all completed sewer, water and reuse infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-221. 3. FIRE DEPARTMENT 3.1 Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department in accordance with International Fire Code Section (IFC) 508.5.4 as follows: a. Fire hydrants shall have the 4 ½” outlet face the main street or parking lot drive aisle. b. Fire hydrants shall not face a street which does not have addresses on it. c. Fire hydrant markers shall be provided per Public Works specifications. d. Fire Hydrants shall be placed on corners when spacing permits. e. Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10’. f. Fire hydrants shall be placed 18” above finished grade to the center of the 4 ½” outlets. g. Fire hydrants shall be provided to meet the requirements of IFC Section 509.5. h. Show all proposed or existing hydrants for all new construction or additions to existing buildings within 1,000 feet of the project. 3.2 All entrances, internal roads, drive aisles, and alleys shall have a turning radius of 28’ inside and 48’ outside, per International Fire Code Section 503.2.4. . 3.3 All common driveways shall be straight or have a turning radius of 28’ inside and 48’ outside and have a clear driving surface of 20’ in width capable of supporting an imposed weight of 75,000 GVW, per International Fire Code Section 503.2. 3.4 Provide signage (“No Parking Fire Lane”) for all fire lanes in accordance with International Fire Code Sections 503.4 & D103.6. 3.5 Ensure that all yet undeveloped parcels are maintained free of combustible vegetation as set forth in International Fire Code Section 304.1.2. 3.6 Maintain a separation of 5’ from the building to the dumpster enclosure as set forth in International Fire Code Section 304.3.3. 3.7 Provide a Knox box entry system for the complex prior to occupancy as set forth in International Fire Code Section 506. 3.8 All electric gates are required to be 20’ in width and equipped with a Knoxbox key switch as set forth in International Fire Code Section 503.6 & National Fire Protection Standard 1141, Section 5.3.17.3. 3.9 COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL - Buildings or facilities having a gross building area of more than 62,000 square feet (5760 m2) shall be provided with two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads separated by one half of the maximum overall diagonal dimension of the property or area to be served, measured in a straight line between accesses as set forth in International Fire Code Appendix D104.2. EXHIBIT A CentrePoint Storage CUP H-2016-0069 PAGE 18 Exception: Projects having a gross building area of up to 124,000 square feet (11520 m2) that have a single approved fire apparatus access road and all buildings are equipped throughout with approved automatic sprinkler systems. (Remoteness Required) 4. POLICE DEPARTMENT 4.1 The Police Department has no comment on this application. 5. REPUBLIC SERVICES 5.1 The current location of the trash enclosure does not allow enough room to service the dumpster. A detail of the enclosure should be submitted to Bob Olsen at Republic Services for review and approval prior to submittal of the Certificate of Zoning Compliance/Design Review application. 6. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT 6.1 Site Specific Conditions of Approval (DRAFT) 6.1.1 Repair or replace any curb, gutter, or sidewalk damaged during construction abutting the site. 6.1.2 Pave the driveways their entire width and at least 30-feet into the site. 6.1.3 Locate the gate and/or keypad a minimum of 50-feet from the near edge of the street/driveway intersection and provide a turnaround. 6.1.4 Centrepoint Way to be fully constructed and accepted, abutting the site, prior to issuing a final occupancy permit. 6.1.5 Payment of impacts fees are due prior to issuance of a building permit. 6.1.6 Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval. 6.2 Standard Conditions of Approval (DRAFT) 6.2.1 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 ACHD right -of-way (including all easements). 6.2.2 Private Utilities including sewer or water systems are prohibited from being located within the ACHD right-of-way. 6.2.3 In accordance with District policy, 7203.3, the applicant may be required to update any existing non- compliant pedestrian improvements abutting the site to meet current Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. The applicant’s engineer should provide documentation of ADA compliance to District Development Review staff for review. 6.2.4 Replace any existing damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk and any that may be damaged during the construction of the proposed development. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file number) for details. 6.2.5 A license agreement and compliance with the District’s Tree Planter policy is required for all landscaping proposed within ACHD right-of-way or easement areas. 6.2.6 All utility relocation costs associated with improving street frontages abutting the site shall be borne by the developer. . 6.2.7 It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right-of-way. The applicant at no cost to ACHD shall repair existing utilities 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 EXHIBIT A CentrePoint Storage CUP H-2016-0069 PAGE 19 within ACHD right-of-way. The applicant shall contact ACHD Traffic Operations 387-6190 in the event any ACHD conduits (spare or filled) are compromised during any phase of construction. 6.2.8 Utility street cuts in pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing by the District. Contact the District’s Utility Coordinator at 387-6258 (with file numbers) for details. 6.2.9 All design and construction shall be in accordance with the ACHD Policy Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services procedures and all applicable ACHD Standards unless specifically waived herein. An engineer registered in the State of Idaho shall prepare and certify all improvement plans. 6.2.10 Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable requirements of ACHD prior to District approval for occupancy. 6.2.11 No change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they are in writing and signed by the applicant or the applicant’s authorized representative and an authorized representative of ACHD. The burden shall be upon the applicant to obtain written confirmation of any change from ACHD. 6.2.12 If the site plan or use should change in the future, ACHD Planning Review will review the site plan and may require additional improvements to the transportation system at that time. Any change in the planned use of the property which is the subject of this application, shall require the applicant to comply wi th ACHD Policy and Standard Conditions of Approval in place at that time unless a waiver/variance of the requirements or other legal relief is granted by the ACHD Commission. 7. PARKS DEPARTMENT 7.1 No comments have been received from the Park’s Department on this application. EXHIBIT A CentrePoint Storage CUP H-2016-0069 PAGE 20 C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code 1. Conditional Use Permit (UDC 11-5B-6E) The Commission shall base its determination on the Conditional Use Permit request upon the following: a. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. The Commission finds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and the dimensional & development regulations of the C-G district (see Analysis Section IX for more information). b. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in accord with the requirements of this Title. The Commission finds that the proposed use is consistent and harmonious with the UDC and Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designation of Commercial for this site. c. 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 that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the proposed use should be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing and intended character of the area. d. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the a pproval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. The Commission finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the proposed use will not adversely affect other property in the area. e. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools, parks, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, and sewer. The Commission finds that sanitary sewer, domestic water, refuse disposal, and irrigation are currently available to the subject property. The Commission finds that the proposed use will be served adequately by all of the public facilities and services listed above. f. 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. If approved, the applicant will be financing any improvements required for development. The Commission finds there will not be excessive additional requirements at public cost and that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the community’s economic welfare. CentrePoint Storage – CUP H-2016-0069 21 g. 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 of the area. h. 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 that there should not be any health, safety or environmental problems associated with the proposed use. Further, staff finds that the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural, scenic or historic feature of major importance. 2. Alternative Compliance In order to grant approval for alternative compliance, the director shall determine the following findings: a. Strict adherence or application of the requirements is not feasible; OR The Director finds that strict adherence to the landscaping standards listed in UDC 11-3B-9C.1 is not practical given the groundcover within the buffer would not be visible from either abutting property. b. The alternative compliance provides an equal or superior means for meeting the requirements; and The Director finds the alternative compliance proposed by the applicant provides an equal or superior means for meeting the intent of the City’s buffer standards to residential uses. c. The alternative means will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or impair the intended uses and character of the surrounding properties. The Director finds that the proposed alternative will not be detrimental to the public welfare or impair the use/character of the surrounding properties. Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: August 18,2016 ITEM NUMBER: PROJECT NUMBER: H-2016-0063 ITEM TITLE: Harmony Hills Assisted Living Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval for Harmony Hills Assisted Living (H- 2016-0063) by Derk Pardoe Located at 1521 and 1529 S. Tech Lane Request: Conditional Use Permit for an Assisted Living Facility on 1.72 Acres in a C -G Zoning District MEETING NOTES YJ APPIN19 Frel CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2016-0063 Page 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER In the Matter of the Request for Conditional Use Permit for a residential care facility on 1.72 acres pf Land in the C-G Zoning District, Located at 1529 and 1521 S. Tech Lane, by Derk Pardoe. Case No(s). H-2016-0063 For the Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: August 4, 2016 (Findings on August 18, 2016). A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of August 4, 2016, incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of August 4, 2016, incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of August 4, 2016, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of August 4, 2016, 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 upon the applicant, the Planning Department, the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2016-0063 Page 2 7. That this approval is subject to the conditions of approval in the attached staff report for the hearing date of August 4, 2016, 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 August 4, 2016, attached as Exhibit A. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits Notice of Two (2) Year Conditional Use Permit Duration Please take notice that the conditional use permit, when granted, shall be valid for a maximum period of two (2) years unless otherwise approved by the City in accord with UDC 11-5B-6F.1. During this time, the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground. For conditional use permits that also require platting, the final plat must be signed by the City Engineer within this two (2) year period in accord with UDC 11-5B-6F.2. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11-5B-6.F.1, the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the use not to exceed one (1) two (2) year period. Additional time extensions up to two (2) years as determined and approved by the Commission may be granted. With all extensions, the Director or Commission may require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11. E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis 1. The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code 67-8003, a denial of a conditional use permit entitles the Owner to request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than twenty-eight (28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review may be filed. 2. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian. When applicable and pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521, any affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the final action of the governing board may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. F. Attached: Staff report for the hearing date of August 4, 2016 By action of the Planning & Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the p day of 2016. COMMISSIONER STEVEN YEARSLEY, CHAIRMAN VOTED COMMISSIONER PATRICK OLIVER, VICE CHAIRMAN VOTED COMMISSIONER RHONDA MCCARVEL VOTED 1 �— COMMISSIONER RYAN FITZGERALD VOTED COMMISSIONER GREGORY WILSON VOTED. Copy served upon the Applicant, the Planning and Deve opment Services divisions of the Community Development Department, the Public Works Department and the City Attorney. By; `r; ` Dated: City Clerk's Office CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2016-0063 Page 3 Exhibit A Harmony Hills Assisted Living – CUP H-2016-0063 PAGE 1 STAFF REPORT HEARING DATE: August 4, 2016 TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Josh Beach, Associate City Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: Harmony Hills Assisted Living – CUP H-2016-0063 I. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant, Derk Pardoe, has applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) for a residential care facility in a C-G zoning district. See Section IX Analysis for more information. II. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposed CUP with the conditions listed in Exhibit B, based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in Exhibit C of the Staff Report. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission heard this item on August 4, 2016. At the public hearing, the Commission moved to approve the subject CUP request. a. Summary of Commission Public Hearing: i. In favor: Brent Barfuss (applicant’s representative) ii. In opposition: None iii. Commenting: None iv. Written testimony: None v. Staff presenting application: Josh Beach vi. Other staff commenting on application: None b. Key Issues of Discussion by Commission: i. None c. Key Commission Changes to Staff Recommendation: i. None III. PROPOSED MOTION Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2016- 0063 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of August 4, 2016, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications.) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny H-2016-0063 as presented during the hearing on August 4, 2016, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial.) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2016-0063 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) IV. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS A. Site Address/Location: The site is located on the north side of W. Overland Road, west of S. Stoddard Road (1521 and 1529 S. Tech Lane) in the southwest ¼ of Section 13, Township 3 Exhibit A Harmony Hills Assisted Living – CUP H-2016-0063 PAGE 2 North, Range 1 West. B. Owner/Applicant: Derk Pardoe 3454 Stone Mountain Lane Sandy, UT 84072 C. Representative: Brian Carlisle, The Richardson Design Partnership, LLC 510 South 600 East Salt Lake City, UT 84102 D. Applicant's Statement/Justification: Please see applicant’s narrative for this information. V. PROCESS FACTS A. The subject application is for a Conditional Use Permit. A public hearing is required before the Planning and Zoning Commission on this matter, consistent with Meridian City Code Title 11, Chapter 5. B. Newspaper notifications published on: June 20, and July 18, 2016 C. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: July 18 and August 1, 2016 D. Applicant posted notice on site by: July 21, 2016 VI. LAND USE A. Existing Land Use(s): The site is currently vacant commercial property, zoned C-G. B. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning: 1. North: Overland Park Apartments (currently under construction) zoned, C-G 2. East: Vacant property zoned C-G 3. South: Overland Road and Sagewood Subdivision (currently under construction), zoned L-O and R-8 4. West: Vacant industrial property, zoned I-L (Future site of recently approved Bish’s RV Sales) C. History of Previous Actions:  In 2001, the property received a conditional use permit/planned unit development approval (CUP-01-009), under the name of Treasure Valley Technical Center, which allowed for daycare, office, retail and industrial uses. As part of that approval a conceptual site plan was approved and any future daycare, office and retail uses require conditional use permit approval.  In 2007, a preliminary plat and final plat (PP-07-013 and FP-07-036) was approved for the 26 +/- acre portion of the site to the north and west of Western Electronics that consisted of 11 building lots and 2 common lots.  In 2008, the property received comprehensive map amendment and rezone (CPA -08-005 and RZ-08-003) approval to change the land use from industrial to commercial and rezone the property from the I-L zone to the C-G zone. With the rezone of the property, the City required a development agreement (DA) that recorded as instrument #108119853. The recorded DA requires compliance with a specific concept plan and building elevations. Exhibit A Harmony Hills Assisted Living – CUP H-2016-0063 PAGE 3  In 2014, the property received approval to modify the development agreement #108119853 (MDA-14-003) to develop the property as a mixed use development consisting of office, multi-family and retail uses. The subject DA recorded as Instrument #114034780. On July 19, 2016, theCity Council approved a development agreement modification application (H-2016-0061) that approved a new concept plan and conceptual elevations for the proposed development. To date, the amended development agreement has not been finalized. D. Utilities: 1. Public Works: a. Location of sewer: Sanitary sewer service to this site is intended to be from an extension from the mainline in S. Tech Lane. b. Location of water: Water service to this site is intended to be from an extension from a water main stub in W. Overland Road. c. Issues or concerns: Applicant shall be responsible for the connection of the W. Overland Road Water main stub, located near the west driveway approach, to the existing main stub in the Overland Park Apartment project. This connection was a condition of the Overland Park Apartment project, however a delay in the construction was approved to until the subject parcel developed. E. Physical Features: 1. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: There is a 50 foot irrigation easement that runs along the southern and western property lines of the subject property. 2. Hazards: Staff is not aware of any hazards that exist on this site. 3. Flood Plain: This site is not within a flood plain. VII. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS Land Use: The subject property is designated “Commercial” on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. Per the Comprehensive Plan (page 105), commercial designated areas, “will provide a full range of commercial and retail to serve area residents and visitors. Uses may include retail, wholesale, service and office uses, multi-family residential, as well as appropriate public uses such as government offices. Within this land use category, specific zones may be created to focus commercial activities unique to their locations. These zones may include neighborhood commercial uses focusing on specialized service for residential areas adjacent to that zone.” Staff finds that the proposed development is consistent with desired land use in the Commercial land use designated area, and should contribute to the variety of uses and dwelling unit options for seniors in the area. Policies: Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this application and apply to the proposed use of this property (staff analysis in italics):  “Require all commercial and industrial businesses to install and maintain landscaping.” (2.01.03B) Street buffer, parking lot and perimeter landscaping is required to be provided on the site in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B.  Ensure that high-quality emergency care, primary, outpatient, home, and long-term care and other types of health care are provided in the community (2.02.01). Exhibit A Harmony Hills Assisted Living – CUP H-2016-0063 PAGE 4 Staff is supportive of the proposed residential care (assisted living) facility and believes it will contribute to the variety of long term health care options available in the community.  “Locate industrial and commercial uses where adequate water supply and water pressure are available for fire protection.” (3.04.02A) There is adequate water supply and pressure available to the site for fire protection.  “Require all new and reconstructed parking lots to provide landscaping in internal islands and along streets.” Planter islands are proposed in the parking area and will be landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C.  “Require the improving and maintaining landscaping along public rights-of-way and landscaping of dedicated but unimproved rights-of-way strips.” (3.03.02P) In addition to the required twenty five (25) foot street landscape buffer, in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C.  “Provide for a wide diversity of housing types (single-family, modular, mobile homes and multi-family arrangements) and choices between ownership and rental dwelling units for all income groups in a variety of locations suitable for residential development.” (3.07.03B) The proposed assisted living facility will contribute to the variety of housing types available within this part of the City.  “Permit new development only where urban services can be reasona bly provided at the time of final approval and development is contiguous to the City.” (3.01.01F) City services are readily available to serve the proposed development in accord with UDC 11-3A-21.  “Reduce the number of existing access points onto arterial streets by using methods such as cross access agreements, access management and frontage/backage roads.” (3.03.02N) The submitted plat depicts one access point to E. Overland Road that was granted with PP- 07-013. ACHD is requiring the applicant to coordinate with the property owner to the west to create a single cross-access driveway between the two lots. This will reduce the number of access points onto E. Overland Road. Further, the recorded plat grants cross access to the property to the west. For the above-stated reasons, staff believes the proposed use is consistent with the applicable comprehensive plan policies and is appropriate in this location. VIII. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE A. Purpose Statement of Zone: The purpose of the commercial districts is to provide for the retail and service needs of the community in accordance with the Meridian comprehensive plan. Six (6) districts are designated which differ in the size and scale of commercial structures accommodated in the district, the scale and mix of allowed commercial uses, and the location of the district in proximity to streets and highways. B. Schedule of Use: Unified Development Code (UDC) 11-2B-2 lists the permitted, accessory, conditional, and prohibited uses in the C-G zoning district. A residential care facility is listed as a conditional use in the C-G zoning district. Compliance with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-29, Nursing or Residential Care Facilities, is Exhibit A Harmony Hills Assisted Living – CUP H-2016-0063 PAGE 5 required. C. Dimensional Standards: The dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2B-3 for the C-G zoning district apply to development of this site. D. Landscaping: Landscaping is required to be installed on the site in accord with the parking lot standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C, street buffer standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C in accord with UDC Table 11-2B-3. E. Off-Street Parking: UDC Table 11-3C-6 requires 0.5 vehicle parking spaces per bed. F. Structure and Site Design Standards: Development of this site must comply with the design standards in accord with UDC 11-3A-19 and the guidelines listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. IX. ANALYSIS A. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation: Conditional use Permit (CUP): The applicant has submitted an application for a conditional use permit (CUP) for a residential care facility in a C-G zoning district as required by UDC Table 11- 2B-2. A two-story 48,742 s.f. assisted living facility is proposed that will contain a total of 72 beds. As mentioned above, City Council recently approved a new concept plan and building elevations for the subject property consistent with the proposed development. The amended development agreement has not been finalized and needs to be before applying a certificate of zoning compliance approval. For illustrative purposes, staff has included the concept plan approved by Council, so the Commission can see how the entire site is envisioned to develop (see Exhibit A.2). Site Plan: A site plan is included in Exhibit A.2 that depicts how the site is proposed to develop. The subject parcel consists of 1.72 acres of land; two (2) parcels. ACHD Comments: ACHD is requiring the dedication of additional right-of-way for W. Overland Road to equal 60-feet from centerline of the roadway. This requirement may impact the site plan that has been proposed. The applicant will need to submit a revised site plan that takes into account this requirement. Access: Access is proposed to this site via a future access to Tech Lane, and a shared access point to E. Overland Road that was approved with PP-07-013. After the application submittal, the applicant submitted a revised site plan that has reoriented the entrance of the building towards the southwest instead of southeast. Further the proposed site plan now has a single shared access to W. Overland Road. Staff has routed the revised site plan to the Meridian Fire Department for comments but none have received as of the print date of the staff report. The applicant should coordinate with the Meridian Fire department to ensure the site can be served with a single access point. If not the applicant will be responsible for providing a secondary access in accord with the International Fire Code (IFC). It is also important to note the property to the west has been approved to develop with a vehicle sales facility (Bish’s RV). The recorded plat approved an access to W. Overland Road and annotates cross access to said property. The submitted concept plan was revised to allow the interconnectivity. Staff has concerns with recreational vehicles using the shared access. With the approval of the Bish’s RV Sales Facility, the applicant was approved an access to Overland Road, farther to the west. Staff encourages the applicant to coordinate with the adjacent property owner to clearly delineate that the shared driveway is to be used as a vehicle sales entrance only Exhibit A Harmony Hills Assisted Living – CUP H-2016-0063 PAGE 6 and the western most driveway is to be used as a service entrance to minimize conflicts between the two uses. Parking: Off-street parking is required to be provided on the site in accord with UDC Table 11- 3C-6 for age restricted or elderly housing. For a 1-bedroom unit, 0.5 of a space is required. Seventy-two (72) bedroom units are proposed, therefore, a total of 36 spaces are required. A total of 36 parking spaces are proposed, which meets the UDC requirements. Based on the number of vehicle parking stalls (35), a bicycle rack capable of holding a minimum of 2 bicycles is required to be provided per UDC 11-3C-6G in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. A total of 2 bicycle parking spaces are proposed to be provided in compliance with this standard. Landscaping: Landscaping is required to be installed on the site in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B. The applicant shall construct a 25-foot wide street buffer along E. Overland Road, an arterial roadway, in accord with UDC 11-3B-7C. The proposed landscape buffer along the frontage of W. Overland Road does not show the required mixture of vegetation as required by UDC 11-3B-7. The UDC requires a mixture of trees, grass, bushes and ground cover. The applicant will need to revise the landscape plan to meet this requirement. There is an irrigation easement that exists along the southern and western boundaries of the site. The applicant will either need to provide an additional 5 feet of landscaping outside of the irrigation easement or apply for alternative compliance for the landscaping that would otherwise be required by the UDC. The gravel between the sidewalk and the curb adjacent to W. Overland road needs to be removed and replaced with vegetation. Parking lot landscaping is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C. The proposed plan complies with these standards. Amenities: The outdoor gathering space for the proposed assisted living facility is limited. In lieu of additional open space, the applicant has provided some additional amenities for the project. The amenities include the following: 1. Hair salon 2. Activity room 3. Theater room with refreshments 4. Entry lounge with fireplace 5. Common area with fireplace Trash Enclosure: A trash enclosure is depicted on the site plan at the southwest corner of the building. The color and material of the enclosure should complement that of the building. A detail of the enclosure should be submitted to Bob Olsen, Republic Services, (208-345-1265) for review and approval prior to submittal of the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. Specific Use Standards: The proposed use is subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-29, Nursing or Residential Care Facilities, as follows: A. General standards: 1. If the use results in more than ten (10) persons occupying a dwelling at any one Exhibit A Harmony Hills Assisted Living – CUP H-2016-0063 PAGE 7 time, the applicant or owner shall concurrently apply for a change of occupancy as required by the building code in accord with Title 10 of this code. This standard is not applicable. 