The URL can be used to link to this page

2016 10-20 M ERIDI AN PLANNING AND ZONI NG COM M I SSI ON M EETI NG AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Broadway Avenue M eridian, Idaho T hursday, October 20, 2016 at 6:00 PM Item 1:Roll-Call Attendance __X___ Patrick Oliver __X___ Rhonda McCarvel __X___ Gregory Wilson __X___ Ryan Fitzgerald __O___ Steven Yearsley - Chairman Item 2:Adoption of Agenda Item 3:Consent Agenda A.Approve M inutes of October 6, 2016 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Approved B.Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval For Twelve Oaks (H-2016-0100) by Twelve Oaks, LLC Located at 1845 W Franklin Road Approved Item 4:Action Items A.Public Hearing Continued from 10/6/16 for Paramount Director (H- 2016-0104) by Brighton Investments / Land Holdings Located Southwest Corner of W. Chinden Boulevar d and N. M eridian Road 1. Request: Rezone of 37.31 Acres of Land from the C-C and TN- C Zoning Districts to the R-15 Zoning Districts 2. Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of 196 Building Lots, 12 Common Area Lots and 2 Future Right-of -Way Lots on 35.63 Acres of Land in the R-15 Zoning District Recommend Approval to City Council - Scheduled for November 15, 2016 City Council Meeting B.Public Hearing for Bannock Ridge (H-2016-0113) by Lee Gientke Located 2940, 3101 and 3155 S. M esa Way 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 9.42 Acres of Land with an R- 4 Zoning District 2. Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Thirty-Five (35) Building Lots and Four (4) Common Lots on 13.57 Acres of Land in an R-4 Zoning District Public Hearing Continued to November 3, 2016 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting C.Public Hearing for Linder Road Apartments (H-2016-0111) by S 3 Investments LP, Located at 1770 S. Linder Road 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 4.55 Acres of Land with an R- 15 Zoning District 2. Request: Conditional Use Permit f or a Multi-Family Development in the R-15 Zoning District Consisting of Sixty-Four (64) Dwelling Units Recommend Approval to City Council - Scheduled for November 15, 2016 City Council Meeting D.Public Hearing for Citadel 4 Storage Ten M ile (H-2016-0114) by Citadel Storage, LLC Located 4015 N. Ten M ile Road 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 9.97 Acres of Land with an I-L Zoning District Recommend Approval to City Council with Modifications - Scheduled f or November 15, 2016 City Council Meeting E.Public Hearing for 2016 UDC Text Admendment (H-2016-0118) By M eridian Planning Division 1. Request: Text Amendment to the Unified Development Code (UDC) as follows: UDC Sections, Definitions; Density Requirements in the Residential Districts; Traditional Neighborhood Standards (TN-R and O-T Districts); Ditches, Laterals, Canals or Drainage Courses; Fencing; Pathways; Structure and Site Design Standards; Landscaping Requirements (Stormwater Facilities); Common Open Space and Site Amenities Requirements; Specific Provisions (Certif icate of Zoning Compliance, Annexation and Rezones and Alternative Compliance); Subdivision Process; and Subdivision Design and Improvement Standards (Block Length and Common Driveways) Recommend Approval to City Council - Scheduled for November 15, 2016 City Council Meeting Meeting Adjourned at 7:25PM Changes to Agenda:. • Item #46: Bannock Ridge —AZ, PP (H-2016-0113) —Applicant requests continuance to November -3rd Item #4A: Paramount Director (H-2016-0104) Application(s): ➢ Rezone ➢ Preliminary Plat ➢ Development Agreement Modification (does not require Commission action) Size of property, existing zoning, and location: The subject property consists of 35.63 acres of land zoned C -C & TN -C, located at the SWC of W. Chinden Blvd. & N. Meridian Road. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: North: W. Chinden Blvd., agricultural and commercial land, zoned MU -DA in Ada County South: W. Director Street & SFR properties, zoned R-8 East: N. Meridian Road & a church, zoned RUT in Ada County West: N. Fox Run Way & SFR properties, zoned R-8; and an assisted living facility, zoned C -C History: This property was annexed in 2013 and a modification to the DA for the larger Paramount development was approved to include the annexation area in the existing DA. A preliminary plat was approved earlier this year for Paramount North Forty. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MU -C (26 acres) & MDR (15 acres) Summary of Request: A rezone of 37.31 acres of land from the C -C & TN -C zoning districts to the R-15 zoning district is proposed for the development of 196 SFR attached units consistent with the associated MU -C & MDR FLUM designations for this site. An amendment to the existing DA is also proposed that will update the development plan for this site. A preliminary plat is proposed that consists of 196 building lots, 12 common area lots & 2 future ROW lots on 35.63 acres of land in the proposed R-15 zoning district. Two different types of single-family attached structures are proposed within this development. The Encore units are an age qualified 55+ single -story attached product configured in quads with shared driveways and side -entry garages located on the western portion of the development consisting of 98 units. The Cadence units are a 2 -story, attached product with side -entry garages accessed from shared driveways located on the eastern portion of the development consisting of 98 units. All development is required to comply with the dimensional standards of the R-15 district. The applicant has submitted an exhibit for each of the unit types that depict building footprint, setbacks, common driveways and off- street parking. The rear setback for the Encore units that back up to common area needs to be extended from 3' to a minimum of 12'; and the parking pad for the Cadence units does not meet the minimum dimensional standards for the 2 off-street parking spaces per unit that are required which makes the development short 196 off-street parking spaces. The plat and/or unit types will need to be revised to comply with the minimum setback and parking standards; or, the applicant may submit an application for Alternative Compliance to the parking standards. Access is proposed via N. Fox Run Way, a collector street, which was previously approved with the DA and PP for Paramount North Forty and is shared with the assisted living facility to the west. Two accesses are proposed via W. Director St., a collector street. Direct lot access is not proposed or approved via W. Chinden Blvd. or N. Meridian Rd. Common lots are proposed along Chinden & Meridian for future ROW for expansion of these streets. Common/shared driveways are proposed throughout the development for access to the units. A total of 8.63 acres (or 24.2%) of qualified open space is proposed. Proposed site amenities consist of a swimming pool & clubhouse in the Encore portion of the development; and a swimming pool with a restroom facility, tot lot, and associated parking area in the Cadence portion. A 10' wide multi -use pathway is proposed along Chinden & Meridian in accord with the Pathways Master Plan. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for each of the 2 types of attached units (Cadence & Encore). Building materials consist of 2 different types of materials with stone veneer accents. The applicant states there are 2 different Encore floor plans —1 for the front units and 1 for the rear units with elevation variations; and 1 floor plan for the Cadence units with a few differences between the back- to-back units, primarily on the first floor. All attached structures are required to comply with the residential design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting October 20, 2016 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of October 20, 2016, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Vice-Chairman Patrick Oliver. Members Present: Chairman Steven Yearsley, Commissioner Patrick Oliver, Commissioner Ryan Fitzgerald and Commissioner Gregory Wilson. Members Absent: Commissioner Rhonda McCarvel. Others Present: Machelle Hill, Andrea Pogue, Bill Parsons, Josh Beach and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call __X___ Gregory Wilson __X__ Patrick Oliver __X _ Rhonda McCarvel __X__ Ryan Fitzgerald _____ Steven Yearsley - Chairman Oliver: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. At this time I would like to call to order the regularly scheduled meeting for the Planning and Zoning Commission for October 20th, 2016. Let's begin with roll call. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda Oliver: Next we will begin with the adoption of the agenda. We have the approval of minutes for October 6, 2016, and the fact and findings, conclusions of law for approval for the Twelve Oaks, H-2016-0100. Do I have a motion? McCarvel: Mr. Chairman, I move we adopt the Consent Agenda. Oliver: We have a motion to adopt. Do we have a second? Wilson: Second. Oliver: It's been moved and seconded that we adopt the agenda. All in favor say aye. Opposed say nay. Pogue: Mr. Chair, just a point of -- Oliver: Yes. Pogue: With regards to number two -- Oliver: Yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 20, 2016 Page 2 of 31 Pogue: We wanted to clarify for Item Action 4-C that the file number is incorrect on the public agenda and make the correction -- correct your agenda when you adopt it. So, we need a motion to correct that. Oliver: Thank you. Pogue: Then move forward to adopt it. Oliver: So, looking at Item C, public hearing for Linder Road Apartments originally was H-2016-0118. It should H-2016-0111. So, I need a motion to approve? McCarvel: Mr. Chairman? Oliver: Go ahead. McCarvel: I move that we adopt the agenda as noted. Oliver: Commissioner McCarvel has moved to adopt -- Wilson: Second. Oliver: Second. All in favor say aye. Opposed say nay. It has been adopted. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 3: Consent Agenda A. Approve Minutes of October 6, 2016 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval For Twelve Oaks (H-2016-0100) by Twelve Oaks, LLC Located at 1845 W Franklin Road Oliver: Okay. Slow down. Okay. Moving on to the Consent Agenda, which will be the -- the minutes and the fact finding and conclusions of law for Twelve Oaks. Do I have a motion to approve the Consent Agenda? McCarvel: Mr. Chairman? Oliver: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I move that we adopt the Consent Agenda as presented. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 20, 2016 Page 3 of 31 Wilson: Second. Oliver: It's been moved and seconded. All in favor say aye. Opposed say nay. It is approved. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 4: Action Items B. Public Hearing for Bannock Ridge (H-2016-0113) by Lee Gientke Located 2940, 3101 and 3155 S. Mesa Way 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 9.42 Acres of Land with an R-4 Zoning District 2. Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Thirty-Five (35) Building Lots and Four (4) Common Lots on 13.57 Acres of Land in an R-4 Zoning District Oliver: Okay. Moving onto the Action Items. The agenda for tonight. I'd like to first start out by talking about continuances. We have one item that it will be continued -- we have asked to be continued, which is B, public hearing for Bannock Ridge, H-2016-0113. That is being asked to move from tonight to November 3rd. Do I have a motion to accept? Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman, I would make a motion that we -- are we opening the public hearing on this and, then, I can make a motion? Oliver: Yes. Fitzgerald: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I would move that move H-2016-0113, Bannock Ridge, to the hearing date of 11/3 -- or November 3rd. McCarvel: Second. Oliver: Okay. The public hearing for Item H-2016-0113 has been approved and seconded to be moved to November 3rd, 2016. With that said all in favor say aye. And opposed say nay. That is approved. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Oliver: Okay. Before we begin I just want to talk a little bit about how this works for tonight, as we have a lot of people sitting in front of us. We will start with opening each item. We will have the staff report and findings regarding how the item adheres to our Comprehensive Plan and Uniform Development Code with staff recommendations. Then the applicant will come forward to present their Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 20, 2016 Page 4 of 31 case for approval for their application and respond to any staff comments. The applicant will have up to 15 minutes to do so. Any public testimony will, then, follow. There is a sign-up sheet at the back as you enter. Anyone wishing to testify may. Any person testifying will come forward and would be allowed three minutes. If they are speaking for a larger group, like an HOA and there is a show of hands to represent the group, they will be given up to ten minutes. After all the testimony has been heard the applicant will have an opportunity to respond if they desire. They have another ten minutes to do so. Then we will close the public hearing for that item. The Commission will have the opportunity to discuss and, hopefully, be able to make a recommendation to the City Council. A. Public Hearing Continued from 10/6/16 for Paramount Director (H- 2016-0104) by Brighton Investments / Land Holdings Located Southwest Corner of W. Chinden Boulevard and N. Meridian Road 1. Request: Rezone of 37.31 Acres of Land from the C- C and TN-C Zoning Districts to the R-15 Zoning Districts 2. Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of 196 Building Lots, 12 CommonArea Lots and 2 Future Right-of-Way Lots on 35.63 Acres of Land in the R-15 Zoning District Oliver: At this time I would like to open the public hearing for Item 2016-0104 public hearing continued from 10/6/16 for Paramount Director. With that could we have the staff report. Allen: Thank you, Chairman, Members of the Commission. The applications before you are a request for a rezone and a preliminary plat. There is also a development agreement modification, but it does not require Commission action. The subject property consists 35.63 acres of land. It's zoned C-C and TN-C and is located at the southwest corner of West Chinden Boulevard and North Meridian Road. Adjacent land use and zoning. To the north is West Chinden Boulevard, State Highway 20/26. Across that is agricultural and commercial land, zoned MU, DA in Ada County. To the south is West Director Street and single-family residential properties in Paramount Subdivision, zoned R-8. To the east as North Meridian Road and a church zoned RUT in Ada county. And to the west is North Fox Run Way, a collector street, and single-family residential properties, zoned R-8 and an assisted living facility zoned C-C that is currently under construction. This property was annexed in 2013 and a modification to the development agreement for the larger Paramount development was approved to include the annexation area in the existing development agreement. A preliminary plat was approved earlier this year that included the sub ject property Paramount North 40. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 20, 2016 Page 5 of 31 for this property is -- the northern 26 acres is designated mixed-use community and the southern 15 acres is designated medium density residential. The rezone of 37.31 acres of land from the C-C and TN-C zoning districts to the R-15 zoning district is proposed for the development of 196 single family residential attached units, consistent with the associated future land use map designations for this site. An amendment to the existing development agreement is also proposed that will update the development plan for this site . A preliminary plat is proposed as shown that consists of 196 building lots, 12 common area lots, and two future right-of-way lots on 35.63 acres of land in the proposed R-15 zoning district. The proposed phasing plan is shown there on your left. Two different types of single- family attached structures are proposed within this development . The Encore units are shown there on your left. They are an age qualified 55 and older single story attached product configured in quads with shared driveways and side entry garages, located on the western portion of the development , consisting of 98 total units. The Cadence units shown on the right are a two story attached project -- product with side entry garages accessed from shared driveways, located on the eastern portion of the development, also consisting of 98 units. All development is required to comply with the dimensional standards of the R-15 district. The applicant has submitted an exhibit for each of the unit types as shown that depicts the building footprint, setbacks, common driveways and off- street parking. The rear setbacks for the Encore units that back up to a common area is showing at three feet. It actually needs to be extended to a minimum of 12 feet in the rear and the parking pad for the Cadence units does not meet the minimum dimensional standards for the two off -street parking spaces per unit that are required, which makes the development short 196 off -street parking spaces. The plat and/or unit types will need to be revised to comply with the minimum setback and parking standards or the applicant may submit an application for alternative compliance to the parking standards. Access is proposed via North Fox Run Way, a collector street, and that, if you can see my pointer here, is the road going right up here. This access was previously approved with the development agreement and the preliminary plat for Paramount North 40 and is shared with the assisted living facility to the west. Two accesses are proposed via Director Street, a collector street, and that is this street right here. This is one access. This is another. Direct lot access is not proposed or approved via West Chinden Boulevard or North Meridian Road. Common lots are proposed along Chinden and Meridian for future right of way for expansion of these streets. Common shared driveways are proposed throughout the development for access to the units. A total 8.63 acres or 24.2 percent of qualified open space is proposed. Proposed site amenities consist of a swimming pool and clubhouse in the Encore portion of the development and a swimming pool with a restroom facility, tot lot, and associated parking area in the Cadence portion. A ten foot wide multi-use pathway is proposed along Chinden and Meridian in accord with the pathways master plan . This is the proposed landscape plan for the site. As you can see here, the swimming pool and clubhouse and, then, the swimming pool over here and restroom facilities. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for each of the two types of Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 20, 2016 Page 6 of 31 attached units a shown, the Cadence and Encore. Building materials consist of two different types of materials with stone veneer accents. The applicant states that there are two different Encore floor plans and one for the front unit s and one for the rear units with elevation variations and one floor plan for the Cadence units with a few differences between the back -to-back units primarily on the first floor. All attached structures are required to comply with the residential design standards listed in the architectural standards manual. Written testimony has been received from Mike Wardle, the applicant's representative, in response -- in agreement with the staff report. Staff is recommending approval with the conditions in Exhibit B of the staff report. Staff will stand for any questions. Oliver: Are there any questions for the staff by the Commission? McCarvel: Not yet. Oliver: Seeing none, could we have the applicant come forward? State your name and address, please. Wardle: Yes, Mr. Chairman, Commission Members. Mike Wardle, Brighton Corporation, 12601 West Explorer Drive in Boise. Appreciate Sonya's work. In fact, this represents a lot of work. We had a lot of discussions over time on the issues and, in fact, we -- we do concur with the conditions recommended by Sonya. There were two specific items and I -- in a moment I'm going to run through the -- just a few clarifying slides. But the setback issue with Encore is really not a problem, because it abuts common area. So, it's the same space, it's just whether it's in a lot or whether it's in a common area. So, that's an adjustment that we will make at final plat. With regard to the Cadence parking issue, we have had a lot of discussion on that matter. Condition 1.2.3C it says, basically, we either reconfigure or we find a way to provide alternative compliance. We will work through that process. That condition is acceptable, because, essentially, that means that we will have the same product. It will have the same general configuration, but very likely when we get to a final plat there will be fewer units. There will be, obviously, some -- some loss, but we will work through that, because there is still some design tweaks that we have to do on the units themselves, so we will see how that all configures, but I would expect that by the time we get to City Council we will have a fairly good idea. But I just want to stress that the product and everything will remain the same. The slide that's up basically shows that area and I -- the only thing that I wanted to stress is that this -- just to the west of the Veranda assisted living complex now under construction, remains the only parcel in the entire Paramount community that has not yet been planned or detailed and it's part of, actually, the -- there will be some commercial use that will take place there in the future . We do not have a plan for it at this point. But this really represents the last of the residential components of Paramount and kind of excited, because when it all boils down there will be some 1,700 units in this square mile, but with an elementary school, with a high school, with a lot of parks, a lot of commercial. It will be a fairly complete community and Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 20, 2016 Page 7 of 31 it's been a long time coming. It's 13 years in process. So, we are -- we are excited that we are at this point. Sonya, I thought I knew how to -- there we go. Just a little bit of a simple schematic that shows the separation between the two . With the -- the Cadence product, a two story townhome community as we term it, it's -- Sonya's staff report talked about attached single family and that's, you know, a distinction without much difference, but it's a family type of a community and, thus, the swimming pool complex associated with that one is for the broader community. On the Encore side of that facility, the pool and clubhouse, will be for that community itself. There will not be interchange between the two. And, of course, that product for the age qualified abuts the assisted living. So, it could be a transition use over time. I pushed the wrong -- Sonya, the buttons are not pushing. Again, Sonya showed this, but it just shows the single story configuration of the Encore age qualified community and the area that is subject to the condition is that row of single lots along the east-west street to the north. That's where we will have to expand from three feet to nine feet at the back, but it will go into that common area. There will still be room for the pathway and one other condition that staff has recommended is that there be a pathway north- south through the little common area just to the west of that row to kind of tie in and allow people to get back in there without having to go around the street system. Next slide is simply showing a product or -- in Boise. There are two communities in Boise that actually have the same configuration. They are paired units in a quad configuration and have the same type of parking arrangement and there is sufficient on-site parking to meet all of the requirements of the code without any issues. So, just -- that's an example. And, again, with Cadence, the two-story structures with the -- the pairing on the common wall and the garage doors are, basically, side entry garages at the face on that first floor level and, then, the next slide simply shows how the quad configuration of Encore and the paired configuration of Cadence work. And, of course, it's that latter one that we will be working on the parking situation to resolve that condition requirement of 1.2.3C. So, with that, Mr. Chairman, Commission Members, I would answer any questions that you have, but we are excited about this. It just adds a -- a little bit of a different character in terms of the offerings, because, primarily, Paramount is a single family community. We do have apartments that will be coming forth shortly at the southeast corner of that section, which was approved a year or so ago. But this is a new offering, a new opportunity, and a little bit of -- the opportunity to kind of share the demographic makeup of the community with some new product line. So, happy to answer your questions. Oliver: Commissioners, do you have any questions? McCarvel: No. Oliver: I would just like to make a quick statement, is that I think it's a nice transition to have the 55 and older and that , yet, having the multi-development on the right side there that makes it a nice transition. I'm glad to hear that you're Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 20, 2016 Page 8 of 31 willing to fix the parking situation. So, when that finally gets the final look at it it will be fixed. So, with that I think it's a good plan. It works well. Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman. Mike, is there -- what they are -- kind of your example is the Orchard kind of what you're using that quad -- Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Fitzgerald, yes. Fitzgerald: Okay. Wardle: That is -- that is the same -- Fitzgerald: Perfect. Thank you. Wardle: -- configuration. Oliver: Commission, any further questions? Thank you. Wardle: Thank you. Oliver: At this time we have two people signed up to testify. We have Elizabeth Davis. Would you like to come up and testify? Please. When you come up to the microphone, please, give us your name and address. Davis: So, my name is Elizabeth Davis and I live at 115 Bacall Drive, which is very near parts of these images that were displayed by Mr. Wardle. We moved into Paramount in April -- yeah, in April and we love it. We love our neighborhood. We love our community. We love our children's school. We feel like with the more high-density housing at the southeast and the southwest corners of Paramount, we don't feel like there is a big need for more higher density multi-family living in our neighborhood. Like I said, we -- we love it. We are not at all opposed to the assisted living and really not to the 55 and up . That seems, you know, appropriate for people who are looking to retire and that model has been, you know, used it sounds like in other parts of town. We are not thrilled with the Cadence, kind of the multi-family townhomes. We feel, like I said, like we already have -- within our square mile we have other areas where there is high-density options, so we don't feel like there needs to be another. Oliver: Thank you. Davis: Uh-huh. Oliver: I also have Brian Davis. Would you like to come up and testify? Once again give your name and address for the record. B.Davis: So, Brian Davis. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 20, 2016 Page 9 of 31 Oliver: Address. B.Davis: Oh, sorry. 115 West Bacall. Oliver: Thank you. B.Davis: So, similar to what my wife has stated. The other thing is before we moved in we were renting, you know, in the Paramount neighborhood. I would prefer, you know, to keep the single housing model that -- that we have in the neighborhood there, which is right next to us to -- for the following reason. I feel like -- you know, when we were renting we took care of the house and everything, but we weren't as invested in the community. What I'm a little bit afraid of is -- is that they will be lower-priced houses and become, you know, bought up by say investors or something, the townhomes, and -- and turned into more of a rental-type situation and just -- when you're renting you're just not as invested in the community and that's all I had to share. Oliver: Thank you. I don't have anyone else signed up to testify. Is there anyone else that would like to testify in this hearing? Seeing none, Mr. Wardle, would you like to come back up? Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Commission Members, the density of this project in terms of gross in the range of six units per acre. This is not high density, nor is it multi-family. It's just a different configuration of a single-family home which affords a little bit of a different -- and the comment was made about lower price units. I don't expect these to be low priced units. The character and quality of what we anticipate doing is -- will be consistent with the community as a whole. Pardon me. Just a -- so, we -- we ask for your recommendation for approval of the rezone and of the preliminary plat, knowing that this will be done -- just a different character of housing, but not an impact on the neighborhood, because it will be consistent with what already exists. Thank you. Oliver: Thank you. Commissioners, do you have any other questions for the applicant? Okay. At this time we have no other testimonies, could I get a motion to close the public hearing? Fitzgerald: Wait a minute. Mr. Chairman, you have one more person that -- Oliver: Somebody came in. Is there anybody else to testify on this first item for the Paramount Director -- no? Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman, I would move we close the public hearing. Oliver: We have a motion to close. Do we have a second? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 20, 2016 Page 10 of 31 McCarvel: Second. Oliver: We have a motion and a second to close. All in favor say aye. Opposed say nay. Okay. The hearing is closed. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Oliver: Discussion? Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman? Oliver: Mr. Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: I -- I think this is a great closure for this neighborhood. As you already pointed out, I think the -- the transition from the Veranda assisted living facility into the over 55 neighborhood is great. I think that hard corner -- putting a little bit of density in that corner kind of matches what the original plan for Paramount is. I think this is a neighborhood that could be modeled in a lot of places. If we had a square mile -- and Brighton's done an exceptional job of laying this out and pulling the vision that they had originally kind of coming to fruition and so I think it's great. I think the additional product that isn't apartments and it isn't -- you know, I guess a four-plex if you will, it's more of a -- that Orchards higher end style, but it's still attached product, I think it's something that's necessary and I think it's a great place for it and so I am in support . Oliver: Thank you. McCarvel: Mr. Chairman? Oliver: Mrs. McCarvel. McCarvel: Yeah. I think I'm in favor of this as well. It looks like a good product and, like he said, it's not even really high density, it's more of a medium and that corner would be right for it as well and I think the whole thing is a nice transition , as long as the applicant and staff both feel like they can work out the parking space issue I think there is no problem in moving forward with it. Oliver: Thank you. Wilson: Mr. Chairman? Oliver: Mr. Wilson. Wilson: I'm also in favor. I think the houses look good. I think the configuration is interesting and a good fit for the -- for the area and -- and I will also be supporting this. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 20, 2016 Page 11 of 31 Oliver: Thank you. As I said before, I think it -- it works. I think it will be a nice transition and as long as they are willing to meet compliance with the parking situation and that will come forward on their next draft before , I think that it works well. So, I think it's a good plan. Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman, I think I applaud the applicant for, you know, saying that they are willing to lose some lots to come in to where staff want it to be to meet the code requirements, so I appreciate that. And I also appreciate the fact that you have two major amenities that are pretty close to each other inside of this community. So, I think it's -- it's an addition that's a positive. Oliver: Just a nice way to finish up the whole development. Fitzgerald: Exactly. Oliver: Any other discussion? If not, I need a motion, if we could get one. Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman? Oliver: Mr. Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number H-2016-0104 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 20th. McCarvel: Second. Oliver: It's been moved and seconded that we accept the H-2016-0104 for Paramount Director. All in favor say aye. Opposed say nay. It's accepted. Thank you, Mr. Wardle. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Wardle: Thank you. C. Public Hearing for Linder Road Apartments (H-2016- 0118) by S 3 Investments LP, Located at 1770 S. Linder Road 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 4.55 Acres of Land with an R-15 Zoning District 2. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a Multi-Family Development in the R-15 Zoning District Consisting of Sixty-Four (64) Dwelling Units Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 20, 2016 Page 12 of 31 Oliver: Moving on to Item C, which would be the public hearing for Linder Road Apartments, H-2016-0118. We will begin with the staff report. Allen: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, the next applications are a request for annexation and zoning and a conditional use permit. This property is located on the east side of South Linder Road, just south of West Overland Road. This property is zoned RUT in Ada County. Adjacent land use and zoning. To the north is vacant undeveloped property zoned RUT in Ada County. To the east is rural residential and indoor-outdoor entertainment facilities, Idaho Party Barn, zoned R-8. To the south are future single family residential homes in Fall Creek Subdivision, zoned R-8. And to the west is South Linder Road and future commercial uses, zoned C-C. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation for this site is medium density residential. The applicant is requesting a step up in density to medium high density residential without an amendment to the future land use map as allowed by the Comprehensive Plan, with approval by Council. The applicant proposes to annex and zone 4.55 acres of land with an R-15 zoning district consistent with the requested step up in density to medium high density residential. The proposed density of 14.71 units per acre is consistent with that allowed in the R -15 district. A conditional use permit is also requested for a multi-family development consisting of 63 dwelling units in an R-15 zoning district. The site plan before you depicts 16 four-plex structures that contain 63 two-bedroom units and a management office. Access is proposed via South Linder Road. ACHD is restricting the access to a right-in, right-out and is requiring additional right of way that is not reflected on the plat. The fire department is requiring an emergency turn around to be provided at the southeast corner of the site down in this area here and the applicant has submitted a revised plan as shown here that shows the turnaround . A ten foot wide multi-use pathway is required along Linder Road in accord with the pathways master plan. Staff recommends pathway connections are stubbed to the north and the east property boundaries for future pedestrian interconnectivity. A total of 1.99 acres or 44.6 percent of qualified open space along with site amenities consisting of large open grassy areas, a covered barbecue area, a tot lot, a sports court, bicycle maintenance station and a segme nt of the city's multi- use pathway are proposed in accord with UDC standards. Two types of multi- family structures are proposed within this development as shown. Building materials consist of a mix of horizontal and vertical siding with stone veneer accents. The two building types appear to be identical, except that they have different roof forms. Variety in the architectural character, the structures and design, should be provided as set forth in the architectural standards manual. Windows are required on all of the elevations that face pathways and areas used for children's recreation to allow views of these areas. All structures on the site are subject to design review. Written testimony was received from Kent Brown, the applicant's representative, in agreement with the staff report. Staff is recommending approval with the conditions in Exhibit B of the report. Staff will stand for any questions. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 20, 2016 Page 13 of 31 Oliver: Commissioners, do you have any questions? Seeing none, could I have the applicant come forward. State your name and address for the record. Brown: For the record Kent Brown, 3161 East Springwood, Meridian, Idaho. As I started looking at this site initially one of the thoughts came to me is it's a lot like the intersection at Locust Grove and Overland Road. I did those apartments right there next to Mountain View High School when it went in . It was a lot in the configuration. It is planned for Linder to eventually go over the freeway and so this would be very similar in the -- in that aspect, the apartments behind all of these other uses that are there. In the design of the development with the drawing that's on the screen we are required to have a 15 foot setback. We are 20 plus on any of the exterior boundaries next to any of our neighbors . Had a neighborhood meeting. Only had one neighbor show up and wanted to know why he couldn't do the same thing on his property. He said that he had been trying to put these properties together to do a similar type of thing . Then I got a phone call from the Party Barn and they mentioned some concern in our southeast corner that south of their existing house where they live , that area they have receptions and so forth back in that area and so we made accommodations for them and moved one of the buildings that we had in that area and moved it across the parking lot and squoze it into where all of those other amenities are. As you look at that, that -- what that does for our design is -- we are not adjacent to any of the other buildings that are adjacent to us at all . We are north of where that house is with -- with any of our buildings backing up. He has a parking lot. Even before we have started he's been preparing doing a berm between his parking lot and our property. The bare brown space to the north of us is a Meridian fire station site that the Meridian fire department currently owns. The design with the cluster in the center, having all of those amenities that are readily available to everyone internal, I think it makes it a short distance. In between on this -- how do I make this work? Push the arrow? Allen: Pick a color. Brown: Color. Okay. Allen: And hopefully it will work. Brown: This area right in here -- Allen: I'm sorry, Kent. That board hasn't been working very good. Brown: Well, you can see it on this one on the site plan and on the landscape plan. We have an extra wide width in between the second and third building with a sidewalk going through there. We have got a 30 foot width. We have 20 feet in between all of the other buildings, which, again, creates that open space that we don't normally have the ability do in the apartments. We even have more space between where the buildings are and the parking areas is that in many of Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 20, 2016 Page 14 of 31 the projects that I have been able to do in the past. And overall I think the design works really well for this area. I think that when we have done some of these before we have received comments that they need to be closer to busier roads and that's what this one -- this one does. Go to the one with the change. So, the fire department was concerned that we go too long to the south in that -- in that leg. We have provided to turn around in here. That dropped us a couple of parking stalls. I believe that between now -- just because we didn't have a whole lot of time to make those changes, since those -- those comments came Tuesday, that we can even pick those two parking stalls back up before we go to City Council and we would have the same 130 that we originally started with, which has over two -- two parking places per unit and I think our design works really well and would stand for any questions you might have. Oliver: Commissioners, do you have any questions? McCarvel: Mr. Chairman. Kent, is that -- I'm sure it is. There is a canal running to the south of that; right? Brown: There is a couple of small ditches. It's not a canal. They are -- actually, you could jump over those ditches. But there is two ditches in that area, so that it is a water area and there is a road -- to the south of us is the Fall Creek Subdivision and their entrance goes way down and up in this pointed end is a cul-de-sac is what's to the south of us. McCarvel: So, those are just small ditches that -- I am sorry if I missed it in there. Is that proposed to be piped, then, if it's small ditches or is it just left -- Brown: They are not on our property. McCarvel: Okay. They are not -- Brown: We have fencing on our -- our boundary, but they are not on our property. McCarvel: Right. Okay. Oliver: Any other questions? Seeing none, thank you. Brown: Thank you. Oliver: Looking at the testimony sign-up sheet I have nothing for Linder Road Apartments. Is there anyone that would like to testify? Seeing none -- Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman? Oliver: Mr. Fitzgerald. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 20, 2016 Page 15 of 31 Fitzgerald: I move that we close the public hearing on H-2016-011. McCarvel: Second. Wilson: Second. Oliver: We have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on H-2016- 0111. All in favor say aye. Opposed say nay. Motion is closed. Or public hearing is closed at this time. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Oliver: So, any comments? McCarvel: Mr. Chairman? Oliver: Mrs. McCarvel. McCarvel: I think it's just fine. I would be okay with raising the zoning there. It's a small area and it is going to be a five lane road with an overpass in the future and it's just an intersection and it's begging for more apartments. There is similar stuff across -- you know, bigger apartments across the street and with that little space of land there, I think it's a fine use. Wilson: Mr. Chair? Oliver: Mr. Wilson. Wilson: I agree. I think it looks good. I think it fits the area very well. I think the amenities look nice. I think it looks like a nice complex and I will be supporting it. Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman? Oliver: Mr. Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: I agree and I appreciate Mr. Brown and -- working with the surrounding landowners to maneuver some things to make it -- or make it work for them as well. So, I think it -- it looks good and it's -- it's well situated, so -- Oliver: And I agree with everybody -- what everybody else said is that I really think it's an excellent place to put apartments, especially when we already have apartments like Commissioner Fitzgerald -- or Commissioner McCarvel said is that -- we have got them right up there by the freeway. Perfect place to put them. So, I think -- I think it would be a well-designed project and would look very well there, so I'm in favor as well. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 20, 2016 Page 16 of 31 Pogue: Mr. Chair, just a point in making your motion you have final authority for the CUP, so -- Oliver: Okay. Parsons: Sorry, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This conditional use permit does accompany an annexation request, so it -- you are just making a recommendation on a conditional use permit application. So, Council will be the final decision maker on that. Pogue: Okay. Thank you for your clarification. I was wondering. S o, thank you for clearing that up. Wilson: Mr. Chairman? Oliver: Mr. Wilson. Wilson: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I recommend -- I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number H-2016-0111 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 20th , 2016. Fitzgerald: Second. Oliver: I have a motion and second to approve H-2016-0011 -- 0111. With that said, all in favor say aye. Opposed say nay. Motion approved. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. D. Public Hearing for Citadel 4 Storage Ten Mile (H-2016- 0114) by Citadel Storage, LLC Located 4015 N. Ten Mile Road 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 9.97 Acres of Land with an I-L Zoning District Oliver: Okay. I'm going to the last public hearing for the Citadel 4 Storage on Ten Mile. H-2016-0114 by Citadel Storage. We will begin with staff report. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. I'm actually filling in for Josh this evening, so I will probably do a stellar job like Josh would do if he was here, so bear with me as we come up to speed here for you . The application before you this evening is for an annexation of approximately 9.97 acres of land to the I-L zoning district. It's currently RUT in Ada county. The property is currently -- has some structures on it that will be removed upon development of the property if it is annexed into the city. To the north here we Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 20, 2016 Page 17 of 31 have the Ada county residential properties zoned RUT. East we have North Ten Mile Road and single-family homes being developed in the Isla Creek Subdivision. To the south is a single family home and vacant Ada county property zoned RUT. One thing to note with the property to the south, it is, actually, developed with single family residences, but, believe it or not, the -- there a self-storage facility just farther south of these two lots and it is owned by the same entity that owns the developed storage facility that abuts this property. So, just for the record, even though they are single family homes there, it is, again, owned by another competitor or another storage facility company. So, I would imagine in the future that staff will see an annexation at some point for another -- for additional storage in the area. But I at least wanted to share that with the Commission this evening. And, then, to the west, again, we have the sewer treatment plant and, then, also -- or that vacant property that, again, may -- has the potential to develop with self storage units in the future as well. The applicant, again, is here -- or, excuse me, the Comprehensive Plan for this property is currently zoned mixed-use nonresidential. So, under that designation we do not envision having any residential component as part of the plan , but we -- our Comprehensive Plan does envision having a minimum of two types of land uses. If you see what's happening around that area, we have a commercial node to the south there at Ustick and Ten Mile, which is developing with a mix of commercial uses. As I stated to you, we have single family across the street being developed in the area and we also have a city park planned and , then, we have the wastewater treatment plant that currently is ongoing and having upgrades to that facility. So, in looking at the surrounding area and knowing that there is a larger mixed use designation in the area, even though this project is a single -- single use at this time, the city does envision additional uses occurring -- or developing in this area. So, staff is amenable to this property developing with just the self storage facility. So, the applicant is here to -- again, this is just an annexation, but they have provided a conceptual development plan , which they are proposing to develop the site in two phases. The red square that's before you this evening shows what will -- will encompass phase one and, then, phase two will be the eastern -- or the western portion of the site. Keep in mind that the final design of this facility will be required to go through design review -- CZC and design review with the city, which is a staff level approval. So, for tonight's discussion all we are focused on is, basically, annexation with an I-L zoning designation. Per the UDC the applicant is required to provide a 25 foot wide landscape buffer along Ten Mile Road, which is designated an arterial roadway. You can see on the submitted concept plan that the applicant is proposing an access off at Ten Mile Road. The dimensional standards for the I-L zoning district require that any structures have a 35 foot wide setback. So, the concept plan that's before you this evening depicts a 30 foot -- a 35 foot wide landscape buffer, but code only requires a 25 foot. One of staff's DA provisions that we are recommending as part of this project was we had originally required that the applicant provide cross-access to the property -- construct a drive -- a 20 foot wide cross-access driveway along the frontage of this property to tie into the property to the north and the property to the south. If the Commission recalls, we Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 20, 2016 Page 18 of 31 had a similar project in a similar -- similar condition with the Citadel 3 project off of Amity and Meridian Road. We agreed at that time with the applicant that if that property didn't develop with a storage facility, then, cross-access would be provided and so our recommendation this evening is that you modify that DA provision tonight, which is 1.1.1D, I believe, and just, basically, add that language if it does develop with a self-storage facility, then, cross-access should be provided. The applicant did provide some conceptual elevations as well as part of the annexation request. Again, similar building materials as to what you saw on the previous three versions of this. I think they are adding a little bit different office structure, which is approximately 1,156 square feet. Parking for self- storage facilities are only predicated on square footage of the office building , so at the most you will see as far as parking for this site will be three parking stalls per the UDC standards. So, it's -- actually, it's one per 2,000 square feet, since it's -- they are requesting the I-L zoning district. So, all that's going to be required for that office building would be one parking stall per the UDC and the applicant has accommodated that. The other item that I'd like to bring to your attention is -- as I mentioned to you earlier in my presentation is although we know the ownership, south of this site is owned and held by a future -- or a competitor for an additional self-storage facility. There is an existing single-family residence that abuts that south -- a portion of that southern boundary and typically in the UDC when we have industrial zoned property up against residential uses, we required a 25 foot wide landscape buffer to separate the two uses. And in our recommended DA provisions to the City Council and under your consideration this evening, we have required that the applicant provide a 25 foot wide landscape buffer along a portion of that boundary or see k a reduction from City Council. In the applicant's rebuttal he plans on seeking a ten foot -- reducing that buffer from 25 feet to ten feet. So, there is nothing that needs to be modified as part of your motion. I believe we have enough flexibility in three with that language that Council has the authority to modify what is written in there. But the one thing that we should probably consider this evening the lot that abuts the southern portion where the residential use is, it's about a hundred -- it's about 500 feet of frontage or shared boundary there. Staff doesn't believe there should be a 25 foot wide landscape buffer 500 feet on the south boundary, so maybe the applicant this evening could clarify on what their intention is as far as what they want and what their desire is to have a reduced buffer and what length or the amount of that linear distance they would like to provide that buffer width along that southern boundary. So, just to elaborate a little bit more, the previous developments that came before the city were reduced down to ten feet. So, there was a requirement for 25, both the Commission and the Council supported a reduction to ten feet and I think staff is amenable to that based on the ownership that -- that is currently on that southern boundary. So, what we will need from the applicant this evening is -- will agree to a ten foot buffer, but what is the linear distance from Ten Mile into the south moving west and I think -- I think phone conversations with the applicant I think staff was agreeable with somewhere in the neighborhood of 150 to 200 feet, but we will have to see how that plays out. Other than that, staff did not receive any other additional Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 20, 2016 Page 19 of 31 testimony on this application and we are recommending approval of the annexation request with the inclusion of a development agreement . With that I will stand for any questions you may have. Oliver: Commissioners have any questions? Seeing none, could we have the applicant come forward, please. State your name and address for the record. Conger: Yes. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Jim Conger. 4824 West Fairview. Good evening. I think we only have a couple items, as Bill indicated, so I can run through those and get you all off to a football game I suspect. So, first and foremost, definitely thanks for letting us be in front of you and we are pleased to bring another Citadel in front of you and for the City of Meridian here. This is a unique location for us, because we think we are a great buffer, you know, in this nonresidential area and kind of buffering your existing or adjacent sewer treatment facility. We are in agreement with the staff report, with the exception of the two conditions that Bill indicated tonight. I have in front of you the site plan. I don't think we need to go through any of that . Per your comp plan we are -- we are definitely in a great location in the nonresidential use areas. So, I can make this, hopefully, extremely clear. Bill had already brought both of these to your attention and is in agreement, so I give you the red ink for your motion, hopefully, that would follow suit with what Bill indicated . Condition 1.1C, I will read it for the record. The applicant is also required to construct a ten foot wide landscape buffer for the eastern hundred foot -- 150 feet of the southern boundary adjacent to the existing rental house. As it pertains to the cross-access requirement of specific condition 1.1D, the red would say the applicant shall provide cross-access from the north to the south if the site does not develop as a self-storage facility. That is the same language that you guys put in place for us on Amity and Highway 69 and City Council accepted at a later date. I have further exhibits and can go into more detail on either one of those two conditions, but I will let you ask me for that if it's needed. With that we definitely appreciate the staff report with these two modifications and we look forward to approval tonight, so we can get onto City Council and, then, build this facility in 2017. Thank you. Oliver: Any questions? No? Thank you. At this time I would ask for public testimony, but I don't think there is anybody that would like to come up and testify. Okay. No public testimony. Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman? Oliver: Mr. Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: Being that there are no public testimony, I would move that we close the public hearing on H-2016-0114. McCarvel: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 20, 2016 Page 20 of 31 Oliver: It's been moved and seconded that we close the public hearing on H-2016-0114. All in favor say aye. Opposed say nay. Public hearing is now closed. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Oliver: Discussion? Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman? Oliver: Mr. Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: I -- I think it's the right location for this. I think it's -- it provides a buffer -- especially because it's -- the sewage treatment plant is there. I think the staff now can work great together to come up with some modified conditions that -- that make sense, being that we know that -- what's going to happen with that house likely to the -- or to the south. So, I'm more than happy to move forward with those two modifications. Oliver: Thank you. McCarvel: Mr. Chairman? Oliver: Mrs. McCarvel. McCarvel: I am in agreement with that as well. It's a perfect place for it and I'm thinking the applicant and staff can work out the couple of remaining issues and I'm okay with moving forward. Oliver: Thank you. Wilson: Mr. Chair? Oliver: Commissioner Wilson. Wilson: I am also in support and, yeah, I think this project looks good. Oliver: All right. I agree as well. I think that we have seen over time that the Citadel -- that it -- we have seen around the facilities that are being put in in Meridian area look really nice and are very well done. Fitzgerald: I agree. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 20, 2016 Page 21 of 31 Oliver: And with that said I think it would be a nice addition to th e current storage facilities that are out there, that would also buffer against that sewer plant as they said earlier. So, I would be in favor of it. McCarvel: Mr. Chairman? Oliver: Mrs. McCarvel. Excuse me. McCarvel: I do have one question for staff before we move on. Bill, did you say we don't need to address 1.1.1C in our motion? Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, you don't have to. I mean we have it written in here -- McCarvel: Okay. Parsons: -- it's -- unless reduced or waived by City Council, but if you want to send a message to City Council and express your recommendation for this language, then, certainly, we could add that in and include it as part of the DA provision as a recommendation from you. Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman? Oliver: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: I think -- I mean I think it makes sense. I mean the way it's written it makes sense and for the reasons both staff and the applicant have kind of outlined. I think these two modifications make total sense to me. McCarvel: Then go for it. Fitzgerald: Okay. Mr. Chairman. Oliver: Mr. Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: With that said, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number H-2016- 0114 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 20th, 2016, with the following modifications: That we take -- Bill, can I tell you what the language is on the screen and you take that and go with it? Parsons: That will work. Fitzgerald: Okay. Oliver: We have a motion. Do we have a second? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 20, 2016 Page 22 of 31 Wilson: Second. Oliver: It's been moved and seconded that we accept the applicant's proposal with the modified conditions for 1.1.1C -- Fitzgerald: And 1.1.1D. Oliver: -- and 1.1.1D. All in favor say aye. Opposed say nay. Motion passes. Thank you. Congratulations. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. E. Public Hearing for 2016 UDC Text Admendment (H-2016- 0118) By Meridian Planning Division 1. Request: Text Amendment to the Unified Development Code (UDC) as follows: UDC Sections, Definitions; Density Requirements in the Residential Districts; Traditional Neighborhood Standards (TN-R and OT Districts); Ditches, Laterals, Canals or Drainage Courses; Fencing; Pathways; Structure and Site Design Standards; Landscaping Requirements (Stormwater Facilities); Common Open Space and Site Amenities Requirements; Specific Provisions (Certificate of Zoning Compliance, Annexation and Rezones and Alternative Compliance); Subdivision Process; and Subdivision Design and Improvement Standards (Block Length and Common Driveways) Oliver: We have one more item on the agenda for tonight. That's the public hearing for 2016 for the UDC text amendment, file number H-2016-0118 by the public -- or the Meridian Planning Division and Bill will present. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. It's been about a year since I was here last before you with the previous UDC updates. Tonight I will try to share with you the most recent changes that we are proposing. I won't dive into every one of them verbatim, but I do want to hit on a couple larger ones that we think -- get some feedback from the Commission. I would also let you know that all of these changes were vetted with the UDC focus group that we put together a couple years ago and I also shared these changes with the BCA, which is the Builders and Contractors of Southwest Idaho and no comments were received from any group as part of these proposed changes , so it should be pretty clean going forward this evening. So, there is about seven slides here with all the proposed changes. Hopefully you guys can read those. They are pretty tough for me. I wish I would have had a paper copy in front of Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 20, 2016 Page 23 of 31 me. But the first section -- or at least this first page this evening really talks about a couple items as far as cleanup items for adding some definitions to our UDC. Over the years we have tried to revitalize our downtown area and we realize we were missing some of -- thank you. We were missing some key definitions that we wanted to -- to incorporate into the UDC and it also helps us align with some of the other documents that we use as we are trying to revitalize our downtown area and so that's really what this first page is. The one that I really want to point your attention to is really the -- the one where we are prohibiting double fencing. We have had a lot of code enforcement issues where residents back up against common open space and our code requires the developer to put that fencing in and the neighbors don't always agree with having that style of fencing and so they go ahead and don't pull a fencing permit and erect their own six foot solid fence up against an open vision fence or four foot solid fence along the common open space. So, we wanted to take a proactive approach and try to better define that in our code and I believe this does that. So, if it's residential, the residential and neighbors will each want their own fence. This doesn't apply. You can't police everything. The intent is to really try to capture eliminating double fencing in common open space lots and if you recall our fences -- our fencing changes last year, we actually made it easier -- made it less restrictive. You could have more fencing types along common open space to try to deter some of this from happening as well. So, it's kind of two fold. One last year we updated our fencing code to allow semi-private fencing along common open space , which is only 50 percent open and, then, this is the next phase where we want to eliminate double fencing all together. So, that's really probably the most important definition that we are adding here to the UDC. At the bottom of this page you'll notice -- and it coincides to some of the discussion we had last year, too, with -- currently we have a Comprehensive Plan that kind of guides what density is and, then, we have the UDC that dictates what maximum density is on property and as part of this UDC change we are proposing to eliminate our maximum density requirements in the Unified Development Code and let the Comprehensive Plan govern what the density will be within our residential areas. So, for example, when we always -- we always give you an update on -- or provide you a medium density residential designation that provides a density range between three and eight dwelling units to the acre. Well, we always get R- 8 density. So, the worst case is they are capped at eight, because it's between three and eight or -- so, again, we feel we can still capture that through the Comprehensive Plan and don't need to -- to at least have a maximum density requirement in the UDC. If you recall last year's discussion, we were trying to reduce some of our dimensional stand ards so we could actually have our zoning match what actually -- get closer to the density requirements that we have in our Comprehensive Plan. Some of those dimensional standards did change and some of them didn't. Council did not feel comfortable moving forward with changes to our R-2 standards or our R-4 standards, so those remain the same, but R-8, R-15 and R-40 did change last year and the lots actually got smaller with less frontages. So, again, this is another step to try to get us to align with our density requirements in the Comprehensive Plan. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 20, 2016 Page 24 of 31 Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman? Oliver: Mr. Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: Bill, you want me to ask questions along the way or -- Parsons: Absolutely. Feel free anytime. Fitzgerald: Okay. So -- and I understand the Comp Plan kind of rule over this in regards to maximum density, but is this -- were the developers kind of -- I guess would you confer with them? I think this makes it harder for average Joe to understand what's -- what they want to do. Developers -- if you're a planner or you're a developer that does this every day you know exactly what an R-8 is, you know -- but if you're Joe Schmo that has a half acre on a corner that you want to develop into apartments, you -- you have to have a meeting with you guys or -- you kind of can't -- you have a code book and say, okay, I can do this, this, this and this. So, I just want to get your take. Because I -- that's the first place I go when I get a call from a developer that's making hand notes and this is R-8 already, it's already zoned and I can tell you the whole exact what you're going to do on that land. So, do you have any concern that that's going to I guess keep people from developing that may not have the experience that a developer -- like a normal developer would? Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, at first blush the UDC focus group said we don't care, that doesn't impact our development. We -- we know what we want to do. We follow the comp plan. That -- it's really more of a staff driving this -- this type of change. Some of -- some of the developers even - - or some of the team from the UDC focus group also wanted us to almost rename our zoning designations, instead of calling them R-2, call them single family one and single family three and almost like Boise city where you can just -- you dictate density that way, not just -- we are with you. When you see R-4 you think four dwelling units to the acre and that's how we explain to fo lks. But if the average -- if this is -- if this gets approved and we don't have a maximum density, one, we will go to the comp plan and tell them what we anticipate, but, two, they will ask us what does an R-4 development look like. We are going to tell them 60 feet of frontage, 8,000 square foot minimum lot sizes. That's really what it comes down to -- that's how the conversations happen. Fitzgerald: So, it's lot sizes and basing it on how much you can fit on a piece of property? Parsons: Exactly. Fitzgerald: Okay. I just wanted to make sure I understand. It's -- it will probably make your guys' life more challenging at times to try to explain to some of these Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 20, 2016 Page 25 of 31 guys that aren't kind of well versed in this process, but I -- I mean that's -- if that's where the staff is going I guess it -- it makes sense to me. Parsons: And the other one, to kind of elaborate a little bit more on this, the other reason why we are taking this off is if you -- I think we had a couple of these situations since I have been with the city is if you have an in-fill piece and you don't require a lot of roads, you don't require a lot of open space, because you're under five acres, you're not required, all of a sudden you want to go R -4 development, you're over the four units to the acre maximum, because you're not -- because you all have buildable lots and you're not ha ving to give up open space or public roads and so we don't want to back someone into going to a different zoning district just because they are not meeting a certain density and so this was one of our -- this was one of our stabs at attempting to do that. Fitzgerald: Thank you. Parsons: But certainly if you guys don't feel comfortable with that , you can certainly ask that we take that under consideration. Fitzgerald: I just wanted to understand where it was -- where kind of the process was going, so -- I feel comfortable. I just wanted to make sure I understood it. Parsons: Yeah. And the next couple of changes, too, will go back to that same requirement we were taking out the maximum, so there is not really a lot on this, but what we have looked at since we have kind of analyzed all the other residential zoning districts last year, this year we are taking a stab at our traditional neighborhood districts, particularly our TNR zone. That's one that we don't have a lot of that zone within the city. Recently there was a project that came before you called the -- it was in Gramercy where they had to rezone it from TNR to the R-15 zone, because they couldn't hit -- they couldn't hit that net density and so with TNR we go off of the net destiny. With our other residential districts we go off of gross density. And so that, basically, forced that developer's hand to come in and rezone that to a different designation in order to fit the type of townhome they wanted to construct in there , even though it was a -- probably a fairly dense project for the amount of acreage that they had. So, these changes here represent what we are trying to do with that, because we do see value in the zoning district and we want to use more . This gives developers more flexibility and allows us to get tree -lined streets with those parkways, it allows us to get smaller block lengths. It allows us to get more housing diversity within developments and that's really what we are about as a community. We want to have all inclusive and multiple housing types with our community. That's what makes us a community is we got to have -- we got to account for everybody and that's -- this zone can do that. And so here is some of the dimensional standards. I apologize, they are small, but we are changing some of those net requirements down to it -- from eight net to six net. We are changing some of the setbacks from the alleys down to five -- five feet per alley setbacks. Some of the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 20, 2016 Page 26 of 31 parkway widths are changing. As I mentioned to you, these are in the TNR zone you're required to have eight foot parkways currently, we are changing that down to six foot and, then, everything else should be pretty standard. I mean there are no dimensional -- there are no minimum lot sizes in that zone, it is merely driven by design and density and net density and, of course, you have to have a minimum of two different residential product types within that district and we have even clarified on this slide that we had allowed almost like what Brighton was doing with the clustered homes or an alley load and traditional single family front loaded garage, that would constitute two different changes in product type. So, we are just better defining it and making it easier for developers to take advantage of that TNR residential district. The next item on this is canals. In our Comprehensive Plan we have set policies where we want waterways and creeks to be part of the natural environment . We want to encourage development to do that and so -- so -- so often developers just want to pipe over those waterways and relocate them, because it's just easier for them to do that to get the design that they want. But we are not here -- we are not going to require the development community to integrate waterways as part of the development. What this in the UDC will encourage them to at least think about it and take that into account that, hey, this -- this is a benefit to your community. Don't look at it as an eyesore in your community. Make it an amenity and make it incorporated as part of that development and I think we have some good examples in Meridian that -- where development -- developers have done that and we have had some bad examples where it hasn't worked so well. So, again, we are not making development communities leave waterways open and in enhancing them , but there is another option for them and that's always been an option for them to do that. We just want to clarify that we do encourage that and even when we pre- app with the developer we are even encouraging them to leave those waterways open and develop them as linear open space. Again, this next slide go back -- goes back to our double fencing. So, again, we added that as part of just the open space requirements and that's the red at the bottom here, if you can see my cursor here, and, then, also we are finding that along our multi-use paths -- or micro pathways, you know, they are kind of -- if -- there is a limit -- a maximum length requirement for micropaths and so the development community want to look at more flexibility on what type of fencing could be along those walkways, as long as it was visible for police to see into them, so we are allowing the developer to do maybe closed vision fencing where your micropath is only 250 feet in length and that way the police can