2. The owner and/or operator of the facility shall secure and maintain a license from the State of Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, facility standards division. The applicant shall comply with this requirement. B. Additional standards for uses providing care to children and juveniles under the age of 18 years: This section is not applicable as care will not be provided to juveniles. 1. All outdoor play areas shall be completely enclosed by a minimum 6-foot non- scalable fence to secure against exit/entry by small children and to screen abutting properties. The fencing material shall meet the swimming pool fence requirements of the building code in accord with Title 10 of this code. 2. Outdoor play equipment over 6-feet high shall not be located in a front yard or within any required yard. 3. Outdoor play areas in residential district or uses adjacent to an existing residence shall not be used after dusk. Sidewalk: Sidewalks are required to be provided around buildings and along public streets in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17. A 5 foot wide detached sidewalk is required to be constructed within the required 25 foot landscape buffer. Widen the sidewalk in front of the building to 7 feet to allow for vehicle overhang; or, install wheel stops within the parking stalls to prevent vehicle overhang in accord with UDC 11- 3C-5B.4. A minimum 5-foot wide walkway is required to be provided from the perimeter sidewalk along E. Overland Road to the main building entrance and shall be distinguished from the vehicular driving surface through the use of pavers, colored or scored concrete or bricks, per UDC 11-3A-19A.4; the site plan should be revised to reflect compliance with this requirement. Building Elevations: Building elevations and a rendering were submitted with this application for the proposed structure as shown in Exhibit A.4. Building materials consist of cultured stone, cement fiber board, and asphalt shingles. The proposed architecture for the assisted living facility is meant to complement the architecture of the Overland Park Apartments that are currently under construction to the north of this project. The future structure is required to comply with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and the Architectural Standards Manual. Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC): The applicant is required to submit a CZC application for approval of the proposed use, site layout and building elevations from the Planning Division prior to submittal of a building permit application. Design Review: The applicant is required to submit a Design Review application concurrent with the CZC application for final approval of the site layout and building elevations. The proposed site layout and structures are required to comply with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A- 19 and the guidelines contained in the Architectural Standards Manual. Staff recommends approval of the proposed CUP with the conditions listed in Exhibit B. Exhibit A Harmony Hills Assisted Living – CUP H-2016-0063 PAGE 8 X. EXHIBITS A. Drawings 1. Vicinity/Zoning Map 2. Site Plan (dated: 05/16/16) 3. Concept Plan 4. Landscape Plan (dated: 04/14/16) 5. Building Elevations B. Conditions of Approval 1. Planning Department 2. Public Works Department 3. Fire Department 4. Police Department 5. Sanitary Service Company 6. Ada County Highway District 7. Parks Department C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code Exhibit A Harmony Hills Assisted Living – CUP H-2016-0063 PAGE 9 Exhibit A.1: Vicinity/Zoning Map Exhibit A Harmony Hills Assisted Living – CUP H-2016-0063 PAGE 10 Exhibit A.2: Site Plan Exhibit A Harmony Hills Assisted Living – CUP H-2016-0063 PAGE 11 Exhibit A.3: Concept Plan Exhibit A Harmony Hills Assisted Living – CUP H-2016-0063 PAGE 12 Exhibit A.4: Landscape Plan Exhibit A Harmony Hills Assisted Living – CUP H-2016-0063 PAGE 13 Exhibit A.5: Building Elevations Exhibit A Harmony Hills Assisted Living – CUP H-2016-0063 PAGE 14 Exhibit A Harmony Hills Assisted Living – CUP H-2016-0063 PAGE 15 B. Conditions of Approval 1. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1.1 Development of the site shall substantially comply with the site plan, landscape plan and building elevations included in Exhibit A, the conditions of approval listed herein, and the provisions of the development agreement. 1.2 The applicant shall comply with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-29, Nursing or Residential Care Facilities. The site plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application shall demonstrate compliance with these standards and the conditions of approval in this report. 1.3 The site plan included in Exhibit A shall be revised as follows (as applicable): a. Widen the sidewalk in front of the building to 7 feet to allow for vehicle overhang; or, install wheel stops within the parking stalls to prevent vehicle overhang in accord with UDC 11-3C- 5B.4. b. Include a detail of the trash enclosure; the detail shall be submitted to Bob Olsen, Republic Services, (208-345-1265) for review and approval prior to submittal of the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. The design of the enclosure should be compatible with the building in regard to materials and colors. c. A minimum 5-foot wide walkway is required to be provided from the perimeter sidewalk along West Overland Road to the main building entrance and shall be distinguished from the vehicular driving surface through the use of pavers, colored or scored concrete or bricks, per UDC 11-3A-19A.4. e. Revise the site plan to accommodate the additional ROW required by ACHD. 1.4 The landscape plan included in Exhibit A.4, dated April 14, 2016, shall be revised as follows: a. The gravel adjacent to W. Overland road between the sidewalk and the curb needs to be removed and landscaped according to UDC 11-3B-7C. b. The applicant shall either provide an additional five (5) feet of landscaping along W. Overland road outside of the irrigation easement, or apply for alternative compliance for the landscaping. If alternative compliance is desired, apply concurrently with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review. c. Prior to the Commission hearing, the applicant shall submit an updated landscape plan that reflects the changes made to the site plan. 1.5 The applicant is required to submit a Certificate of Zoning Compliance application for approval of the proposed use and site layout from the Planning Division prior to submittal of a building permit application and after recordation of the amended development agreement (H-2015-0022). 1.6 The applicant shall submit a Design Review application concurrent with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application for approval of the site layout and building elevations. The proposed site layout and structures are required to comply with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and the guidelines contained in the Architectural Standards Manual. 1.7 Staff’s failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or terms of the approved conditional use does not relieve the applicant of responsibility for compliance. 1.8 The Applicant shall have a maximum of two (2) years to commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval listed above. If the use has not begun within two (2) years Exhibit A Harmony Hills Assisted Living – CUP H-2016-0063 PAGE 16 of approval, a new conditional use permit must be obtained prior to operation or a time extension must be requested in accord with UDC 11-5B-6F. 1.9 The applicant shall complete all required improvements prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. It is unlawful to use or occupy any building or structure until the Building Official has issued a Certificate of Occupancy. 2.0 The amended development agreement approved with A-2016-0061 shall be recorded prior to applying for a certificate of zoning compliance application. 2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2.1 Applicant shall be responsible to initiate the partial relinquishment of the existing Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement that traverses along the north boundary, recorded as Instrument #108080948. A portion of this easement needs to be removed as it will not be needed. 2.2 Applicant shall be responsible for the connection of the W. Overland Road Water main stub, located near the west driveway approach, to the existing main stub in the Overland Park Apartment project. This connection was a condition of the Overland Park Apartment project; however a delay in the construction was approved to until the subject parcel developed. 2.3 Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.4 The applicant shall provide easement(s) for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way (include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall be dedicated using the City of Meridian’s standard forms. Applicant shall submit an executed easement (on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor, which must include the area of the easement (marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2” x 11” map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. All easements must be submitted, reviewed, and approved prior to development plan approval. 2.5 All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be tiled per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work, the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 2.6 Any existing domestic well system within this project shall be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8 contact the City of Meridian Engineering Department at (208)898-5500 for inspections of disconnection of services. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation if approved by Idaho Department of Water Resources Contact Robert B. Whitney at (208)334-2190. 2.7 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections (208)375-5211. 2.8 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. Exhibit A Harmony Hills Assisted Living – CUP H-2016-0063 PAGE 17 2.9 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 2.10 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.11 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-1-4B. 2.12 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material. 2.13 The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 2.14 At the completion of the project, the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 2.15 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20% of the total construction cost for all completed sewer, water and reuse infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-221. 3. FIRE DEPARTMENT 3.1 Any newly installed Fire Department connections for sprinkler or standpipes will require locking Knox box plugs. 3.2 Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department in accordance with International Fire Code Section (IFC) 508.5.4 as follows: a. Fire hydrants shall have the 4 ½” outlet face the main street or parking lot drive aisle. b. Fire hydrants shall not face a street which does not have addresses on it. c. Fire hydrant markers shall be provided per Public Works specifications. d. Fire Hydrants shall be placed on corners when spacing permits. e. Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10’. f. Fire hydrants shall be placed 18” above finished grade to the center of the 4 ½” outlets. g. Fire hydrants shall be provided to meet the requirements of IFC Section 509.5. h. Show all proposed or existing hydrants for all new construction or additions to existing buildings within 1,000 feet of the project. 1.5 In accordance with International Fire Code Section 503.2.5 and Appendix D, any roadway greater than 150 feet in length that is not provided with an outlet shall be required to have an approved turn around. Phasing of the project may require a temporary approved turn around on streets greater than 150' in length with no outlet. Exhibit A Harmony Hills Assisted Living – CUP H-2016-0063 PAGE 18 1.6 All entrances, internal roads, drive aisles, and alleys shall have a turning radius of 28’ inside and 48’ outside, per International Fire Code Section 503.2.4. 1.7 Private Alleys and Fire Lanes shall have a 20’ wide improved surface capable of supporting an imposed load of 75,000 lbs. All roadways shall be marked in accordance with Appendix D Section D103.6 Signs. 1.8 Provide signage (“No Parking Fire Lane”) for all fire lanes in accordance with International Fire Code Sections 503.4 & D103.6. 1.9 Ensure that all yet undeveloped parcels are maintained free of combustible vegetation as set forth in International Fire Code Section 304.1.2. 1.10 Fire lanes, streets, and structures (including the canopy height of mature trees) shall have a vertical clearance of 13’6 as set forth in International Fire Code Section 503.2.1. 1.11 Commercial and office occupancies will require a fire-flow consistent with International Fire Code Appendix B to service the proposed project. Fire hydrants shall be placed per Appendix C. 1.12 Maintain a separation of 5’ from the building to the dumpster enclosure as set forth in International Fire Code Section 304.3.3. 1.13 Provide a Knox box entry system for the complex prior to occupancy as set forth in International Fire Code Section 506. 1.14 The applicant shall work with Public Works and Planning Department staff to provide an address identification plan and a sign which meets the requirements of the City of Meridian sign ordinance and is placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property, as set forth in International Fire Code Section 505.1. 1.15 All portions of the buildings located on this project must be within 150’ of a paved surface as measured around the perimeter of the building as set forth in International Fire Code Section 503.1.1. 3.14 Where a portion of the facility or building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction is more than 400 feet (122 m) from a hydrant on a fire apparatus access road, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building, on-site fire hydrants and mains shall be provided where required by the code official as set forth in International Fire Code Section 507.5.1. For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2 the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183). a. For Group R-3 and Group U occupancies, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m). b. For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m). 3.15 There shall be a fire hydrant within 100’ of all fire department connections as set forth in local amendment to the International Fire Code 10-4-2L. 3.16 The Fire Department will require Knoxbox Fire Department Connection caps on all FDC inlets. IFC 102.9 3.17 Buildings over 30’ in height are required to have access roads in accordance with the International Fire Code Appendix D Section D105. 3.18 One of the elevators within the development shall be sized to accommodate an ambulance stretcher. Exhibit A Harmony Hills Assisted Living – CUP H-2016-0063 PAGE 19 4. POLICE DEPARTMENT 4.1 The Police Department has no concerns with this application. 5. REPUBLIC SERVICES 5.1 A detail of the enclosure should be submitted to Bob Olsen, Republic Services, (208-345-1265) for review and approval prior to submittal of the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. 6. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT 6.1 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 ACHD right-of-way (including all easements). 6.2 Private Utilities including sewer or water systems are prohibited from being located within the ACHD right-of-way. 6.3 In accordance with District policy, 7203.6, the applicant may be required to update any existing non-compliant pedestrian improvements abutting the site to meet current Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. The applicant’s engineer should provide documentation of ADA compliance to District Development Review staff for review. 6.4 Replace any existing damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk and any that may be damaged during the construction of the proposed development. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file number) for details. 6.5 A license agreement and compliance with the District’s Tree Planter policy is required for all landscaping proposed within ACHD right-of-way or easement areas. 6.6 All utility relocation costs associated with improving street frontages abutting the site shall be borne by the developer. 6.7 It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right-of-way. The applicant at no cost to ACHD shall repair existing utilities 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 within ACHD right-of-way. The applicant shall contact ACHD Traffic Operations 387-6190 in the event any ACHD conduits (spare or filled) are compromised during any phase of construction. 6.8 Utility street cuts in pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing by the District. Contact the District’s Utility Coordinator at 387-6258 (with file numbers) for details. 6.9 All design and construction shall be in accordance with the ACHD Policy Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services procedures and all applicable ACHD Standards unless specifically waived herein. An engineer registered in the State of Idaho shall prepare and certify all improvement plans. 6.10 Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable requirements of ACHD prior to District approval for occupancy. 6.11 No change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they are in writing and signed by the applicant or the applicant’s authorized representative and an authorized representative of ACHD. The burden shall be upon the applicant to obtain written confirmation of any change from ACHD. Exhibit A Harmony Hills Assisted Living – CUP H-2016-0063 PAGE 20 6.12 If the site plan or use should change in the future, ACHD Planning Review will review the site plan and may require additional improvements to the transportation system at that time. Any change in the planned use of the property which is the subject of this application, shall require the applicant to comply with ACHD Policy and Standard Conditions of Approval in place at that time unless a waiver/variance of the requirements or other legal relief is granted by the ACHD Commission. 7. PARKS DEPARTMENT 7.1 The Parks Department has no concerns with this project. Exhibit A Harmony Hills Assisted Living – CUP H-2016-0063 PAGE 21 C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code 1. Conditional Use Permit (UDC 11-5B-6E) The Commission shall base its determination on the Conditional Use Permit request upon the following: a. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. Staff finds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and the dimensional & development regulations of the C-G district as required by the UDC (see Analysis Section IX for more information). b. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in accord with the requirements of this Title. Staff finds that the proposed use is consistent and harmonious with the UDC and Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designation of Commercial for this site if designed in accord with the conditions listed in Exhibit B. c. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. Staff finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the proposed use should be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood, with the existing and intended character of the area, and with other existing and future uses in the C-G and adjacent I-L zoning district. d. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Staff finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the proposed use will not adversely affect other property in the area. e. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools, parks, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, and sewer. Staff finds that sanitary sewer, domestic water, refuse disposal, and irrigation are currently provided to the subject property. Staff finds that the proposed use will be served adequately by all of the public facilities and services listed above. f. 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. If approved, the applicant will be financing any improvements required for development. Staff finds there will not be excessive additional requirements at public cost and that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the community’s economic welfare. Harmony Hills Assisted Living – CUP H-2016-0063 22 g. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. Staff finds the proposed use will not involve excessive traffic, noise, or odors that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare. h. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. Staff finds that the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural, scenic or historic feature of major importance in this area. Pl a n n i n g & Z o n i n g Co m m i s s i o n M e e t i n g Au g u s t 1 8 , 2 0 1 6 It e m # 4 A : S i l v e r w a t e r S o u t h Vi c i n i t y / Z o n i n g M a p 3 3 6 7 59 5 68 3 33 2 6 33 3 8 70 0 62 9 3132 85 5 12 8 4 1579 35 2 3 7 5 7 67 8 69 2 12 9 0 36391433 35 5 7 3424 97 6 82 4 12 7 4 3 4 1 4 31 5 5 70 1 32 6 5 33 4 5 3430 33 7 2 3312 7 3 8 31 9 9 56 6 10 5 2 1313 3322 73 3 32 6 1 81 2 77 9 75 6 7 1 9 33 6 3 7 4 5 34 2 2 32 4 0 79 2 11 6 1 67 0 7 9 3 66 1 66 9 3338 31 9 2 12 0 4 33 1 8 1 2 7 1 3300 1488 70 9 3343 32 7 8 77 6 12 5 4 12 9 7 68 5 33 0 2 3408 7 0 2 1302 3505 3306 12 9 6 3 2 8 3 12 5 6 32 6 0 36 0 3 31 4 9 12 8 0 76 0 83 6 12 2 2 299 58 1 3496 12 6 5 3433 3378 32 6 4 1416 1359 34 8 8 12 7 2 1371 64 5 74 1 65 3 3481 63 8 3245 12 8 5 83 8 33 7 3 12 4 5 162 11 7 6 7 6 2 32 5 1 1323 3246 327 30 4 2 33 6 2 72 5 30 5 8 3357 31 6 4 66 2 1452 358 33 0 9 7 8 8 31 0 1 7 1 6 34 1 0 3472 3512 35 0 1 1422 3046 11 8 6 73 2 3318 72 8 33 1 1 12 7 2 35 4 5 61 3 31 1 5 1484 76 0 7 2 8 13 1 4 88 0 31 8 1 3488 7 5 2 33 5 0 3465 12 3 8 78 4 7 8 1 65 5 35 0 6 76 4 3 58 1 3 2 8 2 1375 3324 1 2 3 4 1596 1 66 8 11 5 7 12 8 7 84 0 7 8 3 7 7 4 7 7 6 71 6 61 1 31 0 3 79 6 3364 91 4 12 6 5 3094 1397 30 8 6 3449 33 0 3 99 8 1449 59 8 33 1 4 1332 1377 1328 10 3 0 7 6 4 33 0 1 7 1 1 1503 12 4 0 30 8 6 82 7 7 8 6 7 6 3 33 8 1 1419 12 1 6 29 6 2 35 2 4 69 9 13 0 5 3268 1 2 2 5 81 7 35 9 1 7 7 1 1 2 7 8 30 4 2 7 1 4 33 9 8 7 4 0 33 7 4 3051 3401 3329 1380 59 7 31 3 8 1341 1570 32 5 3 67 7 7 5 0 35 4 0 33 3 6 12 2 4 32 8 8 29 8 4 3521 3264 33 9 9 12 3 9 12 5 2 1370 3456 29 4 0 3 1553 63 0 74 8 63 5 11 9 3 79 8 31 8 7 7 3 5 12 1 0 88 3 65 9 29 7 8 72 8 62 4 12 8 0 12 4 6 1487 3063 12 3 0 1400 12 0 6 1354 32 9 0 3350 33 3 5 31 7 5 3085 33 1 5 33 0 2 3070 89 4 1345 77 0 71 2 7 6 9 81 7 30 3 0 82 6 1358 85 2 1468 1350 3301 33 2 5 3417 33 8 5 7 4 9 74 2 3280 1476 1386 12 7 5 11 6 8 35 6 9 2955 89 5 62 7 69 3 74 4 71 4 85 9 1444 64 6 61 6 75 7 76 5 69 4 3460 12 6 3 30 8 8 78 1 3313 12 9 6 7 0 4 30 0 6 3 3 1 8 7 2 6 7 2 1 68 4 32 7 5 69 0 34 0 9 3402 1 2 8 7 12 3 1 12 9 6 31 6 1 7 3 3 7 0 9 31 1 4 87 4 81 0 12 7 9 13 0 7 67 0 3022 12 5 4 1340 3336 12 9 9 67 2 68 7 64 8 1312 32 7 7 3528 3224 3247 77 3 13 0 0 33 9 7 1319 33 2 7 3 3 1 9 34 2 1 30 1 0 29 7 8 7 0 3 1 74 9 33 2 1 1384 3 4 1 5 11 5 4 1527 11 5 0 33 8 6 12 4 1 3440 1465 1408 1546 3273 34 7 0 60 2 3371 33 5 4 3308 71 7 33 1 3 31 5 0 12 3 3 1466 3406 12 8 9 1460 3330 33 9 0 3 3 7 6 31 2 6 16 12 6 3 32 8 9 11 9 8 12 4 1 30 8 4 79 8 70 0 33 2 7 86 6 80 1 1319 12 6 8 1560 L- O RU T RU T TN - R RUT R- 8 R- 4 S Locust Grove Rd S G l a c i e r B a y W a y S C a e s a r A v e S B r i g h a m A v e S P o m p e i A v e E W h i s k e y F l a t s S t E P i e n z a S t E S a g e m o o r S t E I o n i a D r E I o n i a S t E S a g e m E F o r e s t R i d g e C t S A s c a i no Way S Ascaino Ave E F a l l i n g b r a n c h C t E S p r i n g l o y d S t SSarteanoAve S G l a c i e r B a y A v e E I t a l y S t S A s c a i n o A v e S G l a c i e r B a y A v e E O b s e r v a t i o n D r E O a k b r o o k C t E F a l l i n g b r a n c h D r S N o v a r a Way E O b s e r v a t i o n S t e D r E Pistioa Dr S Bailey Way S D a y b r e a k A v e S S t a n d i n g T i m b e r W a y a n d i n g T i m b e r W a y S M e s a W a y E G a n n e t t D r S D a y b r e a k A v e S G l a c i e r B a y W a y S P o m p e i A v e S M u r l o W a y KI N G ' S CO N G R E G A T I O N CH U R C H CA B E L L A C R E E K TRADEW SUBDIVISIO SI C I L Y GL A C I E R SP R I N G S SHERBR HOLL NO OB S E R V A T I O N PO I N T SAGE TUSCANY VILLAGE NO 01 TU S C A N Y VI L L A G E N O 0 2 TUSCANY LAKES NO 01 ROSELEAF NO 01 RO S E L E A F NO 0 2 CA V A N A U G H N O 02 - O L D TA N A N A V A L L E Y CA V A N A U G H NO . 1 SH A Y ' S CO V E SU B D I V I S I O N TRADE SUBDIV NO SI L V E R W A T E R NO . 3 E. V i c t o r y R d . S. Locust Grove Rd. Pr e l i m i n a r y P l a t La n d s c a p e P l a n Co n c e p t u a l B u i l d i n g E l e v a t i o n s It e m # 4 B : S i l v e r w a t e r N o r t h Vi c i n i t y / Z o n i n g M a p 3 3 6 7 59 5 68 3 33 2 6 33 3 8 70 0 62 9 3132 85 5 12 8 4 1579 35 2 3 7 5 7 67 8 69 2 12 9 0 36391433 35 5 7 3424 97 6 82 4 12 7 4 3 4 1 4 31 5 5 70 1 32 6 5 33 4 5 3430 33 7 2 3312 7 3 8 31 9 9 56 6 10 5 2 1313 3322 73 3 32 6 1 81 2 77 9 75 6 7 1 9 33 6 3 7 4 5 34 2 2 32 4 0 79 2 11 6 1 67 0 7 9 3 66 1 66 9 3338 31 9 2 12 0 4 33 1 8 1 2 7 1 3300 1488 70 9 3343 32 7 8 77 6 12 5 4 12 9 7 68 5 33 0 2 3408 7 0 2 1302 3505 3306 12 9 6 3 2 8 3 12 5 6 32 6 0 36 0 3 31 4 9 12 8 0 76 0 83 6 12 2 2 299 58 1 3496 12 6 5 3433 3378 32 6 4 1416 1359 34 8 8 12 7 2 1371 64 5 74 1 65 3 3481 63 8 3245 12 8 5 83 8 33 7 3 12 4 5 162 11 7 6 7 6 2 32 5 1 1323 3246 327 30 4 2 33 6 2 72 5 30 5 8 3357 31 6 4 66 2 1452 358 33 0 9 7 8 8 31 0 1 7 1 6 34 1 0 3472 3512 35 0 1 1422 3046 11 8 6 73 2 3318 72 8 33 1 1 12 7 2 35 4 5 61 3 31 1 5 1484 76 0 7 2 8 13 1 4 88 0 31 8 1 3488 7 5 2 33 5 0 3465 12 3 8 78 4 7 8 1 65 5 35 0 6 76 4 3 58 1 3 2 8 2 1375 3324 1 2 3 4 1596 1 66 8 11 5 7 12 8 7 84 0 7 8 3 7 7 4 7 7 6 71 6 61 1 31 0 3 79 6 3364 91 4 12 6 5 3094 1397 30 8 6 3449 33 0 3 99 8 1449 59 8 33 1 4 1332 1377 1328 10 3 0 7 6 4 33 0 1 7 1 1 1503 12 4 0 30 8 6 82 7 7 8 6 7 6 3 33 8 1 1419 12 1 6 29 6 2 35 2 4 69 9 13 0 5 3268 1 2 2 5 81 7 35 9 1 7 7 1 1 2 7 8 30 4 2 7 1 4 33 9 8 7 4 0 33 7 4 3051 3401 3329 1380 59 7 31 3 8 1341 1570 32 5 3 67 7 7 5 0 35 4 0 33 3 6 12 2 4 32 8 8 29 8 4 3521 3264 33 9 9 12 3 9 12 5 2 1370 3456 29 4 0 3 1553 63 0 74 8 63 5 11 9 3 79 8 31 8 7 7 3 5 12 1 0 88 3 65 9 29 7 8 72 8 62 4 12 8 0 12 4 6 1487 3063 12 3 0 1400 12 0 6 1354 32 9 0 3350 33 3 5 31 7 5 3085 33 1 5 33 0 2 3070 89 4 1345 77 0 71 2 7 6 9 81 7 30 3 0 82 6 1358 85 2 1468 1350 3301 33 2 5 3417 33 8 5 7 4 9 74 2 3280 1476 1386 12 7 5 11 6 8 35 6 9 2955 89 5 62 7 69 3 74 4 71 4 85 9 1444 64 6 61 6 75 7 76 5 69 4 3460 12 6 3 30 8 8 78 1 3313 12 9 6 7 0 4 30 0 6 3 3 1 8 7 2 6 7 2 1 68 4 32 7 5 69 0 34 0 9 3402 1 2 8 7 12 3 1 12 9 6 31 6 1 7 3 3 7 0 9 31 1 4 87 4 81 0 12 7 9 13 0 7 67 0 3022 12 5 4 1340 3336 12 9 9 67 2 68 7 64 8 1312 32 7 7 3528 3224 3247 77 3 13 0 0 33 9 7 1319 33 2 7 3 3 1 9 34 2 1 30 1 0 29 7 8 7 0 3 1 74 9 33 2 1 1384 3 4 1 5 11 5 4 1527 11 5 0 33 8 6 12 4 1 3440 1465 1408 1546 3273 34 7 0 60 2 3371 33 5 4 3308 71 7 33 1 3 31 5 0 12 3 3 1466 3406 12 8 9 1460 3330 33 9 0 3 3 7 6 31 2 6 16 12 6 3 32 8 9 11 9 8 12 4 1 30 8 4 79 8 70 0 33 2 7 86 6 80 1 1319 12 6 8 1560 L- O RU T RU T TN - R RUT R- 8 R- 4 S Locust Grove Rd S G l a c i e r B a y W a y S C a e s a r A v e S B r i g h a m A v e S P o m p e i A v e E W h i s k e y F l a t s S t E P i e n z a S t E S a g e m o o r S t E I o n i a D r E I o n i a S t E S a g e m E F o r e s t R i d g e C t S A s c a i no Way S Ascaino Ave E F a l l i n g b r a n c h C t E S p r i n g l o y d S t SSarteanoAve S G l a c i e r B a y A v e E I t a l y S t S A s c a i n o A v e S G l a c i e r B a y A v e E O b s e r v a t i o n D r E O a k b r o o k C t E F a l l i n g b r a n c h D r S N o v a r a Way E O b s e r v a t i o n S t e D r E Pistioa Dr S Bailey Way S D a y b r e a k A v e S S t a n d i n g T i m b e r W a y a n d i n g T i m b e r W a y S M e s a W a y E G a n n e t t D r S D a y b r e a k A v e S G l a c i e r B a y W a y S P o m p e i A v e S M u r l o W a y KI N G ' S CO N G R E G A T I O N CH U R C H CA B E L L A C R E E K TRADEW SUBDIVISIO SI C I L Y GL A C I E R SP R I N G S SHERBR HOLL NO OB S E R V A T I O N PO I N T SAGE TUSCANY VILLAGE NO 01 TU S C A N Y VI L L A G E N O 0 2 TUSCANY LAKES NO 01 ROSELEAF NO 01 RO S E L E A F NO 0 2 CA V A N A U G H N O 02 - O L D TA N A N A V A L L E Y CA V A N A U G H NO . 1 SH A Y ' S CO V E SU B D I V I S I O N TRADE SUBDIV NO SI L V E R W A T E R NO . 