still see better. We feel like that's a good compromise and people living next to those pathways feel like they will get some privacy as well. And, again, go back to avoiding that double fencing issue, because they are right next to a micropath and they don't have people that can look over into their yard as they are sitting on their patio or that dog is barking at everyone as they walk through the micro path. If you recall last year as part of the UDC changes we also revamped our design manual. So, we took a two- prong approach that we had phase one where we took it -- we removed -- we, basically, took our design manual and it was broke up into two sections. One was site design and one was building design and with that revamp what we did is Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 20, 2016 Page 27 of 31 we created a new architectural standards manual and just basically tied all the architectural design into the manual and we told you we would come back with phase two and tie in the site design standards back into the UDC and that's what we are doing here. We are clarifying some of the site design characteristics that we want incorporated as part of a mixed use development or a large commercial development. You know, when we come before you with annexations and these rezones, we always ask for a concept plan and typically we want buildings towards the street. We want them screening the parking area. Don't want a sea of asphalt. And those are some of the design characteristics that we have built into this section. Again, these aren't anything new. These are things that were removed from the old design manual and found a better place in the UDC. Now, they are tweaked -- we worked with them a little bit to make them more strict, because it is -- it is law, it is trying to codify these requirements, but, again, these were all the design concepts that were part of the original manual. The next requirements here -- not much interest in this. Basically as part of the subdivision designs, developers are allowed to count their storm water facilities as part of their open space. If they meet a certain design criteria. I have experienced this with the city. A few developers -- what will happen is the developer gets a landscape plan approved and, then, as they get to final plat they realize they have a drainage problem and, then, they have to build a pond or an open drainage pond to address high ground water. Well, they don't come back to the city -- and we have approved a certain amount of open space. They don't come back to the city and give us their design of their pond, they go to ACHD, because they control the drainage from the roadways and the city was -- were -- we were getting these drainage facilities that weren't very attractive. Now, they probably met the letter of the code, but they weren't very attractive, and so we worked closely with ACHD and the development community to try to devise or craft some better standards for those wastewater treatment facilities or at least those storage ponds. And ACHD has been pretty proactive on it. They have rewritten their whole manual on how to handle storm water and so these next couple slides is our attempt to adopt some of those standards and how we can help them better facilitate their needs and our needs and so there will be some coming down the pipeline -- ACHD will be allowing for more green infrastructure as part of design. So, basically, more bio swells if you will. They are allowing these drainage ponds to be vegetated again with certain materials, so that we don't just get a drainage pond with sand in the bottom of it and this unattractive nuisance for a subdivision to have to maintain. Now, this next section goes back to some of the conversation we had last year as well with our -- with our open space. You remember last year we were trying to devise a system to try to be more equitable with larger developments. Why do they have to provide so much open space coming with a 400 lot development you're putting on a lot more amenities, a lot more open space, and the development community -- at least the UDC focus group wanted us to come up with something that would be more proportionate to their development. I'm going to tell you that was pretty - - pretty hard to do. I presented some concepts to Council. They told staff to run with it. And so my recommendation to the group when we met was why don't we Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 20, 2016 Page 28 of 31 just have -- allow the open space and the amenities -- allow them to go through the alternative compliance process, so that -- that would allow them to get that flexibility and that creativity that the development community was wanting. One example I can see how -- in how this could work is let's say a developer didn't want to do ten percent open space, but they wanted to do a 5,000 square foot clubhouse with a fitness facility in it and a community pool. Okay. Now, we can say, all right, we have this amenity package to offset what we are losing and that five percent open space. So, is that an equal to or better than what code requires and this we believe will give us that flexibility and you have the flexibility to take that under consideration with preliminary plat requests, annexation requests. To me that seemed to be the easier way to go than try to devise a code that you get so many points for this amenity and so much for this open space. To me this is the way to be equitable and fair and get some creative juices going with the city and the community and the developers in the community. Any questions on that? One item to mention on this slide -- and I will grab the cursor here -- is our short plat process. The Commission isn't really involved in that. That's really an application that goes directly to City Council, but what it will do for our -- currently the way the code is written, a short plat can only be processed -- it's almost like a final plat. Developer can -- if they have a lot and block in a subdivision, they can further subdivide that. But without having to go through you guys, they can go right to City Council and have them take action on a -- basically a lot split of that property -- up to four lots is how the code is written. Right now it's only allowed in our traditional neighborhood district's, industrial zones and commercial zones and it's not allowed for any residential districts. So, what we are doing here, based on the direction that we have heard, guided from a UDC focus group, they wanted us to broaden that and open that up to every district in the city. Open it up to the short plat process. Now, in our code there are some requirements that you have to comply with in order to be eligible for a short plat, but we felt that made a lot of sense . One, it streamlines the process and, two, it -- it encourages in fill and density without having to go through a rezone, a full-on preliminary plat, go through two public hearings. If they have a lot that meets the eligibility requirements for the short plat process they can go right to City Council with a short plat, get it approved, and go directly -- and go to the county and get that recorded. So, again, it's going to be treated more like a final plat if they can meet that criteria and the development community did like that. Common driveways. This one actually came from the Brighton Corporation. They wanted to have a little bit greater flexibility as to -- and modify the code on how we handle common driveways. Currently as you know six homes take access off that. What we do now -- the way the code is written now, if a lot abuts a common driveway you have to put a common lot there, a landscape buffer between the lot and the common drive restricting that access. This right here wouldn't necessarily require that open space anymore, that common lot. What it would say is if you did abut that, the home that's abutting that common driveway will have to make sure that driveway would be on the opposite side from the common driveway, so access wouldn't be taken from that. And, then, the developer would restrict fencing along that common drive, too. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 20, 2016 Page 29 of 31 So, it's kind of two fold there. Brighton kind of liked that a little bit -- a little bit better, it gives them a little bit more flexibility, and, then, Sonya -- I guess she didn't allude to it in her previous presentation, but whenever we have a common driveway our code requires the developer to provide us an exhibit map on how those homes are to take access from those driveways . They need to show us the building envelopes, setbacks, and access and we usually get that -- we can get that with the preliminary plat, but the code also allows the developer to submit that with their final plat application. So, if this change goes through, the developer is going to have to show us their fencing, their driveway orientations, which lots they are taking access from the common driveway, so that we can ensure that this complies with this new provision . So, we believe we have a captured developer. The onus is going to be on the developer to provide us that exhibit and tell us what they -- how they want that common drive to function, which is really consistent to what -- to what we do today. So, other than that I think those are the big items. I do appreciate your time tonight and I will conclude my presentation and ask for any questions. Oliver: Commissioners, do you have any questions? Wilson: I just have one really quick question. Last year when we did this was there -- you said like the building contractors didn't really weigh in. I mean is that typical because of that working group that you have constituted? Parsons: Well, the UDC focus group has representation from -- Wilson: Okay. Parsons: -- BCA. Well, there is members that are in that group, too. It's part of that organization. So, they always take comments back to them. But as a courtesy I do -- before I actually submit the application I actually go to their monthly meeting and I shared all of these changes with them and most of the comments I received -- they were positive. There weren't really any -- the only one concern that I heard was from an engineer that was there and he was concerned about us requiring them to leave waterways open and the tiling. That discussion. I said, no, we are not -- we are not getting in the business to make you do something that the irrigation district may not want you to do. So, all they want to do is clarify that we -- our preference is to leave them open and integrate them into the development. It's not our preference to mandate that. Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman? Bill, I think you did an awesome job. I think some of the things that you have incorporated make it more livable, like the waterways and I think preparing for less -- just green land to keep building on, I think you're prepping the city for in fill and so I think it's awesome. I think you're doing a great work. Parsons: Appreciate that. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 20, 2016 Page 30 of 31 Oliver: Any other comments? No? I need a motion. McCarvel: Mr. Chair? Oliver: Mrs. McCarvel. McCarvel: I move that we adjourn the meeting. Oliver: We need to -- McCarvel: Oh, we have to -- okay. Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman? McCarvel: I move that we -- Fitzgerald: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number H-2016-0118 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 20th, 2016. McCarvel: Second. Oliver: We have a motion and a second to approve file number 2016 -0118 as presented by the staff report. Hearing no othe r, do we have a -- all in favor say aye. Opposed say nay. It is approved. Thank, Bill. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Oliver: I have one more item, Mrs. McCarvel. McCarvel: I thought we were just presenting it. I didn't realize we had to move on it. I'm sorry. I move we adjourn the meeting. Oliver: I have a motion. Do we have a second? Wilson: Second. Oliver: It's moved and seconded that we close the meeting. All in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Oliver: Thank you very much. It's been a pleasure working with all of you. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:24 P.M. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 20, 2016 Page 31 of 31 (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED STEVEN YEARSL - CHAIRMA DATE APPROVED ATTEST: O0OVpTED AUCUslI �sG,90� C. JAY CO S - CITY CLERK City Of EIDl� IAN��-- IDAHO � `F SEAL F � ��lAe TREASU�' Written Testimony: Mike Wardle, Applicant (response in agreement w/staff report) Staff Recommendation: Approval w/conditions Notes Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- 2016-0104, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 20, 2016, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2016- 0104, as presented during the hearing on October 20, 2016, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number October 20, 2016 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #4C: Linder Road Apartments (H-2016.0111) Application(s): ➢ Annexation & Zoning ➢ Conditional Use Permit Size of property, existing zoning, and location. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: North: Vacant/undeveloped property, zoned RUT in Ada County East: Rural residential & indoor/outdoor entertainment (Idaho Party Barn), zoned R-8 South: SFR homes in the development process (Fall Creek Subdivision), zoned R-8 West: S. Linder Road & future commercial uses, zoned C -C History: None Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MDR — Applicant requests a "step up" in density to MHDR without an amendment to the FLUM as allowed by the Comprehensive Plan with approval by City Council. Summary of Request: The applicant proposes to annex & zone 4.55 acres of land with an R-15 zoning district consistent with the requested "step up" in density to MHDR. The proposed density of 14.71 units per acre is consistent with that allowed in the R-15 district. A CUP is also requested for a multi -family development consisting of 63 dwelling units in an R-15 zoning district. The site plan depicts (16) 4-plex structures that contain (63) 2 -bedroom units and a management office. Access is proposed via S. Linder Road; ACHD is restricting the access to a right-in/right-out and is requiring additional ROW that is not reflected on the plan. The Fire Dept. is requiring an emergency turnaround to be provided at the SEC of the site. The proposed off- street parking complies with UDC standards. A 10' wide multi -use pathway is required along Linder Road in accord with the Pathways Master Plan. Staff recommends pathway connections are stubbed to the north & east property boundaries for future pedestrian interconnectivity. A total of 1.99 acres (or 44,6%) of qualified open space along with site amenities consisting of large open grassy areas, a covered BBQ area, a tot lot, a sports court, bicycle maintenance station and a segment of the City's multi -use pathway are proposed in accord with UDC standards. Two types of multi -family structures are proposed within the development. Building material consist of a mix of horizontal & vertical siding with stone veneer accents. The two building types appear to be identical except that they have different roof forms. Variety in the architectural character of the structures and design should be provided as set forth in the Architectural Standards Manual (ASM). Windows are required on all elevations that face pathways and areas used for children's recreation to allow views of these areas. All structures on the site are subject to design review. Written Testimony: Kent Brown, Applicant (in agreement w/staff report) Staff Recommendation: Approval wlconditions Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- 2016-0111, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 20, 2016, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2016- 0111, as presented during the hearing on October 20, 2016, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number October 20, 2016 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #4D: Citadel 4 Storage at Ten Mile (H-2016-0114) Application(s): Annexation Size of property, existing zoning, and location: The site consists of 9.97 acres of land, zoned RUT in Ada County and is located at 4015 N. Ten Mile Road. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: North: Agricultural and single-family residential land, zoned RUT in Ada County East: N. Ten Mile Road and single-family homes in the Isola Creek Subdivision zoned R-4 South: Agricultural and residential land, zoned RUT in Ada County West: Agricultural and residential land, zoned RUT in Ada County Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MU -NR Summary of Request: The applicant requests annexation and zoning of 9.97 acres of land with an I -L zoning district, consistent with the MU -NR land use designation. The purpose of this MU -NR designation is to set-aside areas where new residential dwellings will not be permitted, as residential uses are not compatible with the planned and/or existing uses in these areas. The City envisions a wide variety of non-residential land uses may occur in MU -NR areas. Employment opportunities, professional offices, warehousing, flex buildings, and storage uses as well as retail uses are envisioned. This project is a single use, but part of a larger MU -NR area that surrounds the Wastewater Treatment Plant, so staff does envision a mix of uses developing in the area. Currently, there is a mix of commercial near the intersection of Ustick and Ten Mile Roads and across the street will be a future City park and existing and future single family homes. Concept Plan: The applicant proposes to develop a 193,823 square foot self-service storage facility consisting of a 1,156 square foot office building and a combination of enclosed and open outdoor storage. The site is proposed to develop in two phases, with approximately 63,187 square feet of storage in the first phase, and 130,636 in the second phase. Access to the site is proposed via Ten Mile Road, designated an arterial roadway. Staff recommends a minimum 20 -foot wide driveway and cross -access be provided from the proposed site to the property to the north and south in accord with UDC 11- 3A-3. The applicant is requesting the DA provision requiring the cross access (DA provision 1.1.1d.) to be modified if the subject property does not develop with self -storage facility as proposed. Landscaping: A 35 -foot wide street buffer is proposed along N. Ten Mile Road. A 25 foot landscape buffer is required to be landscaped in accordance with UDC 11 -3B -7C however; the dimensional standards require that all buildings be setback from the road 35 feet. Further, the subject property abuts a residential use along a portion of the south boundary (approximately 500 feet). UDC Table 11-2C- 3, the applicant is required to construct a 25 -foot wide landscape buffer with vegetation that touches at maturity. The DA provision allows for reduction to the buffer if reduced by City Council. The applicant has requested that the buffer be reduced to 10 -feet which . has been consistent with similar storage facility projects approved by the City (DA provision 1.1.1 c.). Existing Structure(s): There is an existing home and associated outbuildings on the site that will be removed with development of the site. Conceptual Building Elevations: Building materials for the proposed storage structures/wall around the perimeter of the development consist of split face CMU with accent mortar, ribbed metal wall accents and trim and metal roofing. The office will consist of two different colors of stucco. The applicant is required to obtain approval of a CZC and design review application for the proposed structures and site design for the self-service storage facility in accord with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and the ASM. Written Testimony: Jim Conger, Applicant (response to the staff report) Staff Recommendation: Approval w/conditions Recommended Motion: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- 2016-0114, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 20, 2016, with the following modifications: Item #4E: 2016 UDC Text Amendment (H-2016.0118) Application(s): ➢ UDC Text Amendment Location: City wide Summary of Request: The subject application proposes modifications to the following UDC sections: definitions, density requirements in the residential districts, traditional neighborhood standards (TN -R and 0-T districts), ditches, laterals, canals or drainage courses, fencing, pathways, structure and site design standards, landscaping requirements (stormwater facilities), common open space and site amenities requirements, specific provisions (certificate of zoning compliance, annexation and rezones and alternative compliance), subdivision process, subdivision design and improvement standards including common driveways. Staff has vetted a majority of the proposed changes with the UDC Focus Group and the BCA as the City embarks on changes to the UDC. In summary, the changes proposed in this application represent changes that City Staff believes will make the implementation and use of the UDC more understandable and enforceable. Written Testimony: None Staff Recommendation: Approval Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- 2016-0118, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 20, 2016, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2016- 0118, as presented during the hearing on October 20, 2016, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number October 20, 2016 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: October 20, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: 3A PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Approve minutes of 10/6/16 pz meeting MEETING NOTES rte✓ APPROVED DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 6, 2016 Page 7 of 7 McCarvel: Yeah. Wilson: I just read it verbatim. So, I will just do it again. After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to -- I move to recommend approval of H-2016-0100 for the hearing date of October 6, 2016, McCarvel: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve file number H-2016-0100. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Yearsley: With that I think we will have one more motion. McCarvel: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I move we adjourn the meeting. Wilson: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to adjourn. All in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Yearsley: We stand adjourned. Thank you. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:14 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) ,:ZPRED - AIRMAN DATE A PROVED ATTEST:'ivt(o4k,_C I rA C. JAY COLES - CITY CLERK en AUgU, 4G ?o � w City of E IDR IANC N �DAH� E+� SEAL Y FST � �4�<<1a 7AEA6U�'� Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: October 20, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: 3B PROJECT NUMBER: H-2106-0104 Item: Twelve Oaks FFCL's for approval for Twelve Oaks (H-2016-0100) by Twelve Oaks, LLC Located 1845 W. Franklin Road Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for a Multi -Family Development Consisting of Twenty -Four (24) Dwelling Units in the C -C Zoning District MEETING NOTES 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 E IDIAN DAHO In the Matter of the Request for Conditional Use Permit for a Multi -Family Development Consisting of Twenty- Four (24) Dwelling Units in the C -C Zoning District for Twelve Oaks, Located at 1845 W. Franklin Road, by Twelve Oakes, LLC. Case No(s). H-2016-0100 For the Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: October 6, 2016 (Findings on October 20, 2016) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of October 6, 2016, incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of October 6, 2016, incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of October 6, 2016, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of October 6, 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-2016-0100 Page 1 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 October 6, 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 October 6, 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 October 6, 2016 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2016-0100 Page 2 B action of the Planning & Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the bc V 52016. COMMISSIONER STEVEN YEARSLEY, CHAIRMAN COMMISSIONER PATRICK OLIVER, VICE CHAIRMAN COMMISSIONER RHONDA MCCARVEL COMMISSIONER RYAN FITZGERALD COMMISSIONER GREGORY WILSON CQ—:Q,-ZChairman Attest:® '90 � w r City of Il E IDIS IANC i IDAHO C.Jay Coles, City Clerk F� SEAL �yrfB°f f6e'[RF A6��, VV day of VOTED k19 VOTED Ve� VOTED VOTED Ct- VOTED Ut, Copy served upon the Applicant, the Planning and Development Services divisions of the Community Development Department, the Public Works Department and the City Attorney. By: Dated: City Clerk's Office CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2016-0100 Page 3 EXHIBIT A Twelve Oaks – CUP H-2016-0100 1 STAFF REPORT Hearing Date: October 6, 2016 TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: Sonya Allen, Associate City Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: Twelve Oaks – CUP (H-2016-0100) I. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant, Jim Jewett, Twelve Oaks, LLC, requests a conditional use permit (CUP) for a multi-family development consisting of 24 dwelling units in the C-C zoning district. See Section IX Analysis for more information. II. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposed CUP application in accord with the Findings in Exhibit C. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission heard this item on October 6, 2016. At the public hearing, the Commission moved to approve the subject CUP request. a. Summary of Commission Public Hearing: i. In favor: Jim Jewett ii. In opposition: None iii. Commenting: None iv. Written testimony: None v. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen 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-2016-0100 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 6, 2016, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications.) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny H-2016-0100 as presented during the hearing on October 6, 2016, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial.) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2016-0100 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 subject property is located at 1845 W. Franklin Road, in the NE ¼ of Section 14, Township 3N., Range 1W. B. Owner(s): EXHIBIT A Twelve Oaks – CUP H-2016-0100 2 Twelve Oaks, LLC 167 E. Whitespur St. Meridian, ID 83642 C. Applicant: Jim Jewett, Twelve Oaks, LLC 167 E. Whitespur St. Meridian, ID 83642 D. Representative: Carl Porter, Sawtooth Land Surveying, LLC 2030 S. Washington Ave. Emmett, ID 83617 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. A public hearing is required before the Planning & Zoning Commission on this matter, consistent with Meridian City Code Title 11, Chapter 5. B. Newspaper notifications published on: September 19 and October 3, 2016 C. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: September 8, 2016 D. Applicant posted notice on site by: September 24, 2016 VI. LAND USE A. Existing Land Use(s) and Zoning: This site consists of undeveloped land, zoned C-C. B. Character of Surrounding Area and Adjacent Land Use and Zoning: South: Future residential (multi-family and duplexes) in Twelve Oaks, zoned TN-R; East: Commercial property in Twelve Oaks, zoned C-C; and rural residential/agricultural property, zoned R1 in Ada County West: Future commercial property, zoned C-C; and multi-family residential property, zoned TN-R North: W. Franklin Road and industrial uses, zoned I-L; and future commercial uses, zoned C-C C. History of Previous Actions:  In 2006, this property received the following approvals:  Annexation and Zoning (AZ-05-056) of 10.15 acres with a C-C zoning district and 6.08 acres with a TN-R zoning district under the name of Hark’s Canyon Creek Subdivision. A development agreement was approved as a provision of the annexation, recorded as Instrument No. 106180812;  Conditional Use Permit (CUP-05-051) for a mixed use development within 300 feet of a residential district;  Preliminary Plat (PP-05-058) consisting of 29 single-family residential building lots, 7 commercial building lots and 8 common/other lots;  Alternative Compliance (ALT-06-004) to UDC 11-2B-3 which requires a 25-foot wide landscape buffer to residential uses in the C-G zoning district to allow a reduced buffer width; and EXHIBIT A Twelve Oaks – CUP H-2016-0100 3  Modification to the pending approved development agreement (MI-06-006) to allow temporary construction fencing between Lot 5, Block 3 and Lot 19, Block 3, rather than permanent fencing, to limit public access to the Ten Mile Creek during construction.  In 2007, this property received the following approvals:  Private street (PS-07-006) approval of two streets within the subdivision; and  Final Plat (FP-07-017) consisting of 29 townhome building lots, 7 commercial building lots and 8 common/other lots on 6.29 acres of land in the TN-R and C-C zoning districts.  In 2008, an 18 month time extension (TE-08-004) on the preliminary plat was approved to obtain the City Engineer’s signature on a final plat.  In 2010, another time extension (TE-10-030) on the preliminary plat, for two years, was approved to obtain the City Engineer’s signature on a final plat, which expired on October 25, 2012. A final plat was not signed by the City Engineer and another time extension was not requested within the time period allowed under the time extension; therefore, the preliminary plat expired.  In 2013, a modification to the development agreement (MDA-13-008) (Instrument No. 106180812) was approved that updated the development plan for the site, recorded as Instrument No. 113080081 & 113103818.  Also in 2013, a combined preliminary and final plat (PFP-13-001) was approved consisting of 2 building lots on 9.43 acres of land in the TN-R and C-C zoning districts.  In 2015, a short plat (H-2015-0025) was approved consisting of 4 building lots on 1.44 acres of land in the C-C zoning district at the northeast corner of the site.  A modification to the development agreement (H-2016-0100) was recently approved to update the development plan for this site to accommodate the proposed development. The agreement has been signed and is scheduled for Council approval on October 4th, 2016 and will subsequently be recorded. D. Utilities: 1. Public Works: a. Location of sewer: Sanitary sewer is currently installed in Franklin Road. b. Location of water: Water is currently installed in Franklin Road. c. Issues or concerns: NA E. Physical Features: 1. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: There are no waterways that cross this site. The Ten Mile Creek runs off- site along the southern boundary of the site. 2. Hazards: There are no known hazards that exist on this property. 3. Floodplain: This property does not lie within a floodplain. VII. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS The frontage of this property along W. Franklin Road is designated Mixed Use – Commercial (MU-C) with the southern portion designated Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) contained in the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan (TMISAP). The purpose of the MU-C designation is to encourage the development of a mixture of office, retail, recreational, employment and other miscellaneous uses, with supporting multi-family or single-family EXHIBIT A Twelve Oaks – CUP H-2016-0100 4 attached residential uses. A target density of 8-12 units/acre is desired with higher densities allowed on individual projects. Traditional neighborhood design concepts with a strong pedestrian-oriented focus are essential. The MHDR designation allows for relatively dense multi-family housing types at an average target density of 12 units/acre with a range from 8-15 units/acre. The overall development is proposed to contain (8) 2-story 8-plex and (2) 3-story 12-plex apartment structures with a total of 88 units and (9) duplex structures containing a total of 18 units for an overall total of 106 dwelling units at a gross density of 13.27 units/acre and a net density of 13.86 units/acre. Only 3 structures containing a total of 24 dwelling units are proposed within the C-C zoning district under the conditional use permit; the other structures are within the TN-R zoning district which allows a multi-family development as a principal permitted use and does not require conditional use approval. The density of the proposed project and the multi-family residential use of the property is consistent with that desired in MU-C and MHDR FLUM designated areas. Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this application and apply to the proposed use of this property (staff analysis in italics):  “Support a variety of residential categories (low-, medium-, medium-high and high-density single- family, multi-family, townhouses, duplexes, apartments, condominiums, etc.) for the purpose of providing the City with a range of affordable housing opportunities.” (3.07.01E) The proposed multi-family development will contribute to the variety of residential categories that currently exist (i.e. low and medium density) in this area of the City. Staff is unaware of how “affordable” the units will be.  “Provide housing options close to employment and shopping centers.” (3.07.02D) Employment and shopping centers are proposed to develop in the future along Ten Mile Road north of the I-84 interchange; the proposed development with a mix of apartments and duplexes will provide housing options in close proximity to this area.  “Locate high-density development, where possible, near open space corridors or other permanent major open space and park facilities, Old Town, and near major access thoroughfares.” (3.07.02N) The proposed development is located in close proximity to major access thoroughfares (i.e. W. Franklin Road and the Ten Mile Rd./I-84 and S. Meridian Rd./I-84 interchanges) within the City. A segment of the City’s regional pathway system is also designated along the Tenmile Creek at the south boundary of the site and through this site to Franklin Road.  “Protect existing residential properties from incompatible land use development on adjacent parcels.” (3.06.01F) There are no residential properties that abut the 3 multi-family structures proposed on this site.  “Require all new and reconstructed parking lots to provide landscaping in internal islands and along streets.” (2.01.04B) Landscaping is proposed within planter islands in the parking areas on this site as shown on the landscape plan attached in Exhibit A.3. EXHIBIT A Twelve Oaks – CUP H-2016-0100 5  “Require common area in all subdivisions.” (3.07.02F) Common area is required within this development in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-4- 3-27C.  “Permit new development only where urban services can be reasonably provided at the time of final approval and development is contiguous to the City.” (3.01.01F) This property is contiguous to land that has already been annexed into the City. Urban services can be provided to this property upon development.  “Require pedestrian access connectors in all new development to link subdivisions together to promote neighborhood connectivity as part of the community pathway system.” (3.03.03B) A segment of the City’s multi-use pathway system is planned along the Ten Mile Creek adjacent to the southern boundary of this site and through this site to W. Franklin Road which will assist in providing pedestrian connectivity between neighborhoods. VIII. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE (UDC) A. Purpose Statement of Zoning District: 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. Allowed uses in the C-C district consist of larger scale and broader mix of retail, office, and service uses. B. Schedule of Use: UDC Table 11-2B-2 lists the principal permitted (P), accessory (A), conditional (C), and prohibited (-) uses in the C-C zoning district. Any use not explicitly listed is prohibited. A multi- family development is listed as a conditional use in the C-C zoning district. C. Dimensional Standards: Development of the site should be consistent with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-8 for the C-C district. D. Landscaping: Landscaping is required within parking areas in accordance with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C and within common areas in accord with UDC 11-4-3-27F. E. Off-Street Parking: Off-street parking is required in accord with UDC Table 11-3C-6 for multi-family dwellings. F. Structure and Site Design Standards: The proposed multi-family development must comply with the design standards in accord with UDC 11-3A-19 and the Architectural Standards Manual. IX. ANALYSIS A. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation: The applicant requests a conditional use permit (CUP) for (3) 8-plex multi-family structures (buildings A, B, and J) that lie within the C-C zoning district as required by UDC Table 11-2B-2. These structures are part of a larger multi-family residential development that is proposed consisting of a total of 106 dwelling units. The other structures consist of (5) 8-plexes, (2) 12-plexes, (9) duplexes and a clubhouse, located in the TN-R district, which does not require conditional use approval of multi-family developments. The following analysis only applies to the 3 multi-family structures proposed with the subject CUP: Specific Use Standards: The specific use standards for multi-family developments listed in UDC 11-4- 3-27 apply to development of this site as follows: (Staff’s comments in italics)  A minimum of 80 square feet (s.f.) of private useable open space is required to be provided for each unit. Floor plans submitted with this application depict 83.1 s.f. of private useable open EXHIBIT A Twelve Oaks – CUP H-2016-0100 6 space for the ground floor units and 79.4 s.f. for the second story units; the area should be increase slightly for the second story units to meet the minimum 80 s.f. requirement.  Developments with 20 units or more shall provide a property management office, a maintenance storage area, a central mailbox location with provisions for parcel mail that provides safe pedestrian and/or vehicular access and a directory map of the development at an entrance or convenient location for those entering the development. The overall site plan depicts a central mail area in front of the clubhouse and 2 maintenance storage areas in the portion of the development south of the subject area. The site plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application for the overall development should depict all of these items.  At a minimum, 250 s.f. of common open space is required for each unit containing more than 500 s.f. and up to 1,200 s.f. of living area. Units containing more than 1,200 s.f. of living area shall provide a minimum of 350 s.f. All of the proposed units in Buildings A, B and J are between 500 and 1,200 square feet; therefore, a minimum of 6,000 square feet or 0.14 of an acre of common open space is required for this portion of the development; additional open space in accord with this requirement should be provided for the rest of the development.  For multi-family developments with 75 units or more, 4 site amenities are required to be provided with at least one from each category listed in UDC 11-4-3-27D. For developments with more than 100 units, the decision making body shall require additional amenities commensurate to the size of the proposed development. Because only 24 units are proposed with the subject CUP application, no amenities are required with this application. However, because these units are part of a larger development, they will be included in the overall unit count for the development and amenities will be required accordingly with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance for the overall development. The applicant’s narrative states amenities consisting of 2 large open spaces, an open water feature, basketball court, 2 BBQ areas, a clubhouse with a pool, and a 10-foot wide multi-use pathway will be provided. These amenities fall within the 3 categories (quality of life, open space, and recreation) as required.  Landscaping is required to comply with UDC 11-4-3-27-F. All street facing elevations shall have landscaping along their foundation as follows: the landscaped area shall be at least 3 -feet wide and have an evergreen shrub with a minimum mature height of 24 inches for every 3 linear feet of foundation. The remainder of the area shall be landscaped with ground cover plans. The landscape plan submitted with this application reflects compliance with this requirement for the structures that face W. Franklin Road.  The development is required to record legally binding documents that state the maintenance and ownership responsibilities for the management of the development, including, but not limited to, structures, parking, common areas, and other development features. The applicant should submit documentation of compliance with this requirement prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy. Parking: For multi-family developments, off-street parking is required in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6, which requires 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit with at least 1 of those in a covered carport or garage for 1-bedroom units; 2 spaces per dwelling unit with at least 1 of those in a covered carport or garage for 2- and 3-bedroom units; and 3 spaces per unit with at least 2 in a covered carport or garage for 4+ bedroom units. Based on (12) 1-bedroom and (12) 2- and 3-bedroom units, a minimum of 42 parking spaces are required, 24 of which should be covered. The site plan depicts parking in accord with this requirement. A minimum of one bicycle parking space for every 25 proposed vehicle spaces or portion thereof is required to be provided on the site per UDC 11-3C-6G in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11- EXHIBIT A Twelve Oaks – CUP H-2016-0100 7 3C-5C. The plans submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application should depict the location of bicycle parking in accord with this requirement. Landscaping: Parking lot landscaping is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C. A buffer to adjoining land uses is not required as the existing and proposed uses to the east and west are all commercial. A 25-foot wide street buffer was constructed along W. Franklin Road with the subdivision plat. Mitigation: There are no existing trees on this site that are proposed to be removed. Building Elevations: Two (2) building types (Types 1 and 3) are proposed for the 3 multi-family structures proposed with the subject CUP as shown in Exhibit A.4; a garage and carport structures are also proposed (see Exhibit A.4). Building materials consist of stucco and vertical siding. The architectural character of the structures complies with the conceptual elevations included in the development agreement; compliance with the standards listed in the City of Meridian Architectural Standards Manual is required. The elevations submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application should demonstrate compliance with those standards. Certificate of Zoning Compliance: The applicant is required to obtain approval of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance application for establishment of the new use and to ensure all site improvements comply with the provisions of the UDC and the conditions in this report prior to construction, in accord with UDC 11-5B-1. Staff recommends one CZC application is submitted for the overall development so it can be reviewed as a whole to ensure compliance with UDC standards. Design Review: The applicant is required to submit an application for Design Review concurrent with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application in accord with UDC 11-5B-8. The site and building design is required to be generally consistent with the elevations and site plan submitted with this application and the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and the City of Meridian Architectural Standards Manual. Staff recommends one design review application is submitted with the CZC application for the overall development so it can be reviewed as a whole for compliance with UDC and design standards since this is a single parcel held under common ownership. Staff recommends approval of the CUP requested by the applicant with the conditions of approval in Exhibit B as discussed above. X. EXHIBITS A. Drawings/Other 1. Vicinity/Zoning Map 2. Proposed Site Plan (dated: 9/14/16) and Building Location & Unit Plan (dated: 9/27/16) 3. Proposed Landscape Plan (dated: 9/28/16) 4. Proposed Building Elevations (dated: 5/6/16) B. Agency & Department Comments C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code EXHIBIT A Twelve Oaks – CUP H-2016-0100 8 Exhibit A.1: Vicinity/Zoning Map XY 1767 1625 485 1795 1925 376 397 411 318 366 1900 525 1884 1924 374 397 343 1263 1251 1845 2130 255 1680 155 1500 301 1727 1821 332 347 1905 1850 1837 1822 431 123 1868 1926 349 16991749 1735 402403 1923 440 446 1804 1788 2340 1535 2155 2490 65 1720 570 2075 1860 1800 251 1220 11 2 4 11 3 1 1246 1284 13 3 4 1411 1340 1300 1335 1284 1280 1260 1224 1353 1187 1059 1516 1386 1312 240 14841504 1520 1357 1432 1374 1300 469 1150 1082 313 354 1734 1765 501 1887 1831 555 1795 1680 1881 2215 113011401150 14 3 2 13371355 1420 1277 1275 1307 1480 264 11 2 6 1028 13191461 1491 1430 1390 1290 11 3 4 11 2 5 34 13 8 8 14 8 4 1421 1480 1310 1390 1495 1369 1299 1229 98 112 148 230 1058 1082 1145 1123 1087 270 230 1079 110 1344 1535 455 1434 1321 1499 418 434 484150214801322 409 547 519 461 1134 1132 1438 1416 1411 130714181462 14551503 560 1350 1493 1367 573 1075 1372 1300 1571 1489 501 563 1348 472 456 1396 1505 1471 532 550 495 447 1106 1093 1096 321 1701 1711 115 465 250 238 1824 1904 2762751767 1826 174918011825 1855 18771909549 342 1650 245 1700 251 17021728 1800 1802 1790 1766 371 478 524 1923 310 239 17541776 1846 280 1901 402 1750 1906 506 422 434 1764 1819 1767 2770 151 10 3 6 1021153 184 13 7 2 14 7 6 12891381 1372 1337 1281 1269 1207 241 202 440 1445 1353479 1371 1577 1551 548 1244 423 1425 1391 556 578 1089 515 1950 325 1789 1922 323 443 475 396 428 375 311 95 50 175 199 1870 1970 1950 71 48 11 3 2 11 1 6 11 1 2 11 1 5 1105 10 3 1 183 154 12 9 8 13 9 6 1410 1360 1315 1475 1241 10 3 8 11 4 1 174 104 1226 14 4 8 1355 1375 1455 143 152 11 0 8 103 173 193 13 1 6 13 4 4 1435 1415 1395 1358 1348 1310 1273 227 195 163 1104 1091 1160 1138 1065 1057 160 184 1159 1139 1060 1580 1494 134513831481 1513 1282 386 404 1449 1385 1339 1303 574 512 10 6 0 1113 1540 1456 461 519 547 1392 1260 4581416 439 478 1100 10 8 2 1127 1568 1482 1467 1429 1381 441 14111431 500 1468 541 563 1141 R-8 R1 C-N C-G TN-R C-C R1 C-C I-L R1 R1 R-4 R-8 TN-R TN-C C-G R1 I-L C-C R-40 RUT S L i n d e r R d N L i n d e r R d W Franklin Rd W Kim r a S t S M a l a c h i t e A v e S M a l a c h i t e A v e W Cobalt St S F l i n t s t o n e Av e W Pintail Dr S A s h l e e P l W G r e e n h e a d D r S S p o o n b i l l A v e W G r e e n h e a d S t W M e r g a nzer Dr WBarrett Dr S H e i d i P l W P i n t a i l D r W E g r e t D r S L y n w o o d C i r W C a l c i t e C t N W a r d A v e W Merganzer Dr NW 1 3 t h P l S P e l i c a n W a y S W 1 2 t h A v e W Crest Wood Dr S M o o n s t o n e W a y S L o d e s t o n e A v e SCanv a s b a c k W a y S C a n v a s b a c k A v e STORM WATER RETENTION POND IRRIGATION CANAL SCHOOL PEREGRINE HARKS CORNER PHASE 1 & 2 FRANKLIN/LINDER COMMERCIAL 2 FRANKLIN/LINDER COMMERCIAL 3 FRANKLIN/LINDER COMMERCIAL 4 STORAGE/COMMERCIAL FRANKLIN COMMERCIAL 1 FRANKLIN COMMERCIAL 2 CREAMLINE PARK SUB MONICA TWELVE OAKS CENTER WOODWARD ESTATES FENWAY PARK NO 01 CREST WOOD ESTATES NO. 02 NURSERY SCHOOL BUS BARN CAFARELLI NO 02 CAFARELLI CREST WOOD ESTATES NO. 01 CREST WOOD ESTATES NO. 04 CREST WOOD ESTATES NO. 05 LANDING SUB NO. 01, THE FENWAY PARK NO 03 WHITESTONE ESTATES NO 1 WHITESTONE ESTATES NO 2 WHITESTONE ESTATES NO 4 LANDING SUB NO. 02, THE LANDING SUB NO. 03, THE LANDING SUB NO. 05, THE LANDING SUB NO. 06, THEWHITESTONE ESTATES NO 3 LANDING SUB NO. 04, THE CREST WOOD ESTATES NO. 03 ZONED - R-4 KELLER SUPPLY CO. BAYSIDE TAYLOR COMMERCE\84 LUMBER EXHIBIT A Twelve Oaks – CUP H-2016-0100 9 Exhibit A.2: Proposed Site Plan (dated: 9/14/2016) and Building Location & Unit Plan (dated: 9/27/16) EXHIBIT A Twelve Oaks – CUP H-2016-0100 10 EXHIBIT A Twelve Oaks – CUP H-2016-0100 11 EXHIBIT A Twelve Oaks – CUP H-2016-0100 12 Exhibit A.3: Landscape Plan (dated: 9/28/16) EXHIBIT A Twelve Oaks – CUP H-2016-0100 13 EXHIBIT A Twelve Oaks – CUP H-2016-0100 14 Exhibit A.4: Proposed Building Elevations (dated: 5/6/16) EXHIBIT A Twelve Oaks – CUP H-2016-0100 15 EXHIBIT A Twelve Oaks – CUP H-2016-0100 16 Exhibit B: AGENCY & DEPARTMENT COMMENTS 1. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1.1.1 Development shall comply with the provisions included in the amended development agreement for Twelve Oaks H-2016-0100. This agreement shall be signed, approved by Council and recorded prior to issuance of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance for this site. 1.1.2 The developer shall comply with the specific use standards for multi-family developments listed in UDC 11-4-3-27, including but not limited to the following: a. The applicant shall record legally binding documents that state the maintenance and ownership responsibilities for the management of the development, including, but not limited to, structures, parking, common areas, and other development features, per UDC 11-4-3-27G. A recorded copy shall be submitted to the City prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for the first structure within the development. b. Submit floor plans for the units that demonstrate compliance with UDC 11-4-3-27B.3 which requires a minimum of 80 square feet (s.f.) of private useable open space to be provided for each unit. 1.1.3 The site plan included in Exhibit A.2, dated September 14, 2016, shall be modified as follows: a. Depict a property management office and a directory map of the development at an entrance or convenient location for those entering the development in accord with UDC 11-4-3-27B.7. b. Depict bicycle parking in accord with UDC 11-3C-5C and 11-3C-6G. 1.1.4 The landscape plan included in Exhibit A.4, dated September 28, 2016, shall be revised as follows: a. A minimum of 6,000 square feet or 0.14 of an acre of common open space is required for this portion of the development in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27C. Detailed open space calculations shall be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance to ensure compliance. 1.1.5 A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application shall be submitted for the overall development as a whole to ensure compliance with UDC and design standards for the entire development. The design of the structures shall be consistent with the standards contained in the Architectural Standards Manual. 1.1.6 All fencing shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-6 and 11-3A-7. 1.1.7 All storm drainage areas included in the qualified open space calculations shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-11, Stormwater Integration. 1.1.8 A pedestrian easement shall be recorded for the multi -use pathway that is required to be constructed with development of this site. Coordinate the details with Jay Gibbons, Park’s Department, at 208-888- 3579. 1.2 General Conditions of Approval 1.2.1 Comply with all bulk, use, and development standards of the applicable district listed in UDC Chapter 2 District regulations. 1.2.2 Comply with the provisions for irrigation ditches, laterals, canals and/or drainage courses, as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6. 1.2.3 Install lighting consistent with the provisions as set forth in UDC 11-3A-11. 1.2.4 Provide a pressurized irrigation system consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-15, UDC 11-3B-6 and MCC 9-1-28. EXHIBIT A Twelve Oaks – CUP H-2016-0100 17 1.2.5 Comply with the sidewalk standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-17. 1.2.6 Install all utilities consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-21 and 11-3B-5J. 1.2.7 Construct all off-street parking areas consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3B-5I, 11-3B- 8C, and Chapter 3 Article C. 1.2.8 Construct the required landscape buffers consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3B-7C (streets). 1.2.9 Construct storm water integration facilities that meet the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3B-11C. 1.2.10 Protect any existing trees on the subject property that are greater than four-inch caliper and/or mitigate for the loss of such trees as set forth in UDC 11-3B-10. 1.2.11 Provide bicycle parking spaces as set forth in UDC 11-3C-6G consistent with the design standards as set forth in UDC 11-3C-5C. 1.2.12 Comply with the outdoor service and equipment area standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-12. 1.2.13 Construct all required landscape areas used for storm water integration consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3B-11C. 1.2.14 Comply with the structure and site design standards, as set forth in UDC 11-3A-19 and the guidelines set forth in the City of Meridian Architectural Standards Manual. 1.2.15 Comply with all provisions of UDC 11-3A-3 with regard to maintaining the clear vision triangle. 1.2.16 Low pressure sodium lighting shall be prohibited as an exterior lighting source on the site. 1.2.17 All fencing constructed on the site shall comply with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-7 and 11- 3A-6B as applicable. 1.3 Ongoing Conditions of Approval 1.3.1 The conditional use may only be transferred or modified consistent with the provisions as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6G. The applicant shall contact Planning Division staff regarding any proposed modification and/or transfer of ownership. 1.3.2 The applicant and/or property owner shall have an ongoing obligation to prune all trees to a minimum height of six feet above the ground or sidewalk surface to afford greater visibility of the area. 1.4 Process Conditions of Approval 1.4.1 No signs are approved with this application. Prior to installing any signs on the property, the applicant shall submit a sign permit application consistent with the standards in UDC Chapter 3 Article D and receive approval for such signs. 1.4.2 The conditional use approval shall be null and void if the applicant fails to 1) commence the use within two years as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6F1 or 2) gain approval of a time extension as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6F4. 1.4.3 The applicant shall submit and obtain approval of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application from the Planning Division, prior to submittal of any building permit application. 2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2.1 Site Specific Conditions of Approval 2.1.1 Applicant shall minimize dead end water mains, and shall install fire hydrants at dead ends in lieu of blow-offs. EXHIBIT A Twelve Oaks – CUP H-2016-0100 18 2.1.2 The sidewalk pathway bridge lies within the Meridian Floodplain Overlay District. Prior to any development occurring in the Overlay District, a floodplain permit application, including hydraulic and hydrologic analysis is required to be completed and submitted to the City and approved by the Floodplain Administrator per MCC 10-6. 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 not be dedicated via the plat, but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian’s standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. 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. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. 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 9-1-28C1). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 2.2.5 All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. 2.2.6 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. 2.2.7 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. 2.2.8 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. 2.2.9 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, etc., prior to signature on the final plat. 2.2.10 All development improvements, including but not limited to sewer and water, fencing, micro-paths, EXHIBIT A Twelve Oaks – CUP H-2016-0100 19 pressurized irrigation and landscaping shall be installed and approved prior to obtaining certificates of occupancy. 2.2.11 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. 2.2.12 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. 2.2.13 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.2.14 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.2.15 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-1-4B. 2.2.16 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. 2.2.17 The engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 2.2.18 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. 2.2.19 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. 2.2.20 100 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 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. 2.2.21 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the amount of 125% of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer, water and reuse infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in 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 887-2211. 2.2.22 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. POLICE DEPARTMENT EXHIBIT A Twelve Oaks – CUP H-2016-0100 20 3.1 The Police Department has no comments on this application. 4. FIRE DEPARTMENT 4.1 Any newly installed Fire Department connections for sprinkler or standpipes will require locking Knox box plugs. 4.2 Based on the size of new construction and the location of the sprinkler room in relation to the address side of the structure, the AHJ may require separate Knox box locations. One being at the main, address side entrance and the other at the entrance to the sprinkler riser room. 4.3 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. 4.4 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. 4.5 Ensure that all yet undeveloped parcels are maintained free of combustible vegetation as set forth in International Fire Code Section 304.1.2. 4.6 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. 4.7 Operational fire hydrants, temporary or permanent street signs, and access roads with an all-weather surface are required to be installed before combustible construction material is brought onto the site, as set forth in International Fire Code Section (IFC) 501.4 and Meridian amendment to IFC 10-4-2J. 4.8 Maintain a separation of 5’ from the building to the dumpster enclosure as set forth in International Fire Code Section 304.3.3. 4.9 Provide a Knox box entry system for the complex prior to occupancy as set forth in International Fire Code Section 506. 4.10 The first digit of the Apartment/Office Suite shall correspond to the floor level as set forth in International Fire Code Section 505.1. 4.11 All aspects of the building systems (including exiting systems), processes & storage practices shall be required to comply with the International Fire Code Section 101.2. 4.12 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. 4.13 All R-2 occupancies with 3 or more units shall be required to be fire sprinkled as set forth in International Fire Code Section 903.2.8. 4.14 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. 4.15 The Fire Department will require Knoxbox Fire Department Connection caps on all FDC inlets. IFC 102.9 EXHIBIT A Twelve Oaks – CUP H-2016-0100 21 4.16 Buildings over 30’ in height are required to have access roads in accordance with the International Fire Code Appendix D Section D105. 5. REPUBLIC SERVICES 5.1 Comments have not been received from Republic Services on this application. 6. PARKS DEPARTMENT 6.1 The developer shall provide a multi-use pathway connection per the Pathways Master Plan within a public pedestrian easement. Coordinate with Jay Gibbons, Park’s Department, at 208-888-3579. 7. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT 7.1 Site Specific Conditions of Approval (DRAFT) 7.1.1 Repair or replace any deficient or deteriorated improvements along Franklin Road abutting the site consistent with District Minor Improvement policy. 7.1.2 Pave the driveway on Franklin Road located 1,202-feet west of Linder Road, its full width and at least 30-feet into the site beyond the edge of the roadway. 7.1.3 Payment of impacts fees are due prior to issuance of a building permit. 7.1.4 Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval. 7.2 Standard Conditions of Approval (DRAFT) 7.2.1 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). 7.2.2 Private Utilities including sewer or water systems are prohibited from being located within the ACHD right-of-way. 7.2.3 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. 7.2.4 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. 7.2.5 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. 7.2.6 All utility relocation costs associated with improving street frontages abutting the site shall be borne by the developer. 7.2.7 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 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. EXHIBIT A Twelve Oaks – CUP H-2016-0100 22 7.2.8 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. 7.2.9 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. 7.2.10 Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable requirements of ACHD prior to District approval for occupancy. 7.2.11 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. 7.2.12 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 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. EXHIBIT A Twelve Oaks – CUP H-2016-0100 23 C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code 1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: The Commission and Council shall review the particular facts and circumstances of each proposed conditional use in terms of the following, and may approve a conditional use permit if they shall find evidence presented at the hearing(s) is adequate to establish: 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 site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet the dimensional and development regulations of the C-C zoning district and the specific use standards for multi-family developments. 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 multi-family residential use will be harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan and will develop in accord with UDC requirements. 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 the general design, construction, operation and maintenance of the multi-family use will be compatible with existing residential and commercial uses in the vicinity and with the existing and intended character of the area and will not adversely change the character of the area. d. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. The Commission finds that the proposed development should not adversely affect other property in the vicinity if the applicant complies with all conditions of approval listed in Exhibit B of this staff report and constructs all improvements and operates the use in accordance with the UDC standards. 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 and irrigation can be made available to the subject property. Please refer to comments prepared by the Public Works Department, Fire Department, Police Department and other agencies. 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. The Commission finds that the applicant will pay to extend the sanitary sewer and water mains into the site. No additional capital facility costs are expected from the City. The applicant and/or future property owners will be required to pay impact fees. 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. EXHIBIT A Twelve Oaks – CUP H-2016-0100 24 The Commission finds that the proposed development should not involve activities that will create nuisances that would be detrimental to the general welfare of the surrounding area. The Commission recognizes the fact that traffic and noise will increase with the approval of this development; however, whenever undeveloped property is developed, the amount of traffic generation does increase. 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 the proposed development will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural feature(s) of major importance. Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: October 20, 2016 Item: Paramount Director ITEM NUMBER: 4A PROJECT NUMBER: H-2106-0104 Public Hearing continued from 10/6 for Paramount Director (H-2016-0104) by Brighton Investments / Land Holdings Located Southwest Corner of W. Chinden Boulevard and N. Meridian Road Request: Rezone of 37.31 Acres of Land from the C -C and TN -C Zoning Districts to the R-15 Zoning Districts Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of 196 Building Lots, 12 Common Area Lots and 2 Future Right -of -Way Lots on 35.63 Acres of Land in the R-15 Zoning District MEETING NOTES "�'C- '4jor -ID (2 �C— sd- -'&V (�/ C- / � - /6::, CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION k Ir/ K (11), (� � -0 DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting October 20, 2016 Item #4A: Paramount Director Vicinity/Zoning Map ÚÚd C-N L-O RUT L-O RUT R-8 R-15 C-C L-O R-8 C-C C-G R-8 R-2 R1 C-C RUT C-C RUT TN-C R-4 RUT R-4 RUT R-4 RUT R-8 C-C N L i n d e r R d E Chinden Blvd W CayuseCreek Dr W Chinden Blvd N M e r i d i a n R d N L a n d o n C r e e k P l W C r o s b y D r E Segundo St ESanPedro St WRattlesnakeDr W D i r e c t o r S t W Pr o d u c e r D r N M o r p h e u s A v e W Woodward S t N Isla A v e E Boulder Bar St E Tallinn St N R e d H i l l s A v e E Everest St N B e r g m a n A v e W Heston Dr N S a g u a r o H i l l s A v e N R o s a S p r i n g s A v e N G a r b o Av e E Rio C o l i n a s D r W BacallDr W H e s t o n C t N S e n i t a H i l l s A v e N K e a t o n W a y E SanPedroSt W Br o d e r i c k D r N Moose Creek Ave E P r o d u c e r D r E Tuttle St N G a r b o Av e N M i t c h u m W a y E Cho lla Hi lls St E Joshua Tree Dr W G a b l e S t E San Pedro St W PuzzleCreek Ct E Segundo St E Giant Saguaro St N G e r t i e P l N B o o t h A v e W Glade Creek St N R e d H i l l s P l W Cedar Grove St WEagleMountainDr WMartenCreekDr E I r o n s t o n e C t N Moose Creek Ave N F o x R u n W a y N D i e t r i c h A v e N S a g u a r o H i l l s A v e N R e d H o r s e W a y WHamRapidsSt W C a y u s e C r e e k D r E Pasacana St E Martello Ln E Klamath Ln N B r y n n e r A v e W C a g n e y S t E Almos St W Everest Ln N M o r p h e u s P l W Coburn St E I r o n s t o n e D r W Caine St E Azan S t N P e p p a r d A v eW D r e y f u s s S t N P i n e r y C a n y o n A v e E C h olla Hills St E Martello Ln E Lockhart Ln WRootCreekSt N K e a t o n A v e W Bacall St E Cholla Hills St N M i t c h u m A v e N R o s a S p r i n g s A v e N S e n i t a H i l l s A v e N B e a h a m A v e N L a r k w o o d P l N P e p p a r d A v e N S a g u a r o H i l l s P l E Pasacana St WBrandt Ln W Barrymore D r W V a l e n tino Dr N E l k R a n c h L n W C o l b e r t S t W P i c k f o r d S t W V a l e n t i n o S t W Hitchcock St WIslandGreenDr N H o o d A v e N R i o V i s t a W a y N D i a m o n d C r e e k A v e N A r l i s s A v e N R e d H i l l s A v e N L a n g e A v e N C l a r e t C u p W a y N M a x i m u s P l N D e m i l l e A v e N R e d H i l l s A v e N B a r n e y L n N M a x i m u s W a y N R o s a S p r i n g s A v e W R edgrave D r N B e a h a m A v e N C h a n n i n g W a y N R i o L o m a s A v e W C a g n e y D r SAINT IGNATIUS SCHOOL PARAMOUNT SUB NO 16 PARAMOUNT SUB NO 27 PARAMOUNT SUB NO 05LOCHSA FALLS NO 11 PARAMOUNT SUB NO 07 LOCHSA FALLS NO 06 SAGUARO CANYON NO 03 ARCADIA LOCHSA FALLS NO 01 PARAMOUNT SUB NO 04 KNIGHTSKYESTATES KNIGHTHILL SUBDIVISION HIGHTOWER SAGUARO SPRINGS/MADELYNN ESTATES VENTANA NO 02 CARDIGAN BAY PARAMOUNT SUB NO 12 VENTANA NO 01 SAGUARO CANYON NO 02 LOCHSA FALLS NO 03 LOCHSA FALLS NO 07 PARAMOUNT SUB NO 02 PARAMOUNT SUB NO 01 PARAMOUNT SUB NO 08 PARAMOUNT SUB NO 03 LOCHSA FALLS NO 12 LOCHSA FALLS NO 02 PARAMOUNT VILLAGE CENTER PARAMOUNT SUB NO 09 SAGUARO CANYON NO 04 PARAMOUNT SUB NO 11 SCHOOL PARAMOUNT ELEM PARAMOUNT SUB NO 06 SCHOOL ROCKY MOUNTAIN HIGH MOULTON BRADFORD PARAMOUNT SUB NO 13 JERICHO SUBDIVISION PARAMOUNT SUB NO 15 SCHOOL CHALLENGER PARAMOUNT SUB NO 17 VILLAS AT LOCHSA FALLS PARAMOUNT SUB NO 18 PARAMOUNT SUB NO 22 PARAMOUNT SUB NO 21 PARAMOUNT SUB NO 19 HACIENDA SUBDIVISION NO. 3 HACIENDA SUBDIVISION NO.2 HACIENDA HACIENDA NO.5 SPURWING CHALLENGE LINDER & CHINDEN PARAMOUNT SUB NO 24 PARAMOUNT ADDITIONAL PHASES BULL RANCH BIRKDALE ESTATES PARAMOUNT NORTHEAST ASSISTED LIVING Paramount No. 29 PARAMOUNT DIRECTOR EXTENSION HACIENDA SOUTH Proposed Preliminary Plat & Phasing Plan Proposed Landscape Plan Parking pads do not comply with UDC standards Rear setback doesn’t comply with minimum 12’ setback Encore Cadence 55+ 1 VERANDA ASSISTED LIVING PARAMOUNT DIRECTOR SUBDIVISION CHINDEN 2 ENCORE single-story, age-qualified townhome community (aprox. Living area: 1600 s.f.) CADENCE two-story townhome community (aprox. Living area: 1900-2100 s.f.) 3 ENCORE – an age-qualified Community 4 AGE QUALIFIED “ENCORE” PROJECT EXAMPLE 5 CADENCE – a family Community 6 ENCORE CADENCE 7 QUESTIONS? CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET Date: October 20, 2016 Item # 4A Project Number: H-2016-0104 Project Name: Please print your name Paramount Director For I Against I Neutral Do you wish to testifv (Y/N) A inn �G� 1/1 � ✓ `7 Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: October 20, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: 4 PROJECT NUMBER: H-2106-0113 Item: Bannock Ridge Public Hearing for Bannock Ridge (H-2016-0113) by Lee Gientke Located 2940, 3101 and 3155 S. Mesa Way 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 9.42 Acres of Land with an R-4 Zoning District 2. Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Thirty -Five (35) Building Lots and Four (4) Common Lots on 13.57 Acres of Land in an R-4 Zoning District MEETING NOTES Pa ��-( IV,zee� -fn ((3 16e, ILV� 1�w (. y -o CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: October 20, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: 4C PROJECT NUMBER: H-2016-0111 ITEM TITLE: Linder Road Apartments A. Hublic Hearing tor Linder Road Apartments by nves mens LF, Locateda . Linder Road 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 4.55 Acres of Land with an R-15 Zoning District 2. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a Multi -Family Development in the R-15 Zoning District Consisting of Sixty -Four (64) Dwelling Units MEETING NOTES C- P CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Item #4C: Linder Road Apts. Vicinity/Zoning Map ""d R-2 I-L C2 R-4 R-8 RUT RUT R-2 I-L C-C RUT TN-C C-G L-O R-4 R-15 TN-R R-4 RUT RUT R-8 S L I N D E R R D S S T O D D A R D R D W OVERLAND RD S W O O D H O U S E A V E S F A R M I N G T O N A V E W H E A V Y TIM B E R DR S S P A N I S H F O R K W A Y W A M E R I C A N F O R K D R S B E A R C L A W W A Y W CHRISTOP H E R S T S M A L A Y A N A V E W ELIAS ST W DAVENPORT ST W K O D I A K D R W WOODINGTON ST W W O O D I N G T O N S T S T E C H L N W C A L D E R W OOD ST S B E A R T O O T H W A Y S S P A NISHSUN WAY S B L U E M A R L I N L N S O L D T H O R N L N S OLD THORN LN Site Plan Landscape Plan Revised Building Elevations Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: October 20, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: 4D PROJECT NUMBER: H-2016-0114 ITEM TITLE: Citadel 4 Storage Ten Mile C. Public Hearing for Citadel 4 Storage Ten Mile (H-2016-0114) by Citadel Storage, LLC Located 4015 N. Ten Mile Road 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 9.97 Acres of Land with an I -L Zoning District MEETING NOTES CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Item #4D: Citadel 4 Storage at Ten Mile - Vicinity/Zoning Map Citadel 4 Storage at Ten Mile – Concept Plan Citadel 4 Storage at Ten Mile – Conceptual Elevations Citadel 4 Self-Storage Modified Conditions •Site Specific Condition Item 1.1.1. c. – landscape set back regarding the South Boundary Modify to read: The applicant is also required to construct a 10-foot wide landscape buffer for the eastern 150’ on the southern boundary adjacent to the existing rental house. •Site Specific Condition Item 1.1.1. d. – Cross Access Modify to read: The applicant shall provide cross access from the north to the south if the site does not develop as a self-storage facility. Southern Rental 75’ +/- Meridian Future Land Use Map Vicinity Map Adjacent Uses Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: October 20, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: 4E PROJECT NUMBER: H-2016-0118 ITEM TITLE: 2016 UDC Text Amendment Public Hearing - Text Amdnt to the UDC as follows: UDC Sections, Definitions; Density Requirements in the Residential Districts; Traditional Neighborhood Standards (TN -R and O -T); Ditches, Laterals, Canals or Drainage Courses; Fencing; Pathways; Structure and Site Design Standards; Landscaping Requirements (Stormwater Facilities); Common Open Space and Site Amenities Requirements; Specific Provisions (Certifcate of Zoning Compliance, Annexation and Rezones and Alternative Compliance); Subdivision Process; and Subdivision Design and Improvement Standards (Block Length and Common Driveways) by COM MEETING NOTES CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Item #4E: 2016 UDC Text Amendment