3 E. V i c t o r y R d . S. Locust Grove Rd. Pr e l i m i n a r y P l a t La n d s c a p e P l a n Co n c e p t u a l B u i l d i n g E l e v a t i o n s It e m # 4 : L i t t l e C r e e k Zo n i n g / V i c i n i t y M a p Or i g i n a l S i t e P l a n Re v i s e d S i t e P l a n ( p e r A C H D ’ s R e q u i r e m e n t s ) Re v i s e d P r e l i m i n a r y P l a t ( p e r A C H D ’ s R e q u i r e m e n t s ) Ph a s i n g P l a n Op e n S p a c e E x h i b i t La n d s c a p e P l a n ( n o t r e v i s e d y e t p e r A C H D ’ s r e q u i r e m e n t s ) It e m # 4 D : K n i g h t s b r i d g e S u b d i v i s i o n Zo n i n g M a p Si t e P l a n La n d s c a p e P l a n So u t h e r l a n d F a r m s Bu i l d i n g E l e v a t i o n s It e m # 4 E : P a i s l e y M e a d o w s S u b d i v i s i o n Zo n i n g M a p Si t e P l a n Ph a s i n g P l a n La n d s c a p e P l a n Bu i l d i n g E l e v a t i o n s Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: August 18,2016 ITEM NUMBER: 4A PROJECT NUMBER: H-2016-0082 ITEM TITLE: Silverwater South Public Hearing For Silverwater South (H-2016-0082) by Trilogy Development Located at South of E. Victory Road and West of S. Locust Grove Road 1. Request: Preliminary Plat Consisting of 48 Building lots and 4 (Four) Common Lots on 12.08 Acres of Land in an R-8 Zoning District MEETING NOTES APP , ROVED CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET Date: August 18, 2016 Item # Project Number: Project Name: H-2016-0082 EW Silverwater South Please print your name For Against Neutral Do you wish to testify (Y/N) A E k ;Cl REC_F,t_VErj A; E ; E CISCLERKS CE- Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: August 18,2016 ITEM NUMBER: 4B PROJECT NUMBER: H-2016-0083 ITEM TITLE: Silverwater North Public Hearing for Silverwater North (H-2016-0083) by Trilogy Development Located at South Side of E. Victory Road and West of S. Locust Grove RoadRequest: Preliminary Plat Consisting of 13 Building Lots and 1 (One) Common Lot on 4.12 Acres of Land in an R-8 Zoning District MEETING NOTES A P Pw R 0 V E 01 CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS CITY OF MERIDIAN 1:J W.111 ► I ► I I ► ECT."I M -1 1510-11M PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET Date: August 18, 2016 Item # Project Number: Project Name: H-2016-0083 M Silverwater North Please print your name For Against Neutral Do you wish to testify (Y/N) AJA Yv i6:!� fx W G ITY OF P( CLERKS OFF -ICE Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: August 18,2016 ITEM NUMBER: 4C PROJECT NUMBER: H-2016-0076 ITEM TITLE: Little Creek Public Hearing for Little Creek Subdivision (H-2016-0076) by David Alexander Located 1470 N. Locust Grove Road 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of Seventeen (17) Acres of Land with an R-40 Zoning District 2. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a Multi -Family Development Consisting of 204 Dwelling Units in an R-40 Zoning District 3. Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Fifty -One (51) Building Lots and Three (3) Common Lots on 15.85 Acres of Land MEETING NOTES CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS STAKE TREES ONLY UPON THE APPROVAL OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. , 3" MIN. BARK MULCH AT BASE OF TREE RING. TRUNK FLARE TO BE VISIBLE. DO NOT COVER \_ TOP OF ROOTBALL W/ SOIL OR MULCH. CREATE SOIL SAUCER WITH TOPSOIL (MIN. 4') 40, c FINISH GRADE pp pI_ ^_IIII pp VIIIIA-pp IIVIIIIR II�NcVIIIIIN-c REMOVE ALL TWINE, ROPE, WIRE AND BURLAP VIIIIA=VVIR pp pp II FROM THE TOP 3 OF ROOT BALL. TREES WITH VIIIIV =p I IIIIA-VIIIIMzfWIRE BASKETS AROUND ROOT BALL SHOULD IVVI��I ^�^„„IIII V ^-^IIIIVIIII I I�tlZEp VI�AMpI HAVE 4 CUTS IN BASKET AND FOLDED DOWN NIVIIIIIN�IIIVIII�N „I=1QII�N ^�YIIIIIIIN ^�„II IIIfl� sVIIIIA=VIIIIR- INTO PLANTING HOLE VI�MVIII_�VIIINVIII�VIVIIIIIN VIIIII�� nm _ LIGHTLY COMPACTED TOPSOIL MIX OR CLEAN ��- VIIIInII-1VIIIInIs=IViIInII=IV�IIIII�-IVIIIVIVI�IA IVIIIIOIA=IVIIIIPIA SUBSOIL IN 6" LIFTS. DO NOT OVER COMPACT. COMPACTED SUBSOIL BASE TO FORM PEDESTAL AND PREVENT SETTLING. EXISTING SUBGRADE OO O O NOTES: 1 . DIG HOLE TWICE THE SIZE OF ROOT BALL. 2. WHEN PLANTING PINE PINUS SPECIES IN SLOWLY DRAINING SOILS SET TOP OF ROOT BALL 1 '-3" HIGHER THAN THE EXISTING GRADE OR WITH OTHER EVERGREEN SPECIES. 3. PRUNE ALL DEAD AND DAMAGED BRANCHES. DO NOT PRUNE MAIN LEADER. DO NOT PLANT IN EVENT MAIN LEADER IS DAMAGED UNLESS DIRECTED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. EVERGREEN TREE PLANTING DETAIL SCALE: NTS TOP OF ROOT BALL @ FINISH GRADE. REMOVE BURLAP AND TWINE FROM TOP 3 OF ROOT BALL. REMOVE CONTAINER 3" MIN. OF BARK MULCH IN PLANTING BED. REMOVE MULCH FROM AROUND BASE OF STEM. CREATE SOIL SAUCER AROUND DRIPLINE OF SHRUB PLACE ROOT BALL ON UNEXCAVATED OR LIGHTLY COMPACTED SOIL - G O 0 O EXISTING SUBGRADE O CP 0 O NOTES: 1 . COMPLETELY REMOVE ALL STRINGS, RIBBONS, TAGS AND OTHER FOREIGN OBJECTS FROM THE PLANT. 2. ALL SHRUBS TO BE PLANTED IN BARK MULCH BEDS. 3. PRUNE ALL BROKEN AND WEAK BRANCHES. PRUNE WHEN FIRST INSTALLED, EXCEPT IF PLANT IS IN BLOOM. ALL PRUNING MUST OCCUR WHEN PLANT IS NOT IN BLOOM. 4. ALL SHRUBS TO BE COMPLETELY EXCAVATED OF ALL EXISTING SOIL TO REQUIRED DEPTH AND BACKFILLED WITH REQUIRED SOIL MIX. SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL SCALE: NTS 00 Q 0. 0 a EXISTING SUBGRADE o� 3 � .� a •' `°� .._ fJ�-' �m 7 17M ■: "■ -III , rt3. -_ G � 9> ■ ■-VIII III-' ■ �'- _ ■ ���,•� ■'I a rV■I•_=•=. "I 1' LLI Cl) EVA Cl) Z J �RAF WAN J`i'll N L �1� w E, ✓,� LU \`II L r , A '� 'M2, J Q 13 J y cc 04 _Fir- j�i-•�-m{M co N -rel L "41 00 sa Cc13 m r® 3 =a 000-0 \ �'Q�-r ` /.,1 �f.�� _/ � �•6� J Z�a yil ymca�e®w�u �a A SHEET L-3.0 ��1.\����.��I�N'„�',�,7.•- TAMP SOIL AROUND ROOT BALL BASE FIRMLY WITH ROOT PRESSURE SO THAT ROOT BALL DOES NOT SHIFT PLACE ROOT BALL ON UNEXCAVATED OR LIGHTLY COMPACTED SOIL NOTES: 1. SET TOP OF ROOT BALL FLUSH WITH FINISHED GRADE OR 1 '-3" HIGHER IN SLOWLY DRAINING SOILS. 2. DO NOT HEAVILY PRUNE TREE AT TIME OF PLANTING. PRUNE ONLY CROSSOVER LIMBS, CO -DOMINANT LEADERS, BROKEN OR DEAD BRANCHES. DO NOT REMOVE TERMINAL BUDS THAT EXTEND TO THE EDGE OF THE CROWN. DO NOT PRUNE MAIN LEADER. DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING DETAIL SCALE: NTS SS -T I--- PLANT LEGEND _E PLANT SCHEDULE FOR SIZE AND QUANTITIES SHEETS L-3.0 to L-3.5) NS LANDSCAPE NOTES: 419 1 DECIDUOUS TREES (2" cal.) AUTUMN BLAZE MAPLE, Acer freemanii ' Autumn Blaze' AMUR MAPLE, Acer ginnala ARMSTRONG RED MAPLE, Acer rubru ED 'Armstrong' OCTOBER GLORY MAPLE, Acer rubrum 'October GloryTM RIVER BIRCH, Betula nigra AUTUME PURPLE ASH, Fraxinus americana'Autumn Purple' SUNBURST HONEYLOCUST, Gleditsia triancanthos inermis'Sunburst SPRING SNOW CRAB APPLE, Malus x'Spring Snow' CANADA RED CHOKECHERRY, Prunus virginiana 'Canada Red' MULTI -STEM CANADA RED CHOKECHERRY, Prunus virginiana'Canada Red' CHANTICLEER PEAR, Prunus cal leryana'Chanticleer' 181 1 EVERGREEN TREES 6' COLUMNAR BLUE ATLAS CEDAR, Cedrus atlantica ' Fastigiata' WEEPING ALASKAN CEDAR, Chamaecyparis nootkatensis ' Pendula' JUNIPER - MOONGLOW, Juniperus scopulorum 'Moonglow' JUNIPER - WICHITA BLUE, Juniperus scopulorum Wichita Blue' SPRUCE - CUPRESSINA, Picea abies 'Cupressina' WEEPING WHITE SPRUCE, Picea glauca pendula COLORADO SPRUCE, Picea pungens BLUE ISELI SPRUCE, Picea pungens 'Iseli Fastigiate' VANDERWOLF PINE, Pinus flexilis 'Vanderwolf's• WEEPING WHITE PINE. Pinus strobus 'Pendula' 1,658 5 gal. Shrubs 2 gal. Perennials SHRUBS, PERENNIALS, AND ORNAMENTAL GRASSES CRIMSON PYGMY BARBERRY, Berberis thunbergii Crimson Pygmy' COLUMNAR BARBERRY, Berberis thunbergii Helmond Pillar' DOGWOOD - IVORY HALO, Cornus sericea 'Ivory Halo' KELSEYI DOGWOOD, Cornus sericea 'Kelseyi' COMPACT BURNING BUSH, Euonymus alatus 'Compactus' DARTS GOLD NINEBARK, Physocarpus opulifolius 'Dart's Gold' DWARF NINEBARK, Physocarpus opulifolius Little Devil TM SUMMER WINE NINEBARK, Physocarpus opulifolius Summer Wine' DWARF MUGO PINE, Pinus mugoCompacta' BUCKTHORN - TALLHEDGE, Rhamnus frangula 'Tallhedge' GRO-LOW FRAGRANT SUMAC, Rhus aromatica 'Gro -Low FLOWER CARPET RED GROUNDCOVER ROSE, Rosa x ' Noare' FLOWER CARPET® AMBER GROUNDCOVER ROSE, Rosa x "NOA97400A' P.P.A.F. SPIREA - NEON FLASH, Spiraea japonica Neon Flash' SPIREA- LIMEMOUND,Spiraeajaponica 'Limemound' SPIREA - SNOWMOUND, Spiraea nipponica tosaensis 'Snowmound' SPIREA - GOLDFLAME, Spiraea x bumalda 'Goldflame' COMMON LILAC, Syringa vulgaris KARL FOERSTER FEATHER REED GRASS, Calamagrostis x acutiflora 'Karl Foerster' OVERDAM FEATHER REED GRASS, Calamagrostis x acutiflora ' Overdam' HOSTA VARIETY, Hosta var. MUNSTEAD ENGLISH LAVENDER, Lavandula angustifolia 'Munstead' LITTLE BUNNY FOUNTAIN GRASS, Pennisetum alopecuroides Little Bunny' MAY NIGHT SALVIA, Salvia x sylvestris 'May Night' NOTE: 1. EACH UNIT FACING ALONG WILSON DR. AND LOCUST GROVE SHALL HAVE 3 LF @ 24" PER LENGTH OF FOUNDATION PLANTED PER UDC 11-4-3-27E OF THE UDC. LOCATIONS AND VARIETIES TO BE VERIFIED WITH THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. 1 . CONTRACTOR SHALL REPORT TO LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE ANY CONDITIONS WHICH IMPAIR AND/OR PREVENT THE PROPER EXECUTION OF WORK PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORK. VERIFY AND COORDINATE WORK SCHEDULE PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION START. 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL CLEAN PLANTING AREAS OF FOREIGN MATERIALS, EXCESS ROCKS, GRASS AND WEEDS PRIOR TO PLANT INSTALLATION. CONTRACTOR SHALL UNIFORMLY GRADE SMOOTH AND LIGHTLY COMPACT TOPSOIL 9" IN DEPTH IN ALL SHRUB AND TREE PLANTING AREAS. TOPSOIL AREAS AND 18 SHALL BE LOOSE, CLEAN SANDY LOAM FREE OF TOXIC MATERIALS, DEBRIS OF ANY SORT, NOXIOUS WEEDS AND WEED SEEDS OR OTHER FOREIGN MATERIALS. 3. PLANT MATERIAL SHALL CONFORM TO AMERICAN STANDARDS FOR NURSERY STOCK. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE SHALL APPROVE PLANT MATERIALS PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 4. SEE PLANT LEGEND, SCHEDULE AND DETAILS FOR SIZE, SPECIES AND PLANT INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS. 5. NO SUBSTITUTIONS OF PLANT MATERIAL WITHOUT THE AUTHORIZATION OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. 6. ALL PLANT MATERIAL TO BE GUARANTEED FOR ONE YEAR AFTER COMPLETION OF WORK AND ACCEPTANCE BY THE OWNER, OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVES AND CONTRACTOR. REPLACE DEAD OR UNHEALTHY PLANT MATERIAL WITH SAME SIZE AND SPECIES OF MATERIAL UNLESS DIRECTED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER OR REPRESENTATIVES. 7. FERTILIZE ALL TREES AND SHRUBS WITH FERTILIZER APPROVED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PER MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATION AND SPECIFICATIONS. 8. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY ALL QUANTITIES, SIZES, AND DIMENSIONS BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH ANY WORK. REPORT VARIATIONS BETWEEN DRAWINGS AND THE SITE TO THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCING ANY WORK. 9. PLANT MATERIAL SELECTIONS, LOCATIONS AND QUANTITIES MAY VARY FROM LOCATIONS SHOWN ON PLAN PER LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL FIELD DECISIONS BASED ON PLANT HEALTH, AVAILIBILITY AND CHARACTERISTICS. 10. PROTECT FRESHLY PLANTED AREAS AS WELL AS SODDED AREAS WITH SIGNAGE, MARKINGS OR BARRICADES IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING INSTALLATION TO PREVENT DAMAGE. ANY DAMAGE INCURRED TO THESE AREAS SHALL BE REMEDIED IMMEDIATELY AFTER INSTALLATION. 11. WATER PLANTS THOROUGHLY AFTER INSTALLATION. 12. ALL LANDSCAPING TO BE IRRIGATED BY AN AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM (SEE IRRIGATION NOTES.) IRRIGATION NOTES: 1. ALL LANDSCAPING TO BE IRRIGATED BY AN AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM. 2. IRRIGATION SYSTEM TO BE SEPARATED BY USE ZONE AND PLACED ON INDIVIDUAL STATIONS: a. LAWN AREAS TO BE IRRIGATED BY POP UP SPRAYS OR ROTORS WHERE CONDITIONS ALLOW • b. PLANTER BEDS TO BE IRRIGATED BY POP UP SPRAYS OR DRIP IRRIGATION WHERE APPROPRIATE c. NATURAL GRASS AREAS TO BE IRRIGATED TO ESTABLISH WITH POP SPRAYS OR ROTOR SPRAYS WHERE APPROPRIATE. 3. EACH STATION SHALL BE CONTROLLED BY A IRRIGATION CONTROL BOX WHICH ALLOWS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONTROL OF EACH ZONE AND THE ABILITY TO RUN MULTIPLE CYCLES ON EACH STATION. 4. THE IRRIGATION CONTROL BOX SHALL HAVE A DEDICATED 110V POWER SOURCE. ALL ELECTRICAL WIRING AND CONNECTIONS SHALL BE INSTALLED BASED ON LOCAL CODES AND ORDINANCES. 5. IRRIGATION SYSTEM TO BE INSTALLED AND MEET THE AVAILABLE IRRIGATION WATER SOURCE MINIMUMS BASED ON TIMES AND OR DATES WHEN WATER IS AVAILABLE. 6. IRRIGATION SYSTEM TO BE FIELD ADJUSTED TO MEET EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS. 7. IRRIGATION SYSTEM TO MEET ALL MANUFACTURERS SPECIFICATIONS. 8. LANDSCAPE PLAN IS SCHEMATIC; FIELD VERIFY ALL PLANT MATERIAL LOCATIONS, BEDS AND LAWN AREAS AND ADJUST IRRIGATION SYSTEM ACCORDINGLY. W iL C= S August 18, 2016 SCALE: 1 " = 50'-10" 0 25 50 100 3023 E. C op perp oiKt Dr. S u fte #208 MerrIldia , M 83642 (208) 869-3820 (boise) (208) 720-37-30 (Ketchum) (208) 298-0707 (fax) wwwAt1 il.com Z Z LU a Q LLI Cl) Cl) Z J N L LU J Q 13 J y cc 04 01 co N L 00 sa Cc13 m 3 =a 000-0 J Z�a SHEET L-3.0 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET Date: August 18, 2016 Item # Project Number: Project Name: H-2016-0076 Little Creek Subdivision Please print your name For Against Neutral Do you wish to testify (Y/N) T Y OF(N,! Off CLERKS Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: August 18,2016 ITEM NUMBER: 4D PROJECT NUMBER: H-2016-0088 ITEM TITLE: Knightsbridge Subdivision Public Hearing for Knightsbridge Subdivision (H-2016-0088) by Schultz Development Located 3870 E. Victory Road 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 5.15 Acres of Land with an R-4 Zoning District 2. Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Seventeen (17) Building Lots and Two (2) Common Lots on 5.15 Acres of Land in the R-4 Zoning District MEETING NOTES AMR CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET Date: August 18, 2016 Item # Project Number: H-2016-0088 Project Name: Knightsbridge .c Please print your name For Against Neutral Do you wish to testify (Y/N) V\k-k-K �u, v I owf i b W � _4 All C, � Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: August 18,2016 ITEM NUMBER: 4E PROJECT NUMBER: H-2016-0089 ITEM TITLE: Paisley Meadows Public Hearing for Paisley Meadows (H-2016-0089) by Hayden Homes Idaho, LLC Located at 2180 East Amity Road 1. Request: Preliminary Plat Consisting of 75 Building Lots and Six (6) Common Lots on 20.18 Acres of Land in an R-4 Zoning District MEETING NOTES CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Joshua Beach From: Bill Manning <Bill.Manning@live.com> Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 5:06 PM To: Joshua Beach Subject: Bellingham Park Sub Road Plans To Whom it May Concern I am writing to voice my displeasure at the future plans to use Rangewood Way as a through street for construction equipment and when completed for residential traffic. I live fairly close to the Rangewood/Wrightwood corner and for a year now, all I have heard is nothing but construction noise with the building and constant traffic through our sub. I can no longer open my window without the blaring of construction equipment, loud radio, hammering, yelling, etc. Also, not being able to open my window with the consistent dust. I constantly have to clean my outside AC unit as well as change my inside filters more often. My and my families allergies have ramped up as well with the dust being blown. That said, opening up these two streets to allow construction/residential traffic for a new subdivision is something I dread coming. I also fear for the kids in the neighborhood being injured by a construction vehicle driving down Rangewood faster than they need to be. The kids in this neighborhood struggle to pay attention to vehicles when crossing the street, and because of the extremely short driveways, they will ride their bikes/scooters/skateboards into the street without looking. I feel the developer or city needs to have access to the field via Amity. Having more traffic now and even after the development is completed is a inconvenience to the residence of Bellingham. We have one major artery and that is Rangewood to Locust Grove, there is no reason the new sub cannot have their own outlet. Tuscany has one and Estancia has one as well. In Fact, Tuscany has multiple outlets (Eagle, Victory, Locust Grove and Amity) Please leave Bellingham alone. Leave the cul-de-sac as it is and please. Sincerely Bill Manning Bellingham Resident. CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET Date: August 18, 2016 Item # Project Number: Project Name: H-2016-0089 Paisley Meadows Please print your name For Against Neutral Do you wish to testify (Y/N) XS , e VJ � IT x r7-7—DC < Y" Q LEM 0 xJ Y\, v c r G%LJ'a,/`��./ �rELI a P I v {PM1 r. €T CLrKr-,b JOE 1� Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: August 18,2016 ITEM NUMBER: 4F PROJECT NUMBER: H-2016-0093 ITEM TITLE: City Initiated Annexation F'UbliC Hearing tor 2U 16 City initiated Annexation - - y City ot Meridian ACHD Properties - Generally Located Near the Northeast Corner of S. Eagle Road and E. Amity Road; SEC of N. Meridian Road and E. Carmel Drive; East side of N. Ten Mile Road, North of W. Ustick Road; 3955 E. Ustick Road; 2910 W. Franklin Road; and 6175 N. Linder Roadldaho Power Properties - Located at 3275 E. Amity Road, 1635 S. Stoddard Road and 3539 N. Ten Mile RoadBlackrock Subdivision - Generally Located North of E. Lake Hazel Road, Between S. Locust Grove Road and S. Eagle Road City of Meridian Property - Located 3064 W. Malta Drive 1 RPn11PCf' AnnPXnfinn rind 7nninn of AnnrnXimnft-Iv A7 r)n Ar n—z of I nnri with R -A 9.S MEETING NOTES CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Ci t y I n i t i a t e d An n e x a t i o n Pl a n n i n g & Z o n i n g C o m m i s s i o n Au g u s t 1 8 , 2 0 1 6 Pr o j e c t H i s t o r y • L a s t y e a r C i t y C o u n c i l a p p r o v e d a s m a l l b u d g e t f o r a n a n n e x a t i o n pr o j e c t • P u r p o s e : – C l e a n u p a n d p r e v e n t e n c l a v e s – A n n e x t h e B l a c k r o c k s u b d i v i s i o n pe r 2 0 0 5 a g r e e m e n t De s c r i p t i o n o f A p p l i c a t i o n • C a t e g o r y A a n n e x a t i o n • P r o p e r t i e s i n c l u d e : – S i x ( 6 ) A C H D s i t e s ( t h r o u g h o u t Me r i d i a n ) – T h r e e ( 3 ) I d a h o P o w e r s i t e s (t h r o u g h o u t M e r i d i a n ) – B l a c k r o c k S u b d i v i s i o n ( s o u t h Me r i d i a n ) • 4 9 P a r c e l s – O n e ( 1 ) C i t y o f M e r i d i a n s i t e (n o r t h M e r i d i a n ) De s c r i p t i o n o f A p p l i c a t i o n • T o t a l a c r e a g e f o r t h i s a n n e x a t i o n i s a p p r o x i m a t e l y 6 7 a c r e s • L a n d U s e s f o r t h e s e p r o p e r t i e s i n c l u d e : – L D R , M D R , M U - C , C o m m e r c i a l , a n d C i v i c • P r o p o s e d z o n i n g f o r t h e s e p r o p e r t i e s a r e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e a p p l i c a b l e Fu t u r e L a n d U s e s , a n d i n c l u d e : – R - 4 ( 5 3 . 2 5 a c r e s ) – R - 8 ( 1 1 . 6 3 a c r e s ) – C - C ( 2 . 6 1 a c r e s ) Co n s i d e r a t i o n s • S e r v i c e s a n d A s s e s s m e n t I m p a c t s : – U t i l i t y s e r v i c e s ( M e r i d i a n C i t y ) | Sa m e – F i r e S e r v i c e P r o v i d e r ( M e r i d i a n C i t y ) | * Sa m e – P o l i c e S e r v i c e s ( S h e r i f f ) | Ch a n g e (M e r i d i a n C i t y ) – R o a d w a y s ( A C H D ) | Sa m e – S c h o o l s ( W e s t A d a ) | Sa m e – L i b r a r y ( M e r i d i a n L i b r a r y ) | Sa m e – T r a s h S e r v i c e s ( R e p u b l i c ) | Ch a n g e (s t i l l R e p u b l i c ) *T a x i n g d i s t r i c t w i l l n o l o n g e r b e M e r i d i a n R u r a l , bu t s t a t i o n a n d p r o v i d e r r e m a i n s s a m e ( M e r i d i a n C i t y) Ne x t S t e p s • T o n i g h t , C i t y s t a f f a r e r e q u e s t i n g a r e c o m m e n d a t i o n of a p p r o v a l t o M e r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l • G o b e f o r e C i t y C o u n c i l f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n • N e x t y e a r , p o t e n t i a l l y s o m e f u r t h e r m a p c l e a n u p s QU E S T I O N S QU E S T I O N S QU E S T I O N S QU E S T I O N S CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET Date: August 18, 2016 Item # Project Number: Project Name: H-2016-0093 W City Initiated Annexation Please print your name For Against Neutral Do you wish to testify (Y/N) //a ITOF 04 6 CAW CLIERKSF Fi Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: August 18,2016 ITEM NUMBER: 5 PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Ada County 2025 Comprehensive Plan Update Ada County 2025 Comprehensive Plan Update Information by Brian McClure, City of Meridian Planning Department MEETING NOTES CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS