Loading...
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eridian Planning and Zoning Meeting March 1, 2018. Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of March 1, 2018, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Rhonda McCarvel. Members Present: Chairman Rhonda McCarvel, Commissioner Steven Yearsley, Commissioner Bill Cassinelli, Commissioner Gregory Wilson and Commissioner Ryan Fitzgerald, Commissioner Jessica Perreault and Commissioner Lisa Holland. Others Present: Chris Johnson, Andrea Pogue, Jeff Brown, Bill Parsons, Sonya Allen Josh Beach and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll -call Attendance _X Lisa Holland _x Gregory Wilson X Jessica Perreault X X Steven Yearsley X Ryan Fitzgerald X Bill Cassinelli Rhonda McCarvel - Chairman McCarvel: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. At this time I would like to call to order the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission on March 1 st, 2018, and we will begin with roll call. Item 2: Adoption of Agenda McCarvel: The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. We have no changes to the agenda this evening, so could I get a motion to adopt the agenda as presented? Wilson: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Wilson. Wilson: I move to adopt the agenda. Cassinelli: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 3: Consent Agenda Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 4 of 161 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 1, 2018 Page 2 of 72 A. Approve Minutes of the February 15, 2018 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Pine 43 Apartments (H-2018-0001) by Pine Development Partners, LLC Located North of East Pine Avenue and East of North Locust Grove Road. McCarvel: Next on the -- next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and we have two items on the Consent Agenda. We have the approval of minutes for the February 15th Planning and Zoning Meeting and the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Pine 43 Apartments, H-2018-0001. Can I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda as presented? Holland: So moved. Wilson: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to -- to adopt the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. McCarvel: So, at this time I would like to briefly explain the public hearing process for this evening. We will open each item individually and, then, start with the staff report. The staff will report their findings on how the item adheres to our Comprehensive Plan and Uniform Development Code, with the staff's recommendations. After the staff has made their presentation the applicant will come forward to present their case for the approval of their application and respond to any staff comments. The applicant will have 15 minutes to do so. After the applicant has finished we will open to public testimony. There is a sign-up sheet in the back as you entered for anyone wishing to testify. Any person testifying will come forward and be allowed three minutes. If they are speaking for a larger group, like an HOA, and there is a show of hands to show that the -- to represent that group, they will be given up to ten minutes. After all testimony has been heard, the applicant will be given another ten minutes to have the opportunity to come back and respond if they desire. After that we will close the public hearing and the commissioners will have the opportunity to discuss and, hopefully, be able to make a recommendation to City Council. And at this time I would like to let the record show that Commissioner Yearsley is present. Yearsley: Sorry for being late. Item 4: Action Items Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 5 of 161 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 1, 2018 Page 3 of 72 A. Public Hearing for Lasken Annexation (H-2017-0154) by Thomas H. Lasken, Located at 721 E Pine Request: An Annexation and Zoning of 0.99 of an Acres of Land with an R-2 Zoning District McCarvel: Trouble finding a parking spot? Okay. So, at this time I would like to open the public hearing for Item H-2017-0154, Lasken Annexation, and we will begin with the staff report. Beach: Good evening, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. This is an application for annexation. This site consists of approximately 0.99 of an acre of land, which is currently zoned RUT, located at 721 East Pine Avenue. The adjacent land use and zoning -- to the north, as I said, is East Pine Avenue and single family homes in the Danbury Fair Subdivision, zoned R-8. To the east are single family residential property, which is zoned RUT in Ada county and that is the case for the south and for the west boundary as well. There is no current history on this property, because they are asking for annexation into the city this evening. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is mixed use community. The -- as I said, the Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation for the property is mixed use community. The applicant is requesting annexation to hook up the existing home and outbuildings to city water and sewer services and the site is -- as I said, is comprised of 0.99 acres of land. They have asked for R-2 zoning. As I said, this is part of an overall Comprehensive Plan designated area as mixed use community. We do anticipate that this property will be further developed in the future, along with the other parcels around it. The staff is comfortable giving this property the R-2 zoning designation at this time. Staff is recommending approval and I will stand for any questions you have on this particular application. McCarvel: Any questions for staff? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward? Is there an applicant? There he is. And please state -- oh. Right here to the podium. Oh. Lasken: Sorry, I don't know what to do. McCarvel: Yeah. Just state your name and address for the record and tell us what you're -- why you're bringing this in. Why you want to bring this in. Lasken: My name is Tom Lasken. 721 East Pine Avenue. And the area I live in is unincorporated Ada county and my septic tank is breaking down and cannot be renewed and I am looking to acquire sewer service when East Pine is completed. McCarvel: Okay. Lasken: That requirement for sewer service means I have to be annexed. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 6 of 161 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 1, 2018 Page 4 of 72 McCarvel: Okay. Lasken: That's why I'm here. McCarvel: Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: I just -- are you in agreement with the staff report? Lasken: Yes. Yearsley: Thank you. That's all I had. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. At this time I'm guessing there is nobody -- we will wait for Christopher to find the sign-up sheet, but I'm guessing there is nobody here that's wanting to testify on this application -- Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Thank you. Fitzgerald: I would move we close -- McCarvel: Mr. Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: -- the public hearing on H-2017-0154. Cassinelli: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H-2017- 0154. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. McCarvel: Any comments, concerns? Cassinelli: We have an agreement with the staff report. Yearsley: It makes sense if it's going to get reconstructed to do it now. McCarvel: Yeah. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 7 of 161 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 1, 2018 Page 5 of 72 Yearsley: And I wondered if -- with staff if that's something that we may want to send a letter to the other applicants -- individuals that live there, if they want service at this time while that's to be constructed, so -- as a thought. Just -- Beach: I'm not sure if Public Works does that, but we can -- I can definitely run that past them. I know that -- that sometimes they ask folks if they want to stub -- Yearsley: Right. Beach: -- when they are constructing it. I'm not sure if that is the case this evening, but --so-- Yearsley: -so-- Yearsley: Absolutely. All right. McCarvel: Okay. Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, just -- I can interject on that real quick. Yes. So, whenever there is a road widening project there is public outreach and those -- those neighbors are afforded that opportunity and they -- they actually pay for that to happen as part of that project. Yearsley: Awesome. McCarvel: Thank you. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: I'm going to make a motion. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number H-2017- 0154, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 1, 2018. Wilson: Second. Cassinelli: With no modification. Wilson: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to accept H-2017-0154, Lasken Annexation. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Congratulations. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 8 of 161 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 1, 2018 Page 6 of 72 B. Public Hearing for Baraya Apartments (H-2018-0003) by Schultz Development, Located at the Southwest Corner of South Ten Mile Road and West Franklin Road Request: A Conditional Use Permit Consisting of 240 Multi - Family Dwelling Units on Approximately 12.59 Acres in an Existing R-40 Zoning District 2. Request: A Preliminary Plat Consisting of 13 Multi -Family Building Lots and 3 Common Lots on 12.59 Acres in an Existing R-40 Zoning District McCarvel: So, at this time we will open the public hearing for H-2018-0003 -- okay. Help me out on this -- Baraya? Baraya Apartments? Baraya. Okay. Thank you. Apartments. And we will begin with the staff report. Beach: This is an application for a conditional use permit and for a preliminary plat. This approximate site here -- it's not this entire parcel kind of outlined here. This long funny shape here -- the -- essentially, the R-40 zoned area is the portion this evening being asked for, a conditional use permit and a preliminary plat. So, that site consists of approximately 12.59 acres of land. As I said, is zoned R-40. It's located on the south side of West Franklin Road near the southwest corner of West Franklin and South Ten Mile Roads. To the north is West Franklin and the Ten Mile Christian Church, zoned C- N. To the east is undeveloped property zoned RUT within Ada county. To the south is undeveloped commercial property, zoned C -C and to the west is undeveloped residential property, zoned R-15. This property was annexed and granted preliminary plat in 2006 as -- as Baraya Subdivision. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation for the parcel is high density residential. A conditional use permit, as I said, is requested for this property for multi -family within the R-40 zoning district. The multi- family development consists of 240 dwelling units and 13 structures on, as I said, 12.59 acres of land in R-40. They consist of one, two, and three bedroom units. There are specific use standards in the Unified Development Code, 11-4-3-27 that the applicant is required to comply with. A couple items that they will need to address with the certificate of zoning compliance, those being a directory map, a maintenance area, an office and a parcel mail area that was not addressed in the -- the application. So, as far as amenities are concerned, the applicant is proposing a swimming pool, a clubhouse with an exercise room, a 50 by 100 open grassy area and a tot lot as amenities that comply with the UDC standards. Each fall within the quality of life open space and recreation categories as required. Parking for the developments -- off-street parking is required to comply with the standards in the UDC, which requires two parking spaces per dwelling unit, with at least one of those in a covered carport or garage. Based on the 240 units of one, two, and three bedroom units, a minimum of 456 parking spaces are required, of which 240 should be covered. The applicant's site plan depicts that exact number of 456 spaces with 240 covered, with a total of nine additional ADA stalls. For nonresidential uses, such as the clubhouse, a minimum of one space is required to be provided for every 500 square feet. The applicant submitted floor plans for the Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 9 of 161 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 1, 2018 Page 7 of 72 clubhouse, which is approximately 5,400 square feet, which would require 11 spaces. So, require the applicant to ensure that they have provided adequate parking for the clubhouse as well. A minimum of one bicycle parking stall is required for every 25 proposed vehicle stalls, for a total of 19 required. They have also proposed 19. Parking lot landscaping is required and they are also required to provide a 25 foot landscape buffer to be installed adjacent to the commercial on the south. They are also required to install a 25 foot landscape buffer along Franklin and a 20 foot landscape buffer, which is to go along their North Umbria Hills Avenue, which is a designated collector roadway. This is the plat here and there are 13 lots and a better landscape plan, so you can see there are amenities in their landscaping provided. The applicant has also submitted some -- four building types as proposed for the future family -- future multi -family structures. Elevations submitted with the certificate of zoning compliance application should demonstrate compliance with the standards in the UDC, as well as with the architectural standards manual. It will be required to go through a certificate of zoning compliance and design review. As I said, a condition to the conditional use permit they are proposing a preliminary plat for the 13 residential building lots and three common lots on that approximately 12.59 acres of land in the R-40 zoning district. The lots do comply with the R-40 standards. Access to the subdivision is proposed via Franklin Road. This portion of the road -- approximately this location -- has already been constructed with an adjacent subdivision. The applicant will be restricted to 200 units in this development until there is a secondary access provided for the -- for the fire department. There is -- there was not a traffic study required for this project per ACHD. As I said, they are required to provide ten percent open space as well, because this is a subdivision, so the applicant does comply with both the specific use standards requirement for open space and with the -- which is 3-G-3, which is our subdivision code. They are providing 2.97 acres or 24 percent of the site to be an open space and that consists of the clubhouse, swimming pool, and tot lot areas, as well as a portion of the collector landscape buffer and a portion of the arterial landscape buffer against Franklin Road. Staff is recommending approval and I will stand for any questions you have on this particular application. McCarvel: Any questions for staff? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward. Schultz: Good evening, Commissioners. Matt Schultz. 8421 South Ten Mile, here on behalf of Challenger Development and Schultz Development. This is a piece of property I have been working on for 12 years now. We originally submitted the original Baraya Subdivision of 94 acres back in 2006. We went through a very comprehensive and time intensive planning effort, called the Ten Mile interchange specific area plan. That's why we meet that exactly, because we were involved in that and we designated how we could put the collector through, where the R-40 wanted to go, and there is even an elementary school site over off of Black Cat on 14 acres of the -- of the 94. We have -- single family residential has been ongoing since 2016. Finally. We have been doing time extensions forever -- to get going, because of the downturn from when we first got it approved, but we -- we have stayed current the whole way. We are just dusting this one off, but it's been on the books for R-40 for right around this density is just kind of how it came out. When we first ran it through we knew what density we would get Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 10 of 161 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 1, 2018 Page 8 of 72 generally and there was a traffic study done at that time for -- for the whole master plan. That's why ACHD didn't require one with this primary plat. It adds some lotting and gets into the specifics of the open space, the buffers, the building styles and all those things. We made your code. We exceed your code. We do agree with the staff report. We did submit a revised architectural site plan designating the mailing area and the -- and the signage area and all that earlier today. It's in Josh's e-mail I'm sure. We have just been busy. So, we exceed the parking required. I know everybody wants to talk about that. You know, like seven. I know it may not be enough, but we do exceed it and after every tenth stall will be a landscape island, after trash enclosures, after what turns out to be about 20 percent open space required when you do the 250 square feet of private, plus some R zoning, part of the additional ten percent, so you get -- you get the double, which is fine. We meet it. But there is -- there is just not any room left over that we can see to -- if we could we would put a few more, because its landscaping versus parking -- it doesn't -- it doesn't matter to us. We will put it in if we can squeeze it in. But we go through a very intensive laborious multi -consultant process that takes several months to finally get to this point and we exceed it, we are like, all right, we are good. And to do anything at this point we would have to chop stories off of buildings to gain spaces in a reverse kind of a way. So, at this point we feel like we meet your code, we exceed your code, we have got a great site plan, grade amenities, good size clubhouse, good connectivity. There is going to be a signal on Franklin Road, which just got widened to five lanes. So, we are on an arterial, on a collector. We are within about a quarter mile over to Ten Mile and Franklin intersection and a half mile down. So, we are within three-quarters of a mile to the Ten Mile interchange, so we are -- we are in the right spot. You know, I think you want to put your multi -family -- not always, but if you can it would be nice if you can put it a mile from the freeway ideally to reduce your trips. So, we are meeting all those things and we hope you will pass this on to -- with a vote of approval tonight and I'm here to answer any questions. McCarvel: Okay. Any questions for the applicant? Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: Hey, Matt. So, staff is -- from the size of your clubhouse -- Schultz: Uh-huh. Fitzgerald: -- you're saying that you exceed our code. Staff is saying that you need two more. I'm confused. Schultz: I don't know what staff is looking at, but I know what I'm looking at. Fitzgerald: Okay. Can you give us the discrepancy. Schultz: And I don't know where they came up with that. But, essentially, for the Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 11 of 161 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 1, 2018 Page 9 of 72 apartments we need 456 spaces. Let me put my glasses on here. Fitzgerald: But you have a clubhouse that needs a little more. Schultz: The clubhouse needs more. Eleven. Which puts us at the 467 -- Fitzgerald: Okay. Schultz: -- required and we have 474. So, we are exceeding it with the clubhouse requirements -- Fitzgerald: Okay. Schultz: -- and we have, like I said, thoroughly went through and make sure we hit or exceeded all of your code requirements. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair, can I have a follow up? With this map -- those -- one, two, three, four, five buildings on the -- it would be the west side, where is the trash enclosure for those five buildings? So, on the curve coming down off Umbria Hills there is the -- the monument sign and those five buildings right behind it. On the west side. don't see a trash enclosure for any of those buildings. So, if you're making those people walk to the other side of the project, that's going to be a problem I would guess for Republic Service and for us trying to explain to the people who live there why that didn't make sense. Schultz: I believe this is -- Beach: North is to the west. Fitzgerald: I know. I'm talking about to the west. Those five buildings. Beach: Here? Fitzgerald: No. Down at the bottom. On Umbria Hills there is not a trash enclosure that I can see that's depicted on there anywhere on that -- Schultz: They are there. They are just not on this color artistic rendering. They are covered up by a tree. Fitzgerald: Okay. So, you got -- Schultz: There is definitely trash enclosures -- Fitzgerald: And there are ones at the top where there -- there is none for those five buildings on the bottom that I can see and you got them depicted on the -- on the rendering, so -- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 12 of 161 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 1, 2018 Page 10 of 72 Schultz: There is one right here and -- this is so small I can't read the rest of them, but know they have worked with Republic -- Fitzgerald: Okay. Schultz: -- and gotten feedback from Republic and what we have is what they have approved or with slight little tweaks. So, we were -- we are in touch with Republic. Fitzgerald: Okay. Schultz: But I can't exactly see on this reduced site plan -- Fitzgerald: Josh, can you go back to the -- the rendering? So, I'm just pick -- pulling -- policing them out. On the east side you got one, two, three in the corner, one to the southwest and there is one to the north -- okay. All the way up to the north, but there is nothing on the west side that I can see. Schultz: I think they -- this was a month before we got the comments from Republic -- Fitzgerald: Okay. Schultz: -- drawing and we have added some in -- Fitzgerald: Okay. Schultz: -- so, I -- but we have to pass their approval. Fitzgerald: Got it. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. McCarvel: Any other questions for the applicant? Okay. Thanks, Matt. Okay. On the sign-up sheet there is nobody that's indicated they would like to speak, but is there anyone in the room that would like to give testimony on this application this evening? Okay. We will move on. Any -- any reason for the applicant to come back up? Anybody change their mind on anymore questions? All right. Wilson: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Wilson. Wilson: I move to close the public hearing on H-2018-0003. Fitzgerald: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H-2018- 0003. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 13 of 161 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 1, 2018 Page 11 of 72 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. McCarvel: You know, I think this hits a lot of great points. I mean it's on the arterial, they have got the collector, I know they have still got to do their round -- their turnaround down there for now and they do just pass our parking requirements, all the -- with the collector. There is no overflow parking, so -- the pool looks great. Perreault: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: Did I understand staff to say that until that turnaround is put in it's -- they are limited to 200 units? Is that what -- Fitzgerald: Yeah. McCarvel: Yes. Beach: So, Madam Chair, to answer that question, the turnaround is not going to impact the number. They have another way of -- McCarvel: The other exit. Beach: -- entering the property. Right now the only way in and out is Franklin and fire code requires a certain amount of separation between access points and so they don't have that right now. There is a -- a cap at 200 until they can provide that. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: I -- yeah. I think this is a good location. I mean Ten Mile interchange and that business park area is going to continue to expand. This provides a -- a pretty dense product that got a great open space, good layout. I think it looks good. I know we have to meet code, so my trash enclosure issue can be dealt with on that side of things, so I would be in favor of moving it forward. Holland: Madam Chair? De Weerd: Commissioner Holland. Holland: The only other comment I have is looking at the future land use map. It looks like there is potentially a park to the east side of this, kind of southeast of this parcel, and so I was wondering a little bit about pathways and connectivity into some of those other areas in the future. It looks like it's surrounded by trees and not a lot of pathways Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 14 of 161 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 1, 2018 Page 12 of 72 on the outside edges on the east or the south side. McCarvel: Yeah. I guess it would have to be the sidewalk on the north and, then -- Josh said that there is another roadway going back there on the south side; right? In the future. The east -west roadway. Beach: I can get into a little bit more detail with this. There was a -- there is a master transportation plan that was approved for this section here and I can -- I can show you that if you would like. We didn't put that in our presentation. But there will be a collector roadway on the south boundary of this property that will be constructed with a different development when the property to the south develops. We have added a condition to the -- to the applicant that they provide an access point for vehicles on the south side of the property, so that once that is constructed folks are able to utilize that and that will help with their 200. 1 anticipate them, you know, further to the west that property is going to develop and it's currently developing, so that will help that. But, yeah, there is -- there is a master transportation plan. I could find that and show you if you would like to see. Fitzgerald: We trust you. McCarvel: Thank you, Josh. Any other comments? Would anybody like to make a motion? Wilson: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Wilson. Wilson: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number H-2018-0003, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 1, 2018. Holland: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to approve H-2018-0003. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. C. Public Hearing for Lost Rapids (H-2018-0004) By GFI-Meridian Investments 11, LLC and Brighton Investments Located at the Southwest Corner of State Highway 20-26 (Chinden Blvd.) and North Ten Mile Road Request: An Amendment to the Future Land Use Map Contained in the Comprehensive Plan to Change the Land Use Designation on a Combined 78.33 Acres of Land from Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 15 of 161 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 1, 2018 Page 13 of 72 the Medium Density Residential (61.83 Acres) and the Mixed Use - Community (16.50 Acres) to Mixed Use - Regional. 2. Request: An Annexation and Zoning of 78.33 Acres of Land with R-15 (39.01) Acres), R-40 (6.50 Acres), and C -G (32.83 Acres) Zoning Districts. 3. A Preliminary Plat Consisting of 1 Residential Building Lot, 13 Commercial Building Lots and 1 Other Lot for Dedication of right-of-way on 36.2 Acres of Land in the Proposed R-40 and C -G Zoning Districts. 4. A Variance to UDC 11 -3H -4B, Which Prohibits New Approaches Directly Accessing a State Highway to Allow 2 Accesses Via State Highway 20-26 McCarvel: Okay. So, I believe we are to the one everybody has been waiting for. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: I just want to be for full disclosure to the -- my fellow commissioners. I live in a neighborhood very close to this application, but I feel I can be impartial. Just want to make sure that you don't feel like I need to be excused from the proceedings, so disclose that and -- and let you make that -- Wilson: You're not going anywhere. Fitzgerald: Okay. McCarvel: You're not getting out of this one. Fitzgerald: Are you sure? McCarvel: Okay. And I would just like to take a moment to -- our citizens here are usually very polite, but I do want to take a moment to just mention there is a lot to get through here and this is a public meeting, not a rally, so, please, no clapping, gasping, shouting out and that kind of thing as we go on and I'm sure anyone who has been here before knows we listen to all parties and we are volunteers and members of the community, just like everyone here, and we do our best every time to do what's right for the city and its residents. So, if we can move on in that spirit. So, at this time I would like to open the public hearing for Item No. H-2018-0004, Lost Rapids, and we will begin with the staff report. Allen: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, the first application before you is a Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 16 of 161 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 1, 2018 Page 14 of 72 request for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan future land you map, followed by annexation and zoning, preliminary plat, and there is a variance request, but that is for action by the City Council. Commission action is not necessary on that. This site consists of approximately 69 acres of land. It's zoned RUT and Ada county, located at the southwest corner of South -- excuse me -- State Highway 20-26, West Chinden Boulevard, and North Ten Mile Road. Adjacent land uses and zoning. To the north is Highway 20-26, Chinden Boulevard, and single family residential properties in Spurwing Orchard Subdivision and West Wing Estates, zoned R-4, R-8 and R-15 in the city and RUT in Ada county respective -- respectively. To the east are single family residential properties in Irvine Subdivision and a rural residential parcel zoned R-8 in the city and RUT in Ada county. To the south are existing and future single family residential properties in Bainbridge Subdivision and a church zoned R-8 and L -O respectively. To the west are future single family residential properties in Banbridge Subdivision, zoned R-8. Back in 2008 an amendment to the comprehensive future land use map was approved to change the future land use map designation on the property at the -- the 14.57 acres of land at the northeast corner of this site from medium density residential to mixed use community. The current comp plan designation is medium density residential, 52 acres on the west end of the site and south end and mixed use community 14.57 acres at the northeast corner of the site. The applicant has submitted a request for an amendment to the future land use map contained in the Comprehensive Plan to change the land use designation on a combined 78.33 acres of land from medium density residential, 61.83 acres, and mixed use community, 16.5 acres, to mixed use regional. The staff report includes analysis and conditions of approval based on that request. Since the staff report was issued staff has met with the applicants to discuss the recommended changes to the concept plan, which are fairly substantial, in order to be consistent with the provisions contained in the Comprehensive Plan for the requested mixed use regional designation. Without these changes the proposed development plan is more consistent with the commercial future land use designation. The applicant communicated to staff that they would prefer to develop the site consistent with the proposed concept plan without significant changes. Therefore, both staff and the applicants agree a commercial designation is more appropriate for the eastern portion of the site where the commercial and multi -family residential uses are proposed and that is the preliminary plat area that we will discuss later. The remainder of the site would remain under the current medium density residential designation. The applicant has submitted a letter to the city requesting this change. Staff has submitted a memo to the clerk included in the public record containing revised conditions of approval based on the proposed change. No changes are proposed to the zoning district or the concept plan. Annexation and zoning is 78.33 acres of land with R-15, which consists of 39.1 acres. R-40 consisting of 6.5 acres. And C -G zoning, which consists of 32.83 acres is requested consistent with the existing medium density residential and proposed commercial future land use map designations. A conceptual development plan was submitted as shown that demonstrates how the site is proposed to develop with a mix of single family residential detached and attached, age -qualified units on the west side of the site here. A gross density of five to eight units per acre. A very large 168,652 square foot big box retail building for Costco internal to the development. A fuel sales facility for Costco at the northeast corner of Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 17 of 161 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 1, 2018 Page 15 of 72 the site at the intersection. Ten commercial retail -restaurant -office pad sites adjacent to the state highway and Ten Mile Road and a multi -family residential development consisting of approximately 109 townhome and garden style units in nine structures at a gross density of 18 to 24 units per acre south of the Costco site adjacent to Lost Rapids Drive. It will have a clubhouse and a swimming pool. And this is just another master plan that the applicant submitted that has a little more color to it and landscaping. Conceptual building elevations were submitted, photos and renderings, to demonstrate the general style of development proposed for this site. All structures on the site, except for the single family residential detached units, are required to comply with the design standards in the architectural standards manual. The elevations that are shown here are for the multi -family residential section. The townhome style units are proposed at the bottom right and, then, the garden style apartments are at the top right. Concept plan is shown for the multi -family residential section. The elevations in the left side of the screen here are the single family attached and detached units. They are proposed to the west of the commercial development. And, then, just some examples of building styles proposed in the commercial development. And, then, of course, the elevations for Costco. A preliminary plat is proposed as shown that consists of one residential building lot, that's for the multi -family, 13 commercial building lots and one other lot for a dedication of right of way on 36.2 acres of land in the proposed R-40 and C -G zoning districts. The applicant requests that they be allowed two building permits for the construction of the Costco store and fuel sales facility prior to recordation of the subdivision plat. Staff is amenable to this request. Access is proposed via one access from Ten Mile Road, an arterial street, between Lost Rapids and Chinden Boulevard. I'm going to flip back to the concept plan here. It's a little easier to see. So, that access would be right here where you see the arrow. Two accesses via U.S. 20-26, Chinden Boulevard, a state highway, and those are here and here and two accesses via Lost Rapids Drive, a collector street, and that is right here and right here. New approaches directly accessing a state highway are prohibited. The applicant is requesting a variance to this standard. ITD submitted a letter to the city stating they will approve the proposed access via the state highway with the improvements in spacing outlined in their letter. The applicant's narrative states that primary service access for Costco delivery trucks and other local vendors will be from the driveway access via Ten Mile Road. A driveway access via Lost Rapids Drive is also available when access via the traffic signal at Ten Mile and Lost Rapids is needed. A self-imposed restriction is proposed by the applicant for a no through truck traffic sign to be installed between the Tree Farm Way intersection and the Lost Rapids Drive service driveway access, along with other restrictions as agreed to by the applicant that are contained in the staff report. Improvements to U.S. 20-26 Chinden Boulevard and Ten Mile Road are planned as follows: Phase one. Chinden is to be widened to four lanes with signal intersection upgrades from Tree Farm to Linder. Ten Mile widened to four lanes from Chinden and Walmart and signals at Black Cat Road and Lost Rapids Drive prior to Costco opening. Phase two Chinden will be widened to four lanes from Tree Farm to State Highway 16 within two years of Costco opening. Addition, Costco and the other commercial uses and residential units will pay impact fees in excess of two million dollars to Ada County Highway District for local street improvements. The street section shown on the plat depict Chinden widened to four lanes of travel with two turn lanes within 140 feet of right Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 18 of 161 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 1, 2018 Page 16 of 72 of way and North Ten Mile Road widened to five lanes. The letter states that the western most access via the state highway will be allowed as a temporary right -in, right - out, left -in until such time as the highway is widened to three lanes in the eastbound direction, then, if not before, it will be limited to right -in, right -out. A 550 foot long approximate decel lane will be required. The driveway nearest the intersection will be allowed as a right -in, right -out and another decel lane is required. However, due to the distance between -- excuse me -- distance restriction between accesses ITD may allow for a ten percent decrease of the standard requirement. The multi -family residential development will require approval of a conditional use permit in the R-40 zoning district. Written testimony has been received on this application from Mike Wardle, Brighton Corporation, as the applicant's representative. They have requested, as I mentioned before, to change their comp plan map amendment request from mixed use regional to commercial just for the platted area and leave the remainder of the area the same, which is medium density residential. There have been many letters of testimony in excess of 850 received from the public in favor and in opposition to the proposed development that are included in the public record. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed application with the development agreement and conditions in Exhibit B of the staff report as amended in the memo from staff that is also included in the public record. Staff will stand for any questions. McCarvel: Any questions at this time for staff? Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Sonya, with the change to the commercial designation, does any -- nothing changes as far as the proposed development for the townhomes and whatnot and the location of the buildings there; is that correct? Allen: Madam Chair, Commissioner Cassinelli, nothing -- nothing has changed to the site plan or the zoning. That is correct. Cassinelli: Thank you. Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: Sonya, on the -- on the apartments, just wanted to confirm what you said. So, when they get ready to build that they have to come back with the conditional use permit; is that not what I heard? Allen: Madam Chair, Commissioner Yearsley, that is correct. Yearsley: Okay. Allen: This is a conceptual plan only at this point. Yearsley: Okay. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 19 of 161 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 1, 2018 Page 17 of 72 Cassinelli: Madam Chair, another question for staff. McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Right now the way it's -- the traffic flow, the way it's proposed, coming out of that development if -- if somebody wanted to go west on Chinden, can they make a left coming out onto Ten Mile there or will that be right -out only? Because they, obviously, can't make -- they won't be able to make a left onto Chinden anywhere, so if somebody wants to get back out onto Chinden and go westbound on Chinden -- Allen: Madam Chair, Commissioner Cassinelli, yes, they would have to get back out on Ten Mile Road to do that. Cassinelli: Are they going to be able to do that at that -- that middle point or will they have to go to Lost Rapids and come out? Allen: I believe the -- the access on Ten Mile is full access. Yes, they would be able to -- Cassinelli: The one in the middle will be full. Okay. Thank you. Allen: Unless it's restricted in the future by a median. McCarvel: But, then, they could still take a right out on Lost Rapids and there is a tree -- or a light at Tree Farm; correct? Allen: That is correct. And, then, there will also be a signal at the Lost Rapids -Ten Mile intersection. McCarvel: Any other questions for staff? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward. Wardle: Madam Chairman, Commission Members, Mike Wardle. 12601 West Explorer Drive in Boise. There are other representatives of the property owners, Costco and consultants, that will -- some will participate this evening in our discussion. Let me just go briefly back through some of the information that Sonya has provided concerning the site as noted at Ten Mile and Chinden. The project itself will eventually, at development, be 58 percent residential, 42 percent commercial. The applications before you were considered last night by the Ada County Highway District commission. They recommended, as a recommending body only, approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment and annexation and zoning and they did specifically approve the preliminary plat in their actions. Sonya has noted that the Comprehensive Plan amendment request has been modified so that the western portion of the project identified as Bainbridge North will remain unchanged as medium density residential and commercial on the balance with no significant change in the proposed concept plan as a Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 20 of 161 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 1, 2018 Page 18 of 72 result of that action. The zoning Sonya also noted there will be R-15 zoning on the Bainbridge North portion and that's primarily to allow the size of the lots and so forth. It's still single family attached and detached with densities not to exceed eight units per acre. The R-40 zoning with the development agreement stipulation of not to exceed 24 units per acre when they come back with the conditional use permit for the apartments in the future and, then, of course, the C -G commercial zone on the corner and the preliminary plat with the noted site plan for the Costco facility specifically. There will be a lot of conversation this evening about the Comprehensive Plan. The original Comprehensive Plan, as noted August 6th of 2002, had a hundred acre bullet -- or bull's eye on the site for mixed use regional. Of course, it was on the westerly portion of the site centered at the intersection of Tree Farm and Chinden. There have been three iterations of the Comprehensive Plan future land use map. The latest one made in October of 2008. You will hear a conversation about the fact that the Comprehensive Plan shouldn't change, but the Comprehensive Plan has changed not only three times on this site, it has changed seven times within the immediate vicinity of north Meridian. So, it seems that the plan is in search of an opportunity and we believe that this is the opportunity for this particular location. Buffers are provided for the benefit of the surrounding neighborhood, significant buffers along Lost Rapids and Tree Farm, depicted at the top left. Bottom right would be the screening between the single family homes and the residential -- should be the apartment units and, then, there will be significant, very wide and very tall landscape buffers between Costco and the residential units to the west in the future. All of those will be subject to future CZC requirements. The roadway system -- and there will be some brief conversation toward the end of our presentation concerning the fact that Chinden will be widened to five lanes through this application. Eventually a seven lane facility. Ten Mile will be widened to five. We currently already have the two lane collector with bike lanes on Tree Farm and Lost Rapids. In the staff memo -- and these items will both be discussed briefly by those that follow me. On the second page of the staff memos that modified the conditions and requirements based on the changed land use designation, we just note the note that on page two, Item B, that talks about shifting the fuel sales facility off the corner, that will be discussed specifically and we will be asking for deletion of that requirement. And, then, Item H that talks about the site access should be encouraged from Ten Mile and Lost Rapids, rather than the state highway, as noted by Sonya ITD has approved the access points on Chinden 20-26 and you will hear from the neighbors a great deal of concern about emphasizing the access via Lost Rapids and so we do support the approved Ten Mile and Chinden access points. I'm going to turn the time now to Costco to talk specifically about their site issues. McCarvel: Thank you. Whelan: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, my name is Brian Whelan. My address is 2311 West 22nd Street in Oakbrook, Illinois. My role representing Costco is in the site selection process and we typically wouldn't get into this type of conversation in these venues, but as you may know we held two neighborhood outreach meetings and at those meetings there were many questions relative to why did we pick this site, why are you here, why don't you go somewhere else. There was lots of different Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 21 of 161 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 1, 2018 Page 19 of 72 comments. I suspect there will be questions on that tonight. So, I wanted to just briefly share with you some of our thinking and some of our analysis as to how we ended up here. As you know we are a membership based retailer. Consequently, we have very robust data on all of our members. Where all -- where all of our members live, frequency of shops and so forth. With that data we are able to calculate where our primary trade areas are. The map that's in front of you today represents the two primary trade areas for the existing buildings that we have in the greater Boise area. Outlined in blue is the -- is the primary trade area for our Nampa building and outlined in orange is the primary trade area for our Boise building. You can see in the middle where the two trade areas overlap. There is a significant area where those members go to both. It may be the time of the day, the day of the week, what their day has in front of them. But those -- those are the members that go to both locations. When we approached this analysis, you know, from a big picture perspective, our goal was to first and foremost try to better serve those members where there was trade area overlap. We wanted to make sure that we could more directly serve that group of existing members. Secondly, we wanted to make sure that when we selected a location that we did it in a proper spacing manner such that we didn't damage one of our other existing units too significantly. So, what I have shown on this particular map is actually the triangle that you see is the miles and drive time distances of this proposed site to our existing buildings. As you can see the drive times are, essentially, equidistant, 20 to 25 minutes, both to Nampa and Boise from the potential location. So, it really optimizes the spacing while also achieving our goal of better serving those -- those members where there is trade overlap. Lastly, we wanted to position the -- the new location to take advantage of the large population growth that's occurring in this area. As you know, the growth continues. Our research indicates that in the near term significant population growth will continue to occur south of Chinden in this area and the longer term the growth will continue west. So, by positioning ourselves at Ten Mile where we could serve those -- the new population that occurs south -- south of Chinden and at Chinden where we can serve those new residents long term that will be growing in the west, we just felt that this was really an optimal location to meet those needs. So, with that I will prepare to answer any questions you may have now or later, whatever may be appropriate. McCarvel: Any questions for this applicant? Okay. Whelan: Thank you. With that I'm going to turn it over to Peter Kahn, who is going to talk about some other technical aspects of our project. Kahn: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Peter Kahn. Address 999 Lake Drive, Issaquah, Washington. I work for Costco and responsible for the technical development of this project. The first slide is just some basic information about a Costco, our typical hours of operation. They are fairly limited, 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. 9:30 to 6:00 p.m. on Saturday and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sunday. Gas station opens earlier and stays open a little bit later. It usually opens by 6:00 a.m. and closes by 10:00. Most of our employees are out of the building by 11:00 p.m. One of the conditions and one of the things we talked about when we had our community meeting was limiting deliveries. We have agreed to that condition and that's Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 22 of 161 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 1, 2018 Page 20 of 72 currently in the staff report. Just a little bit about employment. Generally a warehouse of this size will employ 250 to 300 people. Typically 125 to 175 a shift, depending on how busy we are. And the average wage of a U.S. warehouse is over 22 dollars per hour, plus benefits. This is our site plan, which you have seen before. It's, basically, a 168,000 square foot building, 781 parking spaces. This shows our truck routes. We expect most of our delivery trucks, at least from the Costco depot in Salt Lake City, to come up Ten Mile and enter into the site. Most of those deliveries come before we open. During the course of the day we have local deliveries. Dog food. Flowers. Milk. Odds and ends that we buy from local vendors in the area. We also have fuel trucks that will deliver to the gas station on the corner. One of the issues that was in the staff report on the conditions was the location of the gas station and we think having it on the corner is the best solution for this site. Principally, if you have ever shopped them, our gas stations are busy. This one is going to be a fueling -- in Boise and in Nampa we have 16 fueling positions. This one has -- will start with 24 fueling positions and be expandable to 30. We also have more queuing depth, which we have increased by approximately 35 percent. One thing that we found, especially in Nampa where it's close to the roadway, and that would be the case if we were to move it to the west or to the south, is that when we are busy and people come into the center, they have to make a decision, am I going to go to the gas station or am I going to go in and just park and buy merchandise. And usually that causes hesitation, causes traffic to back up and get -- and spill out into the public roadways. If we have our gas station up on the corner that allows people to enter into the site and, then, they have a few hundred feet to make that decision as to what they want to do. They may decide the line is too long or they may decide, well, maybe I don't need gas today or maybe I do and go ahead and move toward purchasing fuel. One of the other issues staff brought out was they felt that the intersection where people, in entering the gas station, that was going to be a pinch point. This diagram kind of shows that we believe that that won't be the case since the movements are limited. It's one way in and one way out of all our gas stations. And so the choices people have will be limited at that intersection. And should we need additional queuing here is a plan that shows a plan that we could implement. Our gas stations are manned. We have people out there that can direct traffic, so we can add an additional storage of 17 vehicles and we can have a storage for 65 vehicles to sit and wait. Under the current design, once it's fully expanded to five islands, we can have enough storage for 75 people. Here is a picture of one of the other comments from staff was aesthetics. We put together this perspective. We believe that we can screen it adequately, so you don't see the fueling cars from the highway and our canopy is not very intrusive, it's low profile, and made of high quality building material. Here is a prospectus on our building and with that I'm available for questions or whatever else you might need. McCarvel: Any questions for this applicant? Okay. Kahn: Thank you. McCarvel: Do you have any other presenters? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 23 of 161 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 1, 2018 Page 21 of 72 Daleiden: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, Andy Daleiden, principal engineer with Kittelson & Associates, 101 South Capital Boulevard, Suite 301, Boise, Idaho. 83702. I'm the traffic engineer working with Costco on the development team. want to just provide just one element and that is just that we -- we did have -- we worked with Ada County Highway District and Idaho Transportation Department to do a traffic impact study. Idaho Transportation Department, as staff indicated, has submitted a letter and accepted that traffic impact study and the access on Chinden Boulevard with -- with certain improvements and those improvements are widening Chinden Boulevard from Linder Road to Tree Farm Way and, then, along with signal modifications and signal improvements at the Ten Mile and Chinden intersection. Second, we worked with Ada County Highway District and last night at the Ada County Highway District commission they approved the traffic impact study and conditions for the preliminary plat. On that aspect, the improvements that are proposed are improving Ten Mile Road to five lanes from Milano to Chinden and that would also include a new signal at Lost Rapids and, then, an access as indicated on the site plan. Related to access, just because the question came up earlier, just wanted to share just from a distribution standpoint for the project, trips are expected to the west about -- just a little over 20 percent and so when you take in account that, that's in and out, so that's -- you know, there is going to be two directions. The outbound heading west is actually a pretty low volume in elements and so the access plan that's -- that's identified provides ample opportunities for folks to get onto Ten Mile. We also have provided a U-turn opportunity at Ten Mile and Chinden, so vehicles departing to the north on Chinden would be able to make a U-turn maneuver at the signalized intersection there. You know, that's just providing different -- different options to distribute that traffic that would be heading westbound. With that I will stop just knowing that we are out of time, but wanted to -- McCarvel: There is a lot of information to get through on this application, so we are going through it -- a little lenient on 15 tonight. Wardle: Madam Chair, we would just stand for any questions that you had before testimony. If you have them at this point we would respond or we can wait until later. McCarvel: Questions? Commissioner Yearsley? Yearsley: Madam Chair. On the apartments, just -- just help me understand what -- what your concept plan is at this point. Would you kind of explain that one for me? Wardle: Yes. The intent -- there are two story townhome style apartments fronting Lost Rapids -- facing inward with a berm and landscaping and fencing separating them from the public street. So, you have a two story look along the street. Then you have three story -- three three story buildings that abut the commercial on the east and the Costco on the north. So, you have a step situation without the intrusive elements of a large scale building on the street frontage. That, of course, will come back for a conditional use permit review in the future. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 24 of 161 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 1, 2018 Page 22 of 72 Yearsley: And, then, in your comment you talked about that you are limiting at 24 units per acre, which I calculate to be about 156 units; is that not correct? Wardle: Madam Chair, Commissioner Yearsley, it could be, but as depicted that's about 109 units and that's less than 20 units per acre. Yearsley: Okay. Wardle: We just -- we just realized that, you know, we want to make sure that people don't anticipate that there is going to be an extremely high density, so it would be capped, but that would be by development agreement. When it comes back the number may vary from what is shown right now, but certainly would not exceed that. Yearsley: Okay. I actually have a couple more questions, but I want to let -- if anybody else has questions I would -- McCarvel: Keep going. Yearsley: In your residential area that you're showing, you're showing a park -like facility and I guess for me -- are you planning to come back for a preliminary plat of that subdivision or are you trying to plat this at the same time? What's your intent on that? Wardle: Madam Chair, Commissioner Yearsley, that's -- that's a concept only. The concept as depicted is, essentially, the same age qualified gated community that we are currently doing in the Paramount project using the term Cadence. So, it does have to come back for a preliminary plat and probably PUD to address variations in setback and so forth. So, that's going to come back in a preliminary plat at the very least, probably a PUD application, which gets into more detail and conditioned type requirements. Yearsley: Okay. And, then, the -- the park to the south, is that for the -- I'm assuming that that's not part of this application and as what's been platted already; is that correct? Wardle: Madam Chair, Commissioner Yearsley, that's actually the Keith Bird Legacy Park. Yearsley: Okay. Wardle: Seven and a half acres that Brighton donated to the city and was opened and completed -- well, this last year it was opened. I would just note, then, that -- so that everybody understands clearly that the Lost Rapids -Tree Farm collector roadway has also been fully improved. It's a two lane roadway with bike lanes and was constructed with the intent to provide backage to the intensity of uses to the north. Yearsley: Okay. I think that's all I have at this point. McCarvel: Any other questions for the applicant? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 25 of 161 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 1, 2018 Page 23 of 72 Wardle: Thank you very much. McCarvel: Okay. So, at this time we will begin the public testimony. Normally I just kind of go straight down the sign-up list, but I think tonight we would like to start -- is there anybody here that is requesting the ten minutes that has the backing of an HOA or shall we just start with -- yeah. If you do a show of hands and those people don't speak the rest of the evening. So, do you want your three or ten? But you're speaking for the HOA? For which HOA? Why don't you come to the front. Okay. And who is the show of hands of the HOA you're speaking for? McNeil: Do they get to speak or are you saying if -- if they do not get to speak I will not take ten minutes. McCarvel: All we are trying to do is reduce redundancy, if we are going to be speaking to the same issues. McNeil: I understand that. Are you going to take their -- their privilege away to speak for their three minutes? If so I will sit back down -- McCarvel: Okay. McNeil: -- and go through the list three minutes at a time. McCarvel: Put him on for ten minutes and we will go from there. McNeil: So, if I understand, Madam Chair, anyone that wants to speak for their three minutes gets their -- their time to speak, is that -- is that my correct understanding? McCarvel: Yeah. You're going to speak for the HOA concerns; right? McNeil: Yes. McCarvel: Okay. Which HOA and -- McNeil: Spurwing Greens Master Association, which includes -- McCarvel: So, I would say you're not speaking on behalf of your HOA if there is that much discord. McNeil: Can we get a show of hands who is in favor of -- Allen: Madam Chair? And city attorney should probably be chiming in on this, but if -- if a representative is here representing a group of people they are allowed up to ten minutes as determined by the Commission Chair and, then, those folks that they have shown by their -- their hands that that person is speaking for does lose their turn to Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 26 of 161 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 1, 2018 Page 24 of 72 speak. If they choose to speak on their own, then, they shouldn't be raising their hand. McCarvel: I think just on the feeling of the crowd why don't we give you -- why don't you take your three minutes and speak your peace and, please, state your name and address for the record and -- McNeil: Okay. Hi. My name is Tom McNeil. I live at 706 Crestview Drive, Nampa. am the secretary of the Master Spurwing Greens Association. And, yes, Ten Mile and Chinden is -- was my former address. We just moved, but I still am a member of that board. They were very -- very clear on their design. First of all, I want to say that we are not against a Costco development. Spend thousands of dollars at Costco. I am against the siting. I am against the changing of -- at this site changing of the Comprehensive Plan. There is -- and, yes, I know it's a living document, it's subject to change. However, at this particular site -- if you look at your -- their diagram of the triangle, they are trying to attract business from the north and yet they are sitting on an artery that deadheads. There isn't any way to come from the north. They can come from the west or east or south. And so I have talked with -- with the Costco representative about better -- better sites, but it comes really down to the safety of this issue. We heard a couple of things about how do people go west. Well, you know how they are going to go west? They are going to make a right turn on Lost Rapids, go over to Tree Farm and make a left there where it is -- it has already got a signal. Well, the problem with that ACHD did a traffic study in 2015 that said it's at maximum capacity then with 3,000 cars going through that intersection a day and so we are going to -- we already -- and we already are at or exceed the traffic pattern for that. So, it just -- it's a terrible concept to have it right there. They were better where they first intended, where all of -- you know, when they were at Linder and they did away with that for whatever reason, because that's a four way. They can head, north, south, east or west. I know they want to access because of the Ten Mile interchange on 1-84 and that makes sense, but as far as the traffic plan, the changing of your -- the Comprehensive Plan for this particular project -- and I'm speaking specifically about Costco -- it is not a good representation for what we need in that area. I can take you to a better one. It's in the Comprehensive Plan and if you want to go to the Fields -- Highway 16 and Chinden, I'm all there for -- I will work -- I'm a real estate agent, I will work my tail off to get that. So, thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Okay. Denise LeFever. LeFever: Madam Chair, Commissioners, my name is Denise LeFever. I live at 6706 North Salvia Way, Meridian, Idaho. 83646. And, yes, I am a Spurwing resident. With that said, I see that they made significant changes and it was included on page 14 of the staff report that -- to be able to address what was in the staff report, it would require significant changes and at this point in time with all of these changes and not having a staff report that's clearly gone back through and analyzed these changes, I don't think this is fair to the public to not have a chance to go back and comment and see what the staff has to say about it. That's first. Second is right now we are -- we are living -- right now we are living in an era where job growth is really, really high in our area and Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 27 of 161 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 1, 2018 Page 25 of 72 inventories for real estate is really, really low. On one of the reports from Boise Real Estate Association it says we have less than one month of inventory in December. Pulling out this much R-8 residential in an area that is like one of the most premier areas to live, Spurwing and Bainbridge, is gorgeous. Houses sell quickly over there. Even the houses that are on the corner of Tree Farm Way and Chinden -- two of them right there sold before they were even finished and right here they were talking about going back through and allowing a conceptual plan and not allowing the preliminary plat -- I don't -- it said before that's not necessarily in the best interest of the city to do that. This doesn't give any assurance that they will develop it as said. In addition to that, we have 55 -- 55 plus communities, nine of them, just north of 1-84. Five senior living assistance. And this -- this isn't even necessarily all the way complete, because there is other processes that are -- that are happening that aren't updated on here. These are the ones that are absolutely done and ready for -- ready to take reservations or move people in. One of them is Brighton's project a mile and a half down the road. It's a very large project. This need for senior living has already been met and by their own admission part of why they want to have R-15 is to have flexibility a lot and setbacks. The R-8 absolutely matches what's going on around the area and the MUC -- yes, that's nice, I mean it would be nice to have some restaurants and it would be nice to have some areas to go back and service the residents in that area, but to go back through when we have such tremendous job growth and we are bringing in people from the lower 48 -- I mean, excuse me, my slip. People in from Texas and other areas being recruited for St. AI's and St. Luke's that are absolutely looking for this product type, that Bainbridge and Spurwing allows. I would like the -- I would like the Commission to either deny it or allow a continuance so the public can have a chance to take a look at these significant changes. McCarvel: Thank you. Edward Simon. Simon: Madam Chairman and distinguished commissioners, my name is Edward Simon. I live at 4642 West Renhold Street in the Bainbridge Subdivision and the first thing I would like to quickly mention is that I think it was deceiving in the first part for no one for Brighton to mention what they had planned when we sold -- bought our house five months ago. But what I would like to really go into is when we moved in the house in October one of the first things that impressed me was getting outside -- getting outside and hearing cows, hearing horses, and one day I drove around and it was about three-quarters of a mile away, so that, obviously, carries. So, now what we are looking at -- and especially now that I hear about the 75 cars that are going to be idling their engines waiting for gas, we are going to be having diesel trucks jackhammering between 4:00 and 5:00 a.m. to get to Costco or just idling waiting for the place to open, so they can do their business and all that sound is going to radiate through the whole area. That's really going to impact the quality of life and, face it, that's why we all move someplace is the quality of life. So, sound alone is going to be horrific from this. When you get the trucks coming down Chinden and Ten Mile and hitting those jack brakes, that's going to make a lot of noise. At this point I will just yield to someone else. I won't take too much time. But this is absolutely the wrong project for the wrong area. Thank you. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 28 of 161 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 1, 2018 Page 26 of 72 McCarvel: Thank you. Don Petersik. Petersik: Madam Chair, I'm new to the area -- McCarvel: Please state your name and address for the record. Sorry. Petersik: I'm new at this. Don Petersik. 3378 West Ryder Cup, Meridian. Anything else? McCarvel: That's it. Petersik: Okay. I'm new here. I grew up in Boise. I have been gone a number of years, but come home to retire and I'm going to miss the onion fields. First and foremost, I bucked hay on a lot of this land out here and what I see happening in Idaho is growth and I think it's great. I have moved here from Redmond, Washington, where over the last two years we had a Costco project go up and there were concerns where -- it's a mixed area of industrial, as well as lots of residential. The fears never materialized. Costco was a good neighbor there and it has been an asset to our neighborhood there. So, when we were moving here -- and one of the main reasons I'm here tonight is my wife said you go and tell them Costco is good, because she doesn't like to drive to Nampa and she doesn't like to drive to Boise. That's just one of those things. So, the location for us would be perfect. Now, what I came here for is to learn from our neighbors what their concerns are and I wanted to see how the government works in this area, but from my vantage point a Costco, at least where I come from, was a very good neighbor and they took care of things there. That's all I have to say. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Robert Neufeld. Neufeld: Madam Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Robert Neufeld. I reside at 3756 West Snow Cherry Court in Meridian. I have had some questions that came up just this evening that I would like to ask the Commission to consider. Apparently there have been some significant changes made to the public proposal or -- not the public -- but to the proposal and as Ms. LeFever commented earlier, the public has certainly not had the time to digest those. The majority of my remarks this evening were directed toward the staff report that was included as part of the public record online. I reviewed those very, very carefully and had many questions regarding what staff was saying in the report as compared to what they are recommending to you tonight. It appears that many of the issues that are being addressed are issues that staff also shares in those concerns and I will give you a couple of the comments and these may be kind of out of sequence now because of the changes that have been made, but staff recommended that in their report that at least a minimum of ten specific items needed to be taken -- action needed to be taken on that -- in the application before staff could approve it. The application as submitted is certainly not consistent with requirements of the City of Meridian for a zoning change to MUR, but, apparently, that has changed also and nobody's had the opportunity to review that. The application Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 29 of 161 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 1, 2018 Page 27 of 72 does not clearly indicate why the city would be better served by having a Costco at that location, rather than within an already adopted MR -- MUR location closer to Highway 16 and the U.S. 20-26 intersection. While this application claims to show north Meridian is underserved and distant from existing Costco sites in Boise and Nampa, neither this or prior studies explain why the community would be better served by a regional project than a community -sized project currently envisioned and these are quotes taken directly from the original staff report. These are not my words. Okay? The staff comments and recommendations included the following -- and, again, this is a quote: The proposed application and concept plan is not -- and emphasis on the word not -- within the report -- generally consistent with either of the proposed or future land use designations. Many more significant issues were also addressed by staff in their 64 page report that you had the benefit of and that was available to the public and those concerns must be addressed before your decision is made tonight. Surely any application that raises so many concerns by staff must also cause great concern for you as Planning and Zoning Commissioners. The application will not serve the betterment of the City of Meridian or their residents. I respectfully request that you listen to the concerns of the staff as addressed in that report and the public in opposition and that you deny the application before you tonight. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. David Reyes. Reyes: David Reyes. 5781 North Joy Avenue, Meridian, Idaho. 83646. Madam Chair, esteemed Commissioners, good evening. I have a PowerPoint that I have submitted, if you could, please, bring that up, if you don't mind. For the next few minutes I would like to highlight how this proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and future land use map violates both the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, as well as city ordinance. So, the first slide -- when you guys are already. Okay. I'm going to roll. Slide one. So, how it violates Comprehensive Plan goals. There are many instances of violations of the Comprehensive Plan goals. I'm going to highlight two. The first is to protect existing residential properties from incompatible land use development and adjacent parcels. Secondly, minimize noise, odor, air and visual pollution in commercial development adjacent to residential areas. There are many more. Those are just a few that come to mind. My next slide. As I understand it, according to Meridian municipal code, the criteria for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan future land use map -- there are eight of them. I have them on the left-hand side of the table that you see here. On the right in boxes I want to highlight several of these. First, consistent with other elements of the Comprehensive Plan, this amendment constitutes a large zoning change that is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Well, I can see them right here. So, I'm going to move on. Number two. Does not provide public services. Instead it provides a spot zone for the benefit of the developer, not the benefit of the residents. Number four. The UDC prohibits direct access to state highways. Number five. Does not provide sufficient transition between medium and low density housing. Lastly, number seven, the requirement is to provide sufficient area to mitigate any anticipated impact associated with the development of the area. This amendment will exponentially exacerbate the impact of traffic. Next slide. My reactions on this site -- the Genosic properties 2008 ruling -- this Commission concluded two points. This office does not Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 30 of 161 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 1, 2018 Page 28 of 72 support direct access from the property to Chinden Boulevard U.S. 20-26. Number two. Safety and mobility concerns. The access so close to the Ten Mile and Chinden intersection. This amendment proposes a similar access point 870 feet from that very intersection. Next slide. I want to leave you on a personal note. In 2015 my family and I relocated from California to Idaho seeking relief for the results of uncontrolled development. The Comprehensive Plan and future land use map were key elements in our decision to settle in the Bainbridge Subdivision in Meridian. This Lost Rapids application opens the door to uncontrolled development in the north Meridian region. Madam Chair, esteemed Commissioners, I urge you to, please, deny the Lost Rapids application. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Andrea Carroll. Carroll: Madam Chair, Commissioners, good evening. My name is Andrea Carroll. My business address is 714 West State Street in Boise. I was retained by a coalition of Bainbridge and Spurwing residents who are opposed to this application. It's a commonly repeated maxim, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. We know from experience that impact fees and other funding sources for transportation is inadequate and does not keep up the pace with a booming economy and a rapid development. That's why we are in this situation where a major corridor, Chinden, needs to be widened based on current -- based on previous growth, based on current needs, and ITD cannot afford to widen it. The previous system has not worked and it's put us in this position. To be clear, widening Chinden alone is not going to fix the congestion and safety issues along that corridor and if you have to approve more growth in order to make that happen. ITD, ACHD, and a traffic impact study is not a guarantee that the proposal will absorb its own traffic impact. Now, Costco -- Costco is a very vehicle dependent venue because their business model is to sell items in bulk, in a quantity that a pedestrian, a bicyclist, or a bus rider would not be able to transport it. All of the residences that you see in the multi -family or other nearby residences would not be going to Costco to purchase those items and, then, take their bicycle back to their home. That's -- that's what a mixed use development should look like. The uses should complement each other, but that's not what you're seeing in this application. Now, Costco is a great company. It sells high quality products, probably most of the individuals in this room go to Costco and each letter of support that you have received represents an exponential number of residents that will be driving to the location from farther and farther distances away, perhaps even Star, because the larger that triangle gets that Costco showed, the more and more residents from outside the current circle will be buying Costco memberships and frequenting their company, which is great for Costco. Is it good for the City of Meridian? The funding issues are, obviously, not the fault of any one developer and certainly not this developer. So, to play Devil's advocate for a second, I would ask is it fair to put it as the responsibility of this developer to solve a regional problem that they did not create. It is fair, because they are coming to you now wanting to build something that will significantly increase vehicle traffic. It is fair, because right now the City of Meridian is not yet under any legal obligation to approve this project and it is fair, because the most legally defensible moment of time for the City of Meridian to hit the brakes on Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 31 of 161 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 1, 2018 Page 29 of 72 development in this area before it gets out of control is before it grants a property owner any entitlement through annexation and zoning. Not for a future CUP permit, it's right now. This is the time where you hold the power. De Weerd: Thank you, Andrea. Carroll: Thank you. McCarvel: Amy Cully -- Cullian? Yeah. Cuhaclyan: Good evening, Madam Chair, Commissioners. I guess what I'm hearing -- McCarvel: Please state your name and address for the record. Cuhaclyan: Amy Cuhaclyan and my address is 5831 North Saguaro Hills Place in Meridian. I guess what I'm hearing tonight is a lot of concerns about growth and I feel a lot of those concerns about growth are being placed on this development and what it seems like is maybe if people had some sort of idea of how we are going to fit infrastructure in to all of that growth is something happening within the next five years, ten years, people might feel more comfortable. It seems like there is a lot of fears over that. There is a lot of nostalgia about what this area should be because of where -- you know, how this picturesque city were more rural than other areas and they want that, but we can't stop the influx of people coming in and we need to prepare for that growth. I used to live in Seattle. I felt like Seattle was a great neighbor. I have had family members who came up in the world working at Costco, like having luxurious lives because they were able to work themselves up from just, you know, a grocery clerk and I think that's amazing. The economic opportunities here are really great and the ability to use this opportunity to plan out the infrastructure and what we want for the future of our city is also great. So, I think this is a really fantastic opportunity. There is pluses and minuses here, but I think the potential has great impact. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Okay. Mike or Peggy Dunlap. Dunlap: My name is Mike Dunlap. I live at 5256 North Cougar Flat. I'm not used to talking to a lot of people. Change is coming. You can't stop it. People sit back and they gripe and they complain. I understand that. The area I moved into, Lochsa Falls -- well, it was pretty well developed before I moved there, so I knew what I was getting, but people out here, the thing -- housing and developments of commercial are going to stop, because they don't like it, are sadly mistaken. Costco is a pretty good company. They pay three times more the wages per hour than the people down the street Walmart. There is a lot of jobs there that some of these people might like to have. Especially the young people coming out of schools right now. It gives them a great opportunity to help pay for their college education and make it on their own. You can't stop progress. It's going to come no matter what you do. You got a choice probably right here. Now, over on Linder we fought to keep apartments out and we won that battle, but if you turn down a commercial property your next applicant is probably going Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 32 of 161 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 1, 2018 Page 30 of 72 to be for a subdivision or it's going to be apartments and I bet it will be apartments. I don't think you want a whole -- how many acres? Eighty acres of apartments or -- with that application will show up. The contractors are probably waiting in the wings right now to see this thing fail so they can get their applications in. You want apartments, fine. If you want something that's commercial, it can help your community with wages, now is the time. You won't have a better time. That's it. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Ken Marshall. Please, no clapping. Marshall: Ken Marshall. 6003 North Exeter Avenue, Meridian. I am a resident of Bainbridge. My presentation tonight is solely focused on traffic. It's not anti -Costco, anti -development, anti -anything. As you see my first slide here basically says that this development is an access constrained location with inadequate ingress or egress traffic access points. I believe that some of these were mentioned earlier. Can I go to the next slide or -- eating up some of my time here. Okay. Next. All right. Thank you. So, anyway, here -- we have seen this, we are pretty familiar with this already. You can see access point A, access point B, both of these are the direct accesses onto Chinden, which, yes, has been approved by ITD. I want to point out that A was listed as a temporary access, meaning that they have the future possibility of eliminating the left end, most likely the right -in, right -out. Also access point C, which was put in by ACRD, is also listed as a temporary medium, that they reserve the right to eliminate the full access out of that thing should conditions warrant that happening there. So, I, basically, wanted to point out. So, I wanted to just state here again on this one, two of the four access points are listed as temporary and I list the details on that on this set over here. I want to give you a part of a quote, because this is in their own words in the application. This project will generate a substantial amount of patron and delivery truck traffic that would be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhoods. There is a little bit more of that quote, but I think that hits the gist of it. So, I also contend that the estimation of the vehicle counts they are going to utilize for West Lost Rapids is flawed. I have pointed out several times that the TIS has a couple of mistakes in it as far as the assumptions go. Basically, they counted on a left turn lane out of access A, which they were not granted. So, the traffic cannot go westbound onto Chinden from that right there and I also believe that the lack of that direct access is going to result in most of the traffic headed westbound, as well as some of it that's coming in because they missed the lights, et cetera, etcetera, onto Lost Rapids, so -- and I have thrown some numbers together there that can be looked at. The next thing I would like to point out here is this is just a quick map of the Costco Boise. The reason I put this here, it shows that there is no nearby residential roads that are required for access. And the last one would be the Costco Nampa, which repeats the exact same thing. There is no nearby residential collectors or anything required for access. So, that should end the show. What I want to, basically, say in my last few seconds here is we are being asked to focus on the grandeur of the mighty Oz and to ignore the details behind the curtains. I want to state that those details contain the truth and the facts that are going to impact this decision for generations to come and I ask that you go against this proposal. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Michael Pataglia. Dave and Hailey Dawson. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 33 of 161 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 1, 2018 Page 31 of 72 Dawson: Commissioners, Dave Dawson. 7162 North Spurwing Rim Place, Meridian, Idaho. I grew up in the Seattle area. Woodinville. It's neighborhood similar with a Costco and Costco is a great company, it has done a lot of good things for our -- for the community. However, Costco opened a -- one of their locations as a -- in Woodinville where I grew up and what happened is it changed the complexion of our neighborhood and our community and had a real negative impact to traffic flow and it took away from -- it's the residential component and Spurwing, Bainbridge, these are residential communities, that's why a lot of the folks who are in this room are here. We appreciate that aspect of where we live and we want it to stay that way. My ask of you is that you deny Costco coming here. It's a good company, but it's just the wrong spot -- it's the wrong spot for the organization. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Shelley Lupher. Lupher: Good evening. I'm Shelley Lupher. My address is 7030 North Sienna Glen Way. And just for full disclosure, Mr. Fitzgerald is my next-door neighbor. Hi, Ryan. I have not seen him since about the solar eclipse. So, we have not spoken about this issue. We have been hibernating all winter. So, I'm here to speak not only for myself, but for my husband and a number of other residents in my neighborhood who would like to testify but for fear of repercussion against their jobs and their livelihoods, they fear speaking out against this developer's plan, which I find personally disturbing and indicates capture in the market. So -- next slide, please. So, here is the site as it is and has existed since 2008, as Mr. Wardle brought up earlier and how the site is currently being marketed by Brighton for the Bainbridge folks. The area around the site has been developed to low to medium density housing as the comp plan has designated over the years. It's taken a while to get there with the recession, but things have grown out from there just as planned. Access requirements for Chinden have not changed. In fact, they have been tightened. One of the key points that we found is that there has been a significant reduction in access points over the years for Chinden, including the people at Double Eagle Lane directly across the road from this development. Ten Mile Road to the north has not come to fruition and it will not be extended, invalidating the idea that this is a regional center, therefore, inappropriate for a regional commercial business. So, what does this mean? This means that this proposal puts our community at risk. Asking for a 113 percent increase in commercial density from 15 acres to 32 plus acres is a huge step up, as well as the density increase for housing to R-40 and R-15. The application as it stands is incomplete and we learned of changes of it today and this leaves a potential for large expanded commercial to the west, instead of MUC or residential. At this point there is no plan for small -- the small retail plats on the edges and Costco has a history of fighting adjacent retail with lawsuits from other businesses trying to come in and compete next to them. The application has failed 60 percent of the comp plan requirements and 100 percent of the UDC requirements. The staff comments utilizing the words if will be and changes recommended, again, validate that the application does not meet the requirements. The application also fails across multiple critical areas for designing approximate mixed use developments, which may be invalid at this point with the commercial aspect. In addition, no economic analysis Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 34 of 161 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 1, 2018 Page 32 of 72 has been done and as a taxpayer I want to know what I'm getting into for the next 20 years, if they are going for STARS development requests and things like that, that falls upon our backs as taxpayers. So, the staff summary clearly indicates that the proposal does not fit this site. I'm not going to read that paragraph to you, you can read it. Denying this application does not constitute a taking of property rights as currently they are not entitled to any. Denying the application as is or as a straight commercial zoning does not also deny the applicant any property rights, as a request that they are making for that zoning, that they are requesting is a hardship that they are making themselves. At this point the applicant can turn a reasonable profit from the site through a true MUC zoning. At this time we ask that you deny this application in its entirety, enforce the comp plan and protect our community. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Jane Albert. Albert: Good evening. I'm Jane Albert. 6628 North Salvia Way. I'm in Spurwing Greens. I'm before you tonight to comment upon this project, specifically the negative impact on quality of life. The increased density and intensity of land use affects the quality of life for our neighborhoods in a number of ways, such as excessive regional traffic routed to and through our neighborhoods, coupled with increased traffic due to the density of the residential portion of the property. Unsafe pedestrian connections within the proposed projects and lack of a safe access for the Keith Bird Legacy Park. Increased noise and air pollution from the site. Potential exposure to hazardous chemicals. Incompatible architecture of the industrial sized building and adjacent strip malls to the existing neighborhoods. And excessive lighting. These, then, create neighborhood and community concerns for environmental impacts affecting quality of life for our residents. The increased density and intensity of land use and resulting increased traffic will generate hazardous material, such as petroleum and contaminants from brake and tire wear, which leads to runoff of various contaminants into our ground water, which is a depth of 11 to 18 feet, equaling the placement of the tanks of the proposed gas station. The large impermeable surfaces of the parking lots adjacent to the commercial buildings and high density residential units creating additional runoff and water quality concerns, as well as them creating islands. The significant concern of the health dangers associated with a high volume gas station, such as pollution from evaporation and, finally, the outdoor lighting in the parking lots and buildings that increase -- increase night sky light -- night sky light pollution and in particular noise pollution. Noise affects more than quality of life. It's a health issue interfering with cognitive functions, including attention, concentration, memory, reading ability and sound discrimination. The long-term consequences of these effects on children's development is particularly significant. Residential industrial noise conflicts arise not just from increased traffic, but by roof top ventilation systems, power equipment to clean the parking areas and for commercial property maintenance, mechanical equipment, loading and unloading delivery vehicles, heavy truck backup beepers, generators and refrigeration equipment. My hope for the legacy of the Planning and Zoning Commission is that there is less concern about attracting this growth and more concern about managing growth toward a positive and proactive vision as created in the Comprehensive Plan and end state that preserves the enviable lifestyle we have come Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 35 of 161 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 1, 2018 Page 33 of 72 to expect in Meridian. I urge you to deny this application. McCarvel: Robert Friedlein. Friedlein: My name is Bob Friedlein and I live at 3510 West Bay Oak in Spurwing, Meridian. Is it possible to put up the map for the Comprehensive Plan that was on the screen when we started tonight? McCarvel: We will have our technical master over there do that. Friedlein: I think it was larger, showing especially out in the west. While he's doing that, I certainly have no problem with Costco. I think they are a great company and they do think deliver a good product. My difficulty with this is Costco on that site. If you look at the plans and look at the residential, those concentric circles as you start going out to intersection of Chinden and Ten Mile you will have residential, residential, residential until you get clear down to Linder or to Walmart as you're going down Ten Mile. To change the Comprehensive Plan seems to be to try and fit this monster into a small area and it just -- to me it doesn't make a lot of sense. To give you an example, as was said earlier by the Brighton rep that the Lost Rapids access off of Ten Mile was designed to handle this situation. Well, there is an island right in the middle of Lost Rapids right there where ten wheel semi -trailers is never going to make that turn. They can't do it. They are going to have to jack hammer the sidewalks out or they are going to have to jackhammer the -- the median there. I think if you look at this entire growth area -- or certainly the growth that headed, there is no question. The residential growth is going to produce traffic which is going to augment the Costco traffic, which is going to build on itself and build on itself. Seventy-five hundred cars a day is what we were told by the Costco rep. That doesn't include the truck traffic at all and that the 20-26 corridor just is not ready today, nor is it going to be ready with their proposed changes. So, please, consider these items and either extend this application or deny it tonight. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Sue Fillman. Fillman: Good evening. I'm Sue Fillman. I live at 6550 North Lonicera Way, also in Springwing Greens. Three years ago just about this month the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council unanimously designed a zone change because it wasn't compatible with our community and this proposal also is not compatible with our community. It sits in the middle, as we heard, in the middle of a large residential area. It's also kitty-corner from a private country club and I am going to speak to the Comprehensive Plan. It requires that any change protect existing residential properties from incompatible land use development on adjacent parcels and I think this change is that incompatible land use. The plan also says that requesting a land use change in the City of Meridian is a big deal and we all agree, the families who live in the adjacent neighborhoods and who have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in that community should have a big voice about this decision. Taxpayers would ultimately repay Costco for the road improvements, the City of Meridian will get additional tax revenues and Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 36 of 161 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 1, 2018 Page 34 of 72 some people might even save a few minutes getting to a new Costco, but the residents will be dealing with the downside of living next door to it and that's the traffic, decreased property values, litter, noise, congestion and there are going to be a lot more car accidents. The future land use designation for this 78 acres was known to the developers when they purchased it. That's the risk developers take. They propose a change to the plan for economic gain, that's what developers do. Sometimes the risk pays off and sometimes it doesn't. Please don't make the residents of Bainbridge and Spurwing Greens pay that price we bought there because we bought city's vision in the Comprehensive Plan. We invested in our homes with the expectation that the Comprehensive Plan meant something. The plan says, quote: Citizens are encouraged to use this document to better understand the city's vision for their neighborhood, their business and the city as a whole. Well, we did. Please deny this application. McCarvel: Thank you. Les Carson. Please hold the clapping. Okay. Roger Nielson. Nielson: I would just like to say -- McCarvel: Would you, please, state your -- I'm sorry -- Nielson: I'm Roger Nielson. I live -- McCarvel: -- please state your name and address for the record. Nielson: Yeah. Roger Nielson. I live at 3998 West Big Creek in Meridian and I would just like to say that our neighborhood was concerned about an Albertson's store and a McDonald's moving into the corner of Ten Mile and Chery Lane and we were really concerned about that and it turns out that our concerns really should not have been a concern at all. Albertson's has been a good neighbor. So has the McDonald's and there was a church that was moved out and a drugstore was put on the corner and, you know, we have had more trouble with -- I think rock trucks building subdivisions driving up and down Ten Mile -- at least 20 rock trucks a day going past that intersection and they really even have not been a problem with us. I mean we have been able to get in and out of our subdivisions and -- and I think what Costco is proposing here or what the developers are proposing I think it's just fine. I think if you look at that map that they have, I don't see any -- not even one residential lot facing on that road that goes close to their residential neighborhood and I think being right there in the intersection -- a major intersection between Ten Mile and Chinden I think it's the ideal spot and I think anybody that bought a house in that area should have known that there was going to be some type of development in there that's not going to be residential. Anyway, thank you. McCarvel: Please hold your comments in the audience. Bob Rock. Rock: Hello. My name is Bob Rock. I live at 4090 West Lost Rapids Drive in Bainbridge and I totally agree with the gentleman that just spoke. The residents Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 37 of 161 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 1, 2018 Page 35 of 72 absolutely should have known about this development, this project before we bought our houses, but we didn't. Is the drawing in front of you there? McCarvel: Yes. Rock: I couldn't help noticing tonight when I saw that triangle. It reminds me a lot of the Bermuda Triangle. I know what I'm talking about, because I have been there. It's a place where things get sucked in and things that we don't expect happen. But I think that's exactly what's going to happen with this. The current two Costcos that we have, as the gentleman from Costco stated, about 18 -- 18 miles apart. About eight miles from Meridian is either location, depending on where you live. Most shoppers split their time between the two. Once we add the third Costco, if it goes in, if you were to draw three circles around those, then, you're going to have about a four mile radius from each Costco of which to choose from. So, if you're within four miles of any of those three Costcos you get to choose. Most people are probably going to go to the new Costco, because it is going to be big and shiny and everybody is going to want to go there. I don't care if I lived down by the Costco off Cole I would probably go to the new one. The new Costco will probably absorb 40 to 50 percent of the business from the other two Costcos. So, on top of the business that this Costco is supposed to bring in, it's going to bring in even more. More traffic through our neighborhoods on roads that everybody that's talked so far has talked about the roadways are not going to be able to handle that. In addition, shoppers to the north, east, and west will converge on this new Costco. They are to be coming eastbound Chinden from Eagle, south on Highway 16 from Emmett and above, west on Chinden to avoid 1-84. Years of roads -- road work and construction will just add to the chaos. It's not going to be fixed before that. In fact, last night at the ACHD meeting -- it's probably not in the record, but at least two of the Commissioners were pretty outspoken about why don't you build the roads first and, then, build the stores. So, even they have concerns, even though it didn't show up in their final recommendation. Traffic studies so far are not based on worst case. They do not account for the neighborhood impact. They do not take into account the -- as to the impact on the activity in the two parks that are nearby, especially on the weekends when you have outdoor activities and everybody is also going to Costco. Another thing to consider. Future state. What we like to think about this; right? But what happens if Costco starts moving to more online sales and we already know Amazon's moving that really rapidly and, God forbid, what happens if they decide to close one or two of the other Costcos? It's a very realistic possibility. Where do you think everybody is going to go if they close either one of those Costcos? They are all going to come to the new Costco, if it's still there. So, it won't be the Meridian one that gets closed if that happens. In conclusion I want to say that it may have been lost on everybody here that we are a fairly new neighborhood, we are not built out yet, we have a pretty good showing here. We do not have an HOA, because we pay our dues to Brighton. So, we are not represented by our own HOA. So, we are expecting you all to be our representative. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Megan Rock. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 38 of 161 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 1, 2018 Page 36 of 72 M.Rock: My name is Megan Rock and I live at 4080 West Lost Rapids Drive in Bainbridge neighborhood. I am a mother and I am a business owner and I have been born and raised in this Treasure Valley my entire life. I have been here longer than most people have, because they are foreign. I have seen the growth. I understand the nostalgia. I'm not here to argue whether or not Costco is a good company. I'm not here to argue whether or not there is a need for another Costco. I'm here to argue that it is inappropriately placed in this neighborhood for a number of reasons. I will let other people tell you those, but I wanted to hit on a couple of points that were brought up. There is a conflict of interest with Brighton being our neighborhood association. Furthermore, if you look at the gas station map that was shown earlier, you can see that the traffic is routed between Costco and the outlying buildings. Yesterday it was stated by the Brighton representative that they are expecting that people will park at Costco and, then, walk to the outlying buildings. So, then, you're putting more pedestrians at risk. Not just the people in the neighborhood, but every single person who comes to Costco and, then, makes a trip to an outlying area. I would also like to see that on Ten Mile -- or, sorry, on Lost Rapids that the road has bike lanes on each side and it's very, very narrow when you have no parking signs and people are parking in the bike lane. You're putting not only pedestrians at risk, you're putting bicycles at risk, you're putting motor vehicles at risk as well and you're opening them up to liability as they are crossing in and out of the lanes where they are supposed to be appropriately placed when people are parking there. We have Heroes Park just across Ten Mile Road. If you have ever driven that on a Saturday during soccer season you will know that Ten Mile is literally flooded, even parking -- parking, sorry, extends even into the Mormon church parking lot across the way, because there is such inadequate parking there. Where are those cars going to go? Where are these kids going to safely cross over to the park to go play their activities? You're putting the community at risk with the current situation there and, then, now you're talking about adding exponential risk on top of that. I would also like to point out -- back to the use of Lost Rapids, which is two of the three main entrances for Bainbridge Subdivision and one for Spurwing Greens. There is already extreme difficulty getting in and out of that subdivision, even with a signal at that intersection. My kitchen window looks directly out at the red barn on Chinden, if you're familiar with that and I see that intersection and it's terrifying to sit in your backyard having a dinner with your family and you're hearing cars running into each other on a regular basis. You go to sleep with police lights lighting up your bedroom windows, even with the blinds, because there are accidents happening on Chinden that are not being properly addressed. Now, we are going to compound the issue. I ask that you deny this application. McCarvel: Thank you. Kim Miles. Miles: Good evening. McCarvel: Please state your name and address for the record. Miles: My name is Kim Miles. I live at 2099 West Martin Creek. That's in the Lochsa Falls Subdivision. And I came here tonight hoping to be educated on the issue, but also Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 39 of 161 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 1, 2018 Page 37 of 72 believing that I had a pretty firm idea of which side I was on. I'm now not so certain. I came in here thinking I have lived in Meridian 20 years or so now. In that time we have seen tremendous change and I think the saying that the only thing that stays the same is that nothing stays the same fits. Idaho is one of the fastest growing -- if not the fastest growing state in the country right now, so we can expect to see a lot more change in our future. With those changes there is going to be increased needs for housing, for jobs, for services. The traffic will increase. All of these things will happen. That's a given. These things are inevitable. Change is going to happen. So, then, what's the best plan? How do we plan now for those changes that are going to happen? What are the best services and the best businesses that our residents need and deserve? At first I was encouraged by the Costco project, one, because Costco is an excellent company. I love Costco. They are an excellent employer. And, yes, I do believe that they are a good neighbor and also I saw hope in the fact that there was direct access via Ten Mile down to the freeway. The proposal to widen Chinden and go on up Highway 16, 1 thought that was a great plan. I'm not so sure now. I drove the route earlier today. I was not at first aware of the fact that some of Costcos traffic would be directed through -- I don't remember the name of the street. Just to the south -- Lost Rapids. I'm very concerned about that. I don't believe that a few signs put up that says Costco traffic keep out, is going to keep people from going through there. I think their neighborhood and that little park right there are at risk. I don't blame these residents. was really disappointed when we didn't get the WinCo or the Costco on Ten Mile and Linder, but I have to tell you I understand these concerns and especially tonight hearing that there is a possibly more viable property on Highway 16 and Chinden where we will not impact existing neighborhoods. I'm wondering why that hasn't been done. So, tonight I no longer support this project at this location. I do fully support Costco, but also support my neighbors. McCarvel: Thank you. Dirk Minatone. Dirk Minatone. Did I get that right? Okay. I will go with what you say. Dirk, why don't you come up to the podium. Yeah. Minatre: My name is Dirk Minatre. I live at 6864 North Pira Avenue in Spurwing Greens. Madam Chair, Commissioners. I think that is -- is a good project for a different area. This is -- again, it's an area where we have -- we already have inordinate traffic problems with this area before we even think about a Costco. I see times when the traffic is back all the way up to Tree Farm on Chinden, blocked at Ten Mile. I see traffic blocked at 4:00 o'clock all the way to Walmart on Ten Mile. This is before we even consider anything else. And this is not even taking into consideration the 50 more homes that are -- townhomes that are going in next to us, the 92 that are going behind us, the expansion of Bainbridge and, then, the expansion of Bridgetower Ten. Where ever that is, because it's just -- that's like a tour and these houses are just -- all these houses are bringing two cars typically and where do they all go. Well, they go on the road and we already have that problem and the state's been remiss in its job of -- of ensuring public safety in terms of -- of giving us adequate infrastructure in terms of this -- this crazy growth that we are experiencing now. Why isn't Costco looking at the different triangle going down toward State Street and Legacy and all that growth there where they have four lane roads available or even as others have mentioned out there Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 40 of 161 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 1, 2018 Page 38 of 72 on 16. You know, this is just the wrong spot for the Costco. It's too much. We can't even bear the traffic we have got. We need to take a deep breath and kind of plan a little bit better for this growth and how we are going to go forward or it's going to be messed up even more and I hope that you can take these thoughts into consideration. McCarvel: Thank you. David Zaremba. Zaremba: Good evening, Madam Chairman, Members of the Commission. My name is David Zaremba. I live at 2540 North Crooked Creek Way in Meridian. Let me make a comment about the Comprehensive Plan first if I may. As you know, the Comprehensive Plan as required by state law and Meridian's was developed with much input from stakeholders and the general public and it's created and finalized at public hearings like this one. Changes to it are made at public hearings like this one. Its best use is as a living document. You use it to make sure that Meridian is keeping a balance. That we have industrial. That we have different kinds of residential. That we have -- that doesn't mean that you can't change a certain use in a certain area. As a matter of fact, it is a guideline and you can make those changes. The best use of the Comprehensive Plan is, okay, if we make this change, we need to make sure we are keeping a balance. If we remove some industrial property, do we need to add one somewhere else. So, that's the use of it is a living document. Let me also comment on -- on traffic. The traffic on Chinden and Ten Mile is going to get a lot worse. We have known for 20 years that it was going to get a lot worse, not having anything to do with Costco. The growth in Eagle and north of Eagle, the growth in Gem county around Emmett, the growth to the west of us in Canyon county, all are going to come on Chinden. In the sixteen years that I served on this Planning and Zoning Commission and on the City Council, we had many, many meetings with ITD discussing the future of Chinden, along with Ten Mile. They understand the growth and the problems that are going to happen on Chinden, but somehow they failed to fund anything to solve it. It's not on the radar. To have Costco step up and say they are going to help with some of this I think is a wonderful thing to have happened. We know the projections for growth in the Treasure Valley are that within the next 20 years, four to five times -- I'm sorry -- three to four times the current population is going to live in the Treasure Valley. During that time the center of that population doesn't move out of Meridian. We will be the center. We will continue to be the center and all that traffic is going to come through Meridian. Dean Willis knows, because he's at every meeting that I was at over those 16 years. But I have often said instead we kicking about the traffic, we need to take advantage of it, find ways for people to stop and leave a few dollars in Meridian. Find a reason for them to come here, not just to come through here. Costco is that opportunity. If you go through the parking lots in the Nampa or the -- or the Boise store you see license plates from Gem county, from Boise county, from Valley county. believe those people will choose the Meridian store. Many of them while they are here will shop at our other stores and other restaurants and I believe that the whole thing will raise Meridian and help us keep a balance of what is available both for shopping and for employment. So, I urge you to approve it. If you need to make some adjustments or requirements, that's your job. But I urge you to recommend approval to the City Council. Thank you very much. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 41 of 161 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 1, 2018 Page 39 of 72 McCarvel: Thank you. John Williams. Williams: Hello. My name is John Williams. I live at 5876 North Assisi Way in the Bainbridge Subdivision. Many others have also mentioned that one of the reasons they decided to move here is -- all we can use is the best data that we have available and think we bought into the promises that were given to us via the Comprehensive Plan of Meridian, as well as the spokespersons for the Brighton Subdivision via their realtors. We also can look at planning that they have provided us in the neighborhood as those buying in the neighborhood, which is a lot in that area and it specifically states future medium density housing. Not planned. Not proposed. But future. Which what that signifies to someone building is this is what the developer absolutely plans to do. If you look at the Bainbridge Subdivision website right now at this very second, if you look at the plat map it says future medium density housing. So, I think where we get a lot of passion is owners that invested in this area and bought into the -- the vision of the Comprehensive Plan, which says to preserve some small town character and charm. And I think that is vital to your residential areas. Adding a commercial area like this in the middle of a residential area is unprecedented in what we can see for the valley. Look at Nampa, look at Boise, it's not in the middle of a residential area, it is in the middle of a commercial planned area. We can't stop progress like it's been -- that's been mentioned. We are going to grow, but I hope as Commissioners that you can help preserve that small town charm and feel and what is such huge draw to Meridian is that feel and slapping this in the middle of that residential area does not preserve that. It affects the quality of life and it goes against the Comprehensive Plan that we bought into and a lot of others have said it lot more eloquently than I have, we are making compromises left and right to try to fill a lack of planning for the infrastructure and, yes, okay, you have Costco coming in and we have -- are we going to maintain that -- that character or are we going to sell our souls to Costco to help bail us out? I feel that's the problem and I will concede the rest of my time. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Okay. That's everybody that has signed up. Did I miss anybody? Okay. One more? Okay. Then we are going to go for a break here in a second. Okay. Please state your name and address for the record. Stevenson: Jerry Stevenson. 6040 North Ten Mile Road, Meridian, Idaho. 83646. And I'm also going to request ten minutes, because I represent Canyon county as well. McCarvel: Are they here? Unless you have new -- Stevenson: Well, here is the deal. I live directly across the street. It impacts me more than it does anybody else. I drive to Canyon county as well. I own property -- also farm ground on the other side of Highway 16 and Star Roads. That traffic over there -- what you guys are failing to acknowledge is the impact to the traffic outside of this immediate area. I mean that's a -- that's a real problem. There is bottleneck all the way to Chinden. I drive everyday all the way through and it's a solid line. There is the main arteries. Highway 44, 20-26, and the interstate. Everybody from Canyon county over. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 42 of 161 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 1, 2018 Page 40 of 72 And I also farm out there in Canyon county as well. That's why I say, you know, I pay taxes over there. I represent everybody over there that's traveling through here that isn't aware of what's going on. They will be impacted as they drive all the way into Boise with this stop and go traffic that they have already seen over the years. When I -- I go back many years. I grew up on Eagle Road when it was a two lane highway. I can speak from experience of what actual people go through. I have lived across the street -- directly across the street from where Costco is proposing this for 30 years and so I'm impacted more than anybody else out here. I can sit down and say, okay, sign in or whatever, nobody's come to me. I have talked to a couple -- I have had to reach out to talk to a couple of brokers, commercial guys, and my property is really going to be significantly impacted, because there is -- nobody really knows what's going to take place here. So, I mean I could be for it and maybe try to hold out for big dollars, but have lived there all my life and Ada County Highway Department won't even talk to me about what their actual plans are, because if I don't want to sell my property frontage right there I would recommend that this plan be taken down, because you need to plan on Ten Mile Road being extended around what they plan on taking my property over, because I'm not going to let it go, I got five dogs that's buried right there on the berm. have spent a lot of dollars improving my property. I have had to -- just due to the traffic at Walmart coming in, I have been impacted. They have put a -- a gas relief valve right next to my house. I have had to deal with that issue. And those are things that nobody ever looks at. So, there is a lot of impacted people that aren't even looking at right here. You take a look at Lost Rapids directly across the street from where this is at. There is no bike lane. Everybody parks their cars on the street, because they can't fit them all in the garage and now you're going to have everybody from Lochsa Falls Subdivision trying to use that as a main artery getting to this location right here. You take a look at every Saturday out there, you got the sports annex right there where everybody is parking up and down the streets on Ten Mile across the street. There is a lack of parking spaces. Saturday is probably Costco's busiest day. This is going to impact that -- those events there as well, so -- I mean this is just not the right site. I'm all for development. I have been expecting this to happen, but not Costco. We need to have something where people can walk to, right their bikes. And as everybody knows here, Costco -- everybody has to drive to pack up their stuff, so this is the wrong type of -- it's not a community place. Costco is not a community member. Take a look at their website. They don't contribute any money back into the community for any civic organizations or donations of that sort. So, you tell me -- McCarvel: Will you wrap up your thoughts? Stevenson: They don't do that as well. I mean I could go on and on, but -- but the traffic is bottlenecked all the way up across -- you need to take a look at this -- the traffic outside of the area down -- my renters and -- I can't get out of that place on Chinden over there. And, then, take a look at the plan also. They are not going to -- they are going to open up Costco within two years later, maybe. And I have seen how dates get shifted back and forth through all these things before they extend it out farther. They are going to create more of a traffic jam before they actually fix what they are creating. So, I think this is just the wrong plan. I ask you to reconsider. Let another developer Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 43 of 161 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 1, 2018 Page 41 of 72 come in and do something more fitting for the community. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Okay. So, that was everybody on the list. I think we are going to take -- okay. One more and, then, we are going to take a break. Morrette: High. My name is Michael Morrette. 1805 West Island Green Way. I'm a resident in the area, a business owner in the area and a developer in the area. support the development. One -- the main point I would like to make to everybody is that a lot of the traffic we see on this road is the result of all of us in this neighborhood traveling to Costco 15 miles away. McCarvel: Please, no outbursts. Morrette: Furthermore, Costco, yes, may not be a walking business, but the businesses it will bring to that area may very well be walking businesses. Like the McDonald's was for my nephew, who I was raising through high school when he needed a job in high school. He rode his bike. He couldn't go anywhere else. Without that McDonald's there, when it was one of the only places, my nephew wouldn't have had a job. Many of us who live in this area will have kids, we will have grandkids who will work in these areas. Okay? Many of us ourselves will work and own businesses in this area. Okay? We can't be just a bunch of houses without services and businesses to cater to us -- to cater to us and it's not fair for anyone -- I live in Castlebury West. My property value, if it's going to go up, if it's going to go down, just as much as anyone else. Okay? It's not fair for me to say my house is worth more than someone down on Ten Mile and that they should be burdened by the businesses I want to visit. It's not fair for us to keep passing our burdens on to everybody else. Every community should shoulder their own burdens. Costco, WinCo, they will bring road improvements a lot sooner than the planned 2021 and without Costco, like everyone else said, something is going to go there, just like my business at the corner of Linder and Chinden, businesses are going to come here whether anybody likes it or not. I like it. Thank you all, Madam Commissioner and Commission, for your time and for everyone else showing up for voicing your opinion, I appreciate it. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. And the lady in the gray sweater, did -- and is that it or are we going to -- because I'm going to let her speak and, then, we are going to close the public testimony, then, and take a break. Dawson: My name is Terri Dawson. I live at 3808 West Magic Spruce in Meridian. My -- there is only one Costco in the United States that has -- is in a residential neighborhood and -- can you guys hear me? McCarvel: Yes. Dawson: Okay. It's Lantana, Florida, and it was built in 1991 where -- could I show you the picture? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 44 of 161 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 1, 2018 Page 42 of 72 McCarvel: It won't be part of it -- it can't -- on your phone it's not part of the public records. You will have to go back and stand and not -- speak into the mic. Dawson: Anyway, it's -- it butts up next to the freeway and there is residential, but the thing is is this Costco was built in 1991 and these homes came in afterwards. Therefore, the residents knew what they were getting into. So, anyway, I think it's -- say I love Costco. I have been going forever, but I think it's as bad to be in residential. And that's it. McCarvel: All right. Dawson: Nothing. Okay. Thank you. McCarvel: Uh-huh. Do you want to make a motion -- we have got more -- okay. Let's take a break and we will come back to this. Five minutes. (RECESS: 9:57 p.m. to 10:03 p.m.) McCarvel: Okay. We will resume public testimony. Does anybody have anything new to add? Reynolds: Hello, Madam Commissioner and Members of P&Z Council. My name is Sally Reynolds. I reside at 1166 West Bacall Street in the Paramount Subdivision and some of you know me, you have seen me testify before on behalf of a group called Smart Growth For Meridian. So, I stand before today -- I'm concerned, as many people have already said, that Costco is a great company, but that this site might not be the right fit. It is not a referendum on their business practices. It is if their business practice fits at this location, which a lot of us do not believe it does. There have been traffic concerns brought up and one other that I wanted to add to that is because of an application which you have heard me testify on previously, which was recommended for denial to City Council and ended up being continued, it's now going to be remanded back to you, that application down the road -- those road improvements are not moving forward at all. So, I think it's wonderful that the road would be widened here and -- from Highway 16 down to Linder, but from Linder until Locust Grove it will just be a bottleneck and my house looks out right back between Meridian and Linder Road and I just see the cars lined up every single day. So, with that said, that -- I just see that bottleneck getting worse and worse and it is our responsibility -- Chinden is an east - west expressway. It is one of the most vital corridors that we have here in the Treasure Valley and it is our duty to protect it for the commuters who are from Nampa, who are from Caldwell, who are trying to get to work in Boise or Meridian. Another point of traffic -- I know that -- I mean Costco is great. I don't go there really often, but if I have to go I either go to Boise or Nampa, like they said, but I don't go often and when I come back out of that industrial area I just breathe a sigh of relief, because I am happy to be out of that traffic and that congestion and to go back to nice quiet north Meridian. That small town charm that's been referred to here earlier. And so to have all of that in north Meridian does not fit with the Comprehensive Plan or the goals of that Comprehensive Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 45 of 161 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 1, 2018 Page 43 of 72 Plan and I know that that will be revised, but a lot of man hours and expert testimony went into creating that for a reason and the residents did make decisions on that and so I believe that it's the Commission's duty to uphold that. The last item that I will say is if there are a lot of changes that are to the plan, which we have seen with a previous application just recently, I would urge you to at least, at the very minimum, continue it until there is more finality in a plan, because as residents we are going on -- I think nine months now going with an application that you all rightly recommended denial, but, unfortunately, that did not get taken into consideration and because it's been a nightmare process now. So, I urge you to recommend denial to the City Council and, hopefully, Costco can find another location more suitable for their business model. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. I think one more. Okay. Winter: My name Paige Winter and I live in the Bainbridge Subdivision at 4113 West Wolf Rapids Street. I -- for me, I know that Lost Rapids Drive -- Street will be used quite a bit. I am a frequent shopper at Craft Warehouse and Walmart and I go from one Craft Warehouse to Walmart back through that neighborhood, because I don't want to go around to Eagle and -- and Fairview and so I know that Costco shoppers will use -- I would if I didn't live -- I would use that road, Lost Rapids Road, to get away from the congestion that will happen at Chinden and Ten Mile. And also I'm wondering for Costco, if they received this much opposition in other places that they try to build, because it seems to me that they -- most of their locations are in more commercial areas than this. This is definitely not a commercial area, this is a residential area and am not opposed to commercial development at all, I enjoy a neighborhood shop, but not the Costco shops. Huge shop. My son is one of nine boys about his age and they have dubbed them the Bainbridge Boys Club for fun and they run around the neighborhood and they play at different houses -- different neighbors and in the parks and in the Keith Bird Park and for them to -- I let him go, because I feel like it's a safe neighborhood and a safe place for him to be and he -- if this Costco were to come in and more traffic, would be more afraid. I wouldn't let him go and have that old fashioned nostalgic -- let the boys go run around the neighborhood and play until it's dark and, then, they are supposed to come home, which I have told him to do and he enjoys that. If Costco were to come in, the more traffic like that, I would not allow him as much free rein as do now, because I would be worried about the traffic and, really, I would be worried about strangers coming on that street and, you know, abducting him -- I don't know. Mom worries. But it would -- the ability to get to my home -- I travel that road two or three, four times a day. The ability to get to my home and the access to my home would be impaired by Costco and the traffic there and the enjoyment of my son and my family would be impaired as well. Thank you for your time, McCarvel: Thank you. Okay. One more. Southam: Yes, Madam Chairman and Commissioners, my name is Lynn Southam. reside at 6508 North Salvia Way in Meridian. I won't be long, I just find it interesting that everybody thinks Costco is wonderful, but they would like it in someone else's Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 46 of 161 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 1, 2018 Page 44 of 72 subdivision. What I find really interesting is that the one thing we all agree on is why hasn't Costco looked at Highway 16 and Chinden or that area? No one opposes that. Everybody here would be in favor of that and so as you weigh this decision I think you may want to delay your recommendation until maybe Costco gives a response to that question, why not put it in the area that the whole community supports. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. I think there was one back -- Dennison: Madam Chair, Commissioners, my name is Kevin Dennison. I reside at 3244 West Salix Drive, Meridian. I know -- it's Spurwing Greens Subdivision. Can I get the -- the before and after comp plan, please. There are many issues on this -- on this proposed Costco and when I first heard about it and took a look at it -- and, by the way, I have been a developer here and one of the groups that started Roaring Springs Water Park, I have -- I have had businesses here and I live here as well and when I first saw the Costco project come in I thought, well, if the infrastructure here supports it, it's something that I could get behind and the more that I have taken a look at it and studied it, I have come to the determination that it just isn't for this area period. There right now are 16,000 trips -- this is Costco's words -- in front of Ten Mile and Chinden. With Costco coming in there will be an additional 17,000 trips and as anybody knows that lives out in that area, if you're coming down Ten Mile at any time of the day and want to make a left-hand turn onto Chinden, you will wait as long as five and six light cycles. Two days ago -- Tuesday at 2:30 1 was headed east on Chinden and -- this is 2:30 in the afternoon and from Linder to Eagle Road it took me 27 minutes. So, what the -- the proposition is -- from Costco is the message of just pushing the bottlenecks further up the road. Ten Mile, they are talking about widening that up just until they get to the -- the park and, then, it will go back to two lanes in between McMillan and Ustick, we are back down to two lanes, a huge bottleneck there, and, then, we widen back up to four lanes until we get to the freeway. Same thing on Chinden going east and west. We are going to open it up, just to Tree Farm, or maybe a little past, and, then, eventually we are going to get to Black Cat, but, then, once you get to 1-16 going east or going west, we are going to be down to a bottleneck again and it just isn't the right spot for this. In the comp plan, if you take a look at that, there is not one spec of dirt in that entire area that was ever looked at as being commercial. That comp plan was done with taxpayer money and I'm sure the city put a lot of time, effort, dollars towards that comp plan and we all bought into it and now you have basically told us that the comp plan means nothing and by heck we are going to bring in a Costco in a residential neighborhood. Nampa doesn't have it. Boise doesn't have it. Twin Falls doesn't have it. But, yet, you are going to throw it in one of the busiest sections in Meridian. Meridian is a great city. Don't mess it up. This thing needs to be stopped and it needs to be stopped now. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Okay. Anybody else? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward. Wardle: Madam President, Commission Members, Mike Wardle. I'm going to make just a couple of observations and, then, Mr. Turnbull will conclude. Interesting the comment Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 47 of 161 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 1, 2018 Page 45 of 72 made by the gentleman just up about the comp plan never showed a shove of commercial dirt out here. The comp plan in 2002 when it was first created had a hundred acres of mixed use regional, which would anticipate some very significant commercial. There has been no significant change in the applications. The only change was just the question of what the underlying land use designation would be. In looking at how best to implement the project it became clear that the commercial designation versus the mixed use regional was the most effective because of the unique character of all of the units and proposals on this site, the residential, as well as the commercial. Mitigation will start with this project on both Highway 20-26 and Highway or, excuse me, Ten Mile Road. Comment just made about the bottlenecks back down -- Ten Mile Road is currently in design by the Ada County Highway District with anticipation that they will widen the entire roadway from Chinden down to Ustick Road within the next two years. What they will do is hand off their plans to Costco to get that first mile done while they are working on the second mile. So, Ten Mile Road will probably -- coincident with the opening of this project have a five lane facility, if not totally completed with Costco's effort and shortly thereafter with ACHD. With regard to Highway 20-26, they are asking -- they are all suggesting to you this evening that we want more residential without any services. We are willing to drive through everybody else's neighborhoods to get to those services, but we don't want them here. Now, Costco is unique, no question about that. With regard to Lost Rapids Drive, the collector road that Brighton built in advance of any of these development opportunities, it is a two lane collector roadway with bike lanes. It was constructed with the intent that it would provide not only access, but also a separation, just as 20-26 separates Spurwing from the site and -- so, anyway, I'm going to just turn the time to Mr. Turnbull to conclude, but I appreciate your listening to our comments this evening. McCarvel: Thank you. Turnbull: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, my name is David Turnbull. Office address is 12601 West Explorer Drive in Boise. I appreciate the testimony of everybody here. I really do. And I understand the emotions, some of angst that goes into an application like this. Change can be unsettling. But if you have lived here for a period of time like many of us have, we have seen a lot of change. Over the past several years I get -- there is two questions I get asked the most. Actually, first of all, will go back to a comment I heard from a planner that came to one of our municipal leadership meetings. He -- and he was referring specifically to U.S. 20-26. He said who in their right mind would develop residential along that corridor and I raised my hand. I mean I think it's a -- it's a great neighborhood. I think we have developed some really great neighborhoods here and I understand the emotions of some of the residents that are here, but over the past few -- few years I get asked two questions more than anything else. When are we going to get Chinden improved, like it's my job, and when are you going to get us a Costco and I'm serious, I get that question all the time. So, I want to make it clear, we never owned this corner, the 15 acres where the -- that the Gossers own. We never approached Costco. They came to us and they assumed we owed that corner and I referred them on to Gossers. They started working on an application. Well, it could have been a Costco with no -- none of the surrounding Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 48 of 161 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 1, 2018 Page 46 of 72 commercial uses. It could have just been a plain Costco with a parking lot and a service station. They came to us and said let me work with you to improve some access, to create some setbacks, so we can get some more commercial retail pads that would be more conducive to an overall project and so we worked with them and we wanted to make the best project possible and, frankly, we have been pretty hard on them about some of the things they wanted to do for some of the things we thought were necessary to see to help protect the existing neighborhood, preserve traffic and the first thing I told them is you're not going to get anything here unless you make some significant improvements to the infrastructure and Costco stepped up to the plate. They are proposing spending 15 million dollars on infrastructure to widen not only Chinden, but Ten Mile Road. So, we are going to see significant improvements here. I have heard some of the comments about existing conditions on -- on Chinden. I have heard some testimony about some of the accidents. I drive back and forth every day. I live out in that area. Almost without exception I -- you know, anecdotally most of the accidents see are on the two lane stretches. Where we provided the expansion -- we provided the expansion for all of Chinden between Cloverdale and Eagle Road. We developed all that property. We gave the right of way to ITD for the last expansion that they really did. We don't see very many accidents there were it's a five lane facility. I want to talk a little bit just about that -- that corridor, though. Many of you know we developed the Target store there at the corner of Chinden and Eagle and I got to tell you that when we did it we also did some apartments there, the Renaissance Apartments, and the neighborhood was very unsettled about that whole application. Even my own wife -- we live a couple of miles away. She was -- she was -- she didn't like it herself. I said, you know, right now you drive all the way to Milwaukee to get to a Target. You understand that. She said yeah. But we lived in the country and, you know, it's just one of those nostalgic things. So, we had some comments from some people that have come in since this testimony that have said, you know, I lived in that Hobble Creek neighborhood when Target was put in. We were all up in arms about it. But, you know what, they became a great neighbor and I think Costco is doing their level best to be that same way. Fred Meyer is close to our homes as well. I have a lot of neighbors that when Fred Meyer was proposed came out in -- in opposition. I had one neighbor in particular who was at every hearing opposing it. He told me six months later -- he said, you know, I went to all those hearings and I was against it, he said, but I kind of like it and -- so, that's just the -- you know, that's the way things happen. I mean even Rocky Mountain High School, when we put that into our Paramount Subdivision, you know what, it's a big traffic generator and it causes people concerns and do we have issues with some cut -through traffic? Yeah. But that's because we are required to provide connectivity and so we can't -- we can plan for it the best we can, but you're going to have issues whenever you have a traffic generator, but you have traffic generation already. I drive to the Nampa Costco, I drive right by this site and I go all the way to Nampa. So, I just want to reiterate Costco -- is fronting these improvements in -- in advance of them opening their store. So, I think that they have done a good job. I think when it comes down to it on these traffic issues, you have to trust that ACHD and ITD have done their job. This applicant has done it the right way. McCarvel: Please no comments from the audience. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 49 of 161 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 1, 2018 Page 47 of 72 Turnbull: This applicant has done it the right way. It's done the traffic studies. It's taken them to ITD and you have approved traffic studies and approved sets of conditions in front of you for this Planning and Zoning Commission hearing, unlike one of the previous projects that you -- you had to deal with. So, when this project is completed it will become part of the fabric of the community. Like I said, I don't dismiss your -- the concerns that have been expressed by the neighbors, but I think this application has done a pretty good job. I will tell you that on the balance of the property we gave you a fairly accurate concept plan of what we expect to do with all of the residential area, because I didn't want the neighbors to think that, you know, just leave it blank there and think, well, this could be expanded in the future. We are drawing a line in the sand here and saying this is what it is. So, I will stand for any questions you might have at this point. McCarvel: Any questions for the applicant? Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: So, I guess the big question in the room is why not 16 and Chinden? Turnbull: So, we own both properties. You would have to address that to Costco. They chose the site. They have looked at -- I mean we own the property. Some people have suggested Ten Mile and 1-84, too. I see a lot of the comments and everybody has their idea of where it ought to go. You know, Costco representatives and traffic engineers are here to address any of those questions. Yearsley: Thank you. Turnbull: So, if you would like them to come to -- McCarvel: I think so. Yearsley: Actually, I think I would, if you don't mind. Whelan: Madam Chair, Commissioners, my name is Brian Whelan. To answer that question, we -- we have been looking for years for a -- for a site that was acceptable to us in Meridian. And just so you know a little bit about our process, we -- it's not just me who is involved in this -- this decision. We retain local help and in this case we retained Thornton Oliver Keller to help us with, you know, the local questions about how people move -- McCarvel: Can you pull the mic a little bit closer? Whelan: Sorry. Local questions about how people move in the market, perceptions of Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 50 of 161 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 1, 2018 Page 48 of 72 locations, and those kind of things. In addition to that, we have our senior management come visit all our sites, which we did in this particular case. I think the fundamental -- as I pointed out earlier about the Ten Mile site, I think one of the fundamental things that really attracts us to it is -- is the growth. When we looked at the growth, certainly in the near term, the five to ten year growth, it continues to be south of Chinden and what Ten Mile does is allows us to have all those folks filter into Ten Mile, get to the site and to be able to circulate through the site, so that there is access both to Chinden and Ten Mile. It creates a much more effective way to circulate people in and out of the project and serve, we think, the core market much better. If we went to 16 we are effectively having one point of ingress and egress out there, which I'm sure what we -- if we were there that would be the topic. How are you going to go get all these people in and out of here with one point of ingress and egress and -- and those are just some of the fundamental reasons why we considered -- we considered many others, too. This has been a process. Our investment is significant here and we -- we haven't made mistakes and we don't plan to and we really think this is the right spot for us. McCarvel: Commissioner Wilson. Please, no comments from the audience. Wilson: What we a -- we had testimony about just its proximity to residential areas. What do you say about that? Whelan: Well, the testimony was that there is only one Costco in the world that's near residential and that's just false. We -- we have multiple locations that are near residential. For example, Coeur d'Alene is surrounded by -- if you pulled up an aerial of Coeur d'Alene it's surrounded by residential uses. One of -- one of the letters we received through this process from one of our existing members was a member who just moved here from Lehi, Utah, and our building in Lehi, Utah, backs up to some very desirable single family residential and this particular member lived in that subdivision and I could read the e-mail to you if you would like, but she just raved as to how good of a neighbor we were and how that we did not negatively impact the property owners of those immediately adjacent residential properties. There are others. We just completed one in Louisville, Kentucky, where we are surrounded by residential on three sides. have done projects in Toledo, Ohio, where we are surrounded by residential. There are many examples where we have residential nearby. It really is, you know, a market determinate in terms of -- of what makes the most sense for us. McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: I just -- anybody else had questions? McCarvel: Anybody else for the applicant? Yes. Fitzgerald: Overall? McCarvel: Yes. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 51 of 161 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 1, 2018 Page 49 of 72 Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: Just for Mr. Turnbull or -- either one of you could answer. Just for the record, can you explain the process of timing for road improvement, so everybody in the room can understand, because we have heard about 14 different versions of that tonight. So, I just want to clarify for the record when the roads are going in and what timing and, then, how far they are going to go, so we are all on the same page. Whelan: Yes. Right. So, just -- just as broadly, so we, obviously, have a process to go through here. If we are fortunate enough to be successful, you know, that will take us into the summer of 2018. After -- after that we would acquire the property and, then, begin all of the -- the planning process in terms of the plans that are necessary for the road improvements. That would occur from 2018 to 2019. It's really a two-step process. ACHD already has Ten Mile scheduled to be widened and they have initiated the plans for Ten Mile already, so they will -- they will be completing those plans. We will be completing the plans for Chinden. That planning process in terms of developing those plans and pursuing the right of way will happen between 2018 and let's hope early 2019. Some of these dates with right of way are -- you know, we can't be specific on. And, then, we would start construction hopefully in late 2019 and be able to open the new Costco in 2020, but the roads would be -- Fitzgerald: Can you talk about the roads? Whelan: There were -- there were several allegations or -- and statements relative to the roads. To be clear, the condition that we have from ACHD, as well as ITD, is that we would not be able to open until Ten Mile Road has been widened as proposed and Chinden has been widened from Linder to Tree Farm. There is a second phase that would take the Chinden improvements from Tree Farm to Highway 15. We ideally would like to do that all in one phase. The reason that there are two phases is is that the traffic report and ITD has concluded and agreed that the impacts of our project only would require us to expand it to Tree Farm, but they are asking us to go above and beyond what the minimum requirements are and that would be that last segment from Tree Farm to Highway 15. Again, we would like to all do it at the same time. The practical reality is that right of way gets a little more complicated from Tree Farm to 16. And the other part of Chinden most of the parcels are larger, they have already been set aside, and it's more of an execution in terms of acquiring that right of way. It gets more complicated when you get further out. It would be our hope and desire to do it all at once. We are not in the road building business, we don't want to do it more than once, and consequently if we could do it that way that -- that would be our desire. Fitzgerald: Thank you. McCarvel: Do you have anybody like -- I mean that's come to you and wanting some of those outlying property -- the outlying pads around the gas station and -- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 52 of 161 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 1, 2018 Page 50 of 72 Whelan: The Gossers will -- will control those pads, so I will let them respond. Gosser: Trevor Gosser. 74 East 500 South, Suite 200, Bountiful, Utah. We haven't gone out and marketed these out parcels yet. We are waiting, you know, to get through the approval process. We don't like to speculate on land and build buildings. Obviously, we -- we need the infrastructure and improvements that come in. So, we have held off on marketing the out parcels until we get approval. McCarvel: And I know the staff report is asking -- recommending that the gas station be moved further to the south, so is that something you -- you would be in consideration of or why -- Gosser: Yeah. We do not agree with that recommendation and you have before you for the site plan now a -- the location of the gas station, as has been pointed out here, they are the busy. So, what -- while we like to be -- full disclosure, we like to be on the corner, we like to have the visibility, but the more important issue for us is making sure that the traffic flow associated with our gas station -- fuel facility works optimally. In this particular case it was pointed out early -- earlier that about 20 percent of our traffic would come from the -- from the west. So, consequently, in the initial stages we think the majority of our members will enter off of Ten Mile and when they enter off of Ten Mile, in order to get to this fuel facility they would make a right-hand turn. The staff is recommending that we pull that fuel facility closer to that intersection. Our experience is is when you're asking people to make a right-hand turn and, then, another quick right- hand turn, it doesn't function properly. By having it on the corner those members can make a right turn and have what I call a runway to have a little distance before they have to make the movement into the fuel facility and by doing that that gives us more spacing to manage that traffic and, then, those folks can get into that fuel is facility with another right turn. So, they are very easy movements. But the critical part is is to not try to burden that intersection with too many immediate movements and for those reasons we think that, you know, moving it further south really doesn't function for the overall project. We don't think it helps the overall project. Perreault: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: To that point can you speak to the staff's concern about that -- that right turn, that entrance being so close to Ten Mile and whether that's going to create a traffic issue? Whelan: Are you asking me? Perreault: Whoever would like to respond. Whelan: So, I'm sorry, the entrance -- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 53 of 161 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 1, 2018 Page 51 of 72 Perrault: The entrance to -- so, just to the west of the -- of the commercial lots as you come to -- you know, off Lost Rapids going north. Whelan: Off Lost -- okay. So -- Perreault: Directly to the east of the townhouses from the entrance from Lost Rapids. Whelan: Okay. So -- yeah. Sorry. I'm going to let the traffic guy help. Daleiden: Madam Chair. Madam Chair, Commissioners, the -- Andy Daleiden, Kittelson & Associates. The question with the access off of Lost Rapids Drive there and that location -- so, there is two elements there. The aspect there that's going to be a signal -- signal on Lost Rapids and Ten Mile and, then, you will have that access there. Separation wise, you know, from our perspective in terms of looking at what the storage needs are for the signal, that there is adequate distance there to have that as a full access at lost -- for the entry off of Lost Rapids. Second, it was -- the location there was to line up with the access that's existing on the south there with the church, so providing that. So, that was part of the site planning there. But, additionally, just on Lost Rapids there, that section would be improved, so there would be a dedicated left turn out heading to -- turn onto Ten Mile. There would be a through lane and, then, there would be a right turn. So, that additional elements that's within the existing curb to curb would be done in that section to be able to help manage that at key length at the signal, which is one of the concerns when you have, you know, maybe a closer spaced access and we -- ACHD has approved that, you know, through -- through our analysis. Perreault: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: Will there be dedicated left turn back out onto Lost Rapids from the exit -- entrance-exit? Daleiden: Yeah. On -- Madam Chair, Commissioner, the aspect on -- on the driveway itself for further for Costco and the rest of the development there would be a left turn and a right turn and it would be determined on -- if that's left through or through -- through right for the -- but, yes, there would be that dedication. Yearsley: Madam Chair? De Weerd: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: I guess in your study of this, do you know -- you know, everyone is talking about the bottleneck. I know this is not within our purview, but the bottleneck from Eagle to Linder, do you know if or when ITD is planning to widen that road or have you heard of any -- and I -- like I said, you may not know, but I was just curious if you knew if Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 54 of 161 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 1, 2018 Page 52 of 72 ITD was planning to widen that anytime soon. Daleiden: Madam Chair, Commissioner Yearsley, ITD is in the design phase right now of -- for widening Chinden Boulevard between Locust Grove and Eagle. So, that's in the design phase. I believe it's a 2021, 2022 time period for that to go into construction and, then, the section between Locust Grove and Linder Road, that's being evaluated as part of a separate application with Linder Village, looking at that as a potential fund -- potential improvement package with that project. And, then, this project is looking at, as was indicated, from Linder Road to State Highway 16 widening. So, the planning, you know, potentially, you know, if -- if the development projects and the ITD project that is sometime in 2023, 2024, that whole corridor would be widened to five lines, which is a significant improvement for that. Otherwise, these sections in here would be delayed. That the plans that we have -- in conversations with ITD about their approach to widening is that they will be alternating between Chinden Boulevard and State Highway 44, one mile segments, and doing that from a widening standpoint. So, you can go back right now, thinking about the -- they are starting with Locust Grove to Eagle and, then, the next one would be State Highway 44 and, then, come to Chinden and vice - versa. So, it will take several years for this section to be widened without some of the, you know, project support through development. Yearsley: And, then, the follow on question -- and is State Highway 16, from Chinden to the interstate, even in the books or even projected at this time? Daleiden: Madam Chair, Commissioner Yearsley, the project right now just went out. There as a request for proposals out that Idaho Transportation Department released for the design of that roadway, but it's estimated I believe a 400 million dollar type investment to do that, so it's still a ways out from being able to get the funding for that improvement. But from a design standpoint that is out on the streets. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: And, then, they haven't even identified or purchased right of way for 16; is that correct? Or your understanding? Daleiden: Madam Chair, Commissioner Fitzgerald, that's probably -- that's out of my purview to be able to address that. Fitzgerald: Okay. Yearsley: Madam Chair? Fitzgerald: Can someone speak to -- we have delivery time set up and in the -- in our staff report and in the requirements for the project. I think we have had a couple of comments about truck idling beforehand. Can you speak to that, just so that we have Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 55 of 161 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 1, 2018 Page 53 of 72 an understanding of what that looks like? You have fuel trucks showing up at 2:00 a.m. and waiting around with their, you know, their engines on for the numerous hours, how does that work for Costco? How do you guys regulate that? Whalen: The majority of our trucks come from our -- we call it the Depot -- it's a cross - docking depot. We operate a little bit differently than most retailers in that we encourage most of our vendors to bring the products to our depot, which in this case would be served out of Salt Lake City and, then, we put those products on our own trucks and deliver them here. So, in this particular case really in response to some of these questions at the neighborhood meeting, we agreed that none of our deliveries would occur between 10:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. So, we have agreed to that restriction. That's a condition in the staff report and we find that to be acceptable. That goes for fuel trucks as well, because the -- the majority of these trucks come from our depot, we have the ability to stage them such that -- you know, we don't want them coming when we are not ready for them. So, the objective is -- is that that situation would not exist where they would be idling and waiting, because they are coming from our own depot that we would be able to sequence that such that those deliveries could occur without that requirement. McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: I have another question, then, probably for -- for Dave on the -- the residential property to the -- to the west, you're asking for an R-15 zoning, but as I just want to clarify, in the development agreement you're asking to -- to limit that to an R-8 capacity, is that correct? Am I getting it correct? Turnbull: I think in the staff report we have limited the density between five and eight units per acre. The R-15 zone is there primarily to get the dimensional standards. It's been something we have grappled with for a long time, you know, we have talked about these different zoning designations and probably someday the UDC will be modified to where it has more flexible zoning designations in the R-8, but for right now to get this kind of unique patio home type of environment, it's R-15 dimensional standards we use with the R-8, essentially, density limitations. Yearsley: Okay. McCarvel: More green space in -- Yearsley: Oh, no. Absolutely. I just -- I just -- like I said, my concern is -- is if we give them the R-15 density, having them come back in the future and asking for something different, but if they are agreeing to limit that between five and eight I'm more comfortable leaving it that as the R-15, so -- McCarvel: Yeah. It means to stay -- the plan relatively close to this plan. Turnbull: Madam Commissioner and Commissioner Yearsley, we anticipate that Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 56 of 161 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 1, 2018 Page 54 of 72 condition being in the development agreement. Yearsley: Okay. That's perfect. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Question for Brian. We were just talking about delivery time periods and think you said 10:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m. Whalen: Correct. That none -- Cassinelli: None during those -- those hours. Would you be flexible to widen that to say 7:00 a.m? Whalen: While I would love to be able to say yes, the nature of our business, as you know, our product is -- we don't have a back room. Our product is on the floor in the racks. That's -- that's where we store our product and we do not -- for safety reasons want to put product onto the floor while we are open for business. So, we need to have the majority of our deliveries -- especially the larger deliveries -- occur early, so that we can get that product off the truck and into the racks before we are open. So, it's just not practical for us to -- to agree to that type of delivery restriction. We really reached to get to the 5:00 a.m. Yeah. Dave is suggesting I speak to handling it inside. Again, that product comes off -- off of our trucks and into our racks by 9:30 in the morning, so that it's -- so that it's there before we open. It's the way we do business. We would really like to start delivering at 4:00 a.m. if we could in order to meet -- meet those delivery requirements. Cassinelli: Okay. McCarvel: Any other questions? Perreault: Madam Chair? De Weerd: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: I have a very specific question about the site plan that -- the area to the east of the R-40 location, what kind of buffer is there between those residences and that drive? Whalen: I'm sorry. Are you saying on the plan or -- Perreault: The east side of the townhomes. Whalen: I'm going to let Mike speak to that. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 57 of 161 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 1, 2018 Page 55 of 72 Perreault: Or apartments. I think those are apartments there. Yes. That's right. In that little -- Wardle: Oh, so you're just talking about the service drive -- along the west side of that service drive, the commercial on the east, the apartments to the west? Okay. Perreault: That's not just a service drive, that's access for the public -- to the development; correct? Wardle: Yeah. But it's a private -- it's a private drive system. Sonya, help me out. The requirement for the -- the landscape buffer, since we have the residential use on the west side of that drive and commercial on the east, what does the -- what is the requirement for the width? I believe it's 20 or 25 feet, is it not? Allen: Madam Chair, Commissioners, it is 25 feet on the resident -- excuse me -- on the commercial property to the residential uses. Wardle: So, we are not talking about an absolute dimension today, because that has to come back for conditional use and CZC, but we will meet the requirements for the buffering virtually all the way around these other uses adjacent to the commercial and you will see there is a very significant one between the Costco and the proposed patio homes that Mr. Turnbull just mentioned. Thank you. Yearsley: While you are -- while you are there, I know at the last moment we changed -- you requested the change in -- in the future land use map and I know that the staff had gone through and made changes to the staff report based on that condition. Can you -- I know we have got the revised staff reports. I just want to make sure -- there is a lot of stuff that's deleted and then -- and that was deleted because it was not required for the current future land use map designation; is that correct? Wardle: That is correct. Yearsley: Okay. So, really, the staff report really didn't change, it was just -- it didn't have to meet those conditions, so it wasn't required to be in the staff report. Wardle: That is correct. Yearsley: So, I was just, you know, trying to understand, you know, what -- what has changed, what's there, why it has changed. It just helps me understand that a little bit cleaner, so -- Holland: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Holland. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 58 of 161 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 1, 2018 Page 56 of 72 Holland: One more question for you, too. Is there anything else that was in the staff report, aside from shifting the fuel sales facility, that you had issues with or any disagreements with? Wardle: I cited H earlier. I don't have that in front of me. If you would -- somebody would refresh my memory of what H is. Allen: Madam Chair, would you -- McCarvel: Yes, please. Wardle: Oh, yes. Oh, yes. Allen: It sounds like the applicant has it. Wardle: It's right here. It was suggesting that we actually put priority access onto Lost Rapids, with the assumption that there would not be access to Chinden Boulevard. ITD has approved those access points. The City Council will have to confirm those access points in its action when it considers the proposal, but it's clear from the neighborhood concerns that we don't want to do anything that would force more traffic on Lost Rapids and away from the major transportation corridors. That's the issue. Turnbull: Madam Chair, can I just follow up on that briefly? McCarvel: Sure. Turnbull: It was suggested during the public testimony that access restrictions to State Highway 20-26 have gotten more restrictive over time. I have been involved in this for a long time and we actually funded the north Meridian area plan years ago -- I can't remember how many years ago -- where we brought in all the stakeholders and talked about Chinden specifically in great detail and it was decided at that point that -- that signalized access to Chinden Boulevard should be restricted to the half mile points and we have -- and you can see that we have followed that pattern in our Paramount project and in our -- you know, in Bainbridge and Spurwing Greens. We are not proposing any additional signals with this project. However, it is true -- and I sat on the -- ITD convened an access management committee a number of years ago to talk about state highway access requirements, striking a balance in urbanizing areas for access controls and they came up with some very specific requirements and allowances for some additional access points that would promote a balance between safety -- I can't remember the criteria, but it was safety and economic growth and those kind of things. So, it's -- it is actually true that access has become -- not more restrictive, but there are allowances now being provided for just this kind of an instance. However, we stand firm about not having any more signals than at the half mile point. That's something that's been in the plan for a long, long time. Thanks. McCarvel: Any other questions for the applicant? Okay. At this time could I get a Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 59 of 161 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 1, 2018 Page 57 of 72 motion to close the public hearing for item H-2081-0004. Holland: So moved. Fitzgerald: Second. Cassinelli: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing. All those in favor say. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. McCarvel: I think we have several issues to discuss. Does everybody feel like they have all the information they need to move forward tonight or would we like to discuss that for a while? I think -- yeah. This is a big change on -- I mean the designation has changed, so we do want to give this careful consideration. I think this is a good layout. I mean we just need to discuss, you know, a lot of -- obviously, our main issue is the traffic and just general quality of life was the general opposition, but we had a lot of public testimony via e-mail as well in support. So, I think a couple of the issues -- you know, when I first heard about the Costco going in there was, okay, you put this next to a residential and, you know, you have got these -- the noise at all times, but, you know, I think have made some considerable considerations about delivery times and this is not a 24/7 open facility. And I, for one, think if it goes forward, I -- I like the gas station think where it is. I think it allows -- they have given it a lot of thought in the stacking and, you know, the one way in and out and everything, I think leaving it on the corner is probably okay. Holland: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Holland. Holland: Well, first of all, I want to thank everybody who showed up here, because know it -- it says a lot about our community that we have citizens who care about the projects that we are seeing. We are all residents as well. I'm born and raised in the City of Meridian. Grew up off of Eagle and Franklin Road, so I'm well aware of some of the development changes that have happened throughout this community. One of the most interesting quotes I think I have heard when you talk about economic development is about growth and you can either design smart growth or you can have growth happen to you and so as we think about, you know, what we -- what we want to see in the city and where we want to have it, we want to have a good mix of residential, but we also want to have a good mix of commercial and employment centers, so that we can really meet the needs of our community and our citizens. The more you have bigger neighborhood pockets and less of those services I think the harder it is for community citizens to get to some of the services. So, a couple of things I thought were interesting reading through the staff reports and some of the things that came in. I know that Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 60 of 161 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 1, 2018 Page 58 of 72 COMPASS did a study -- pull it up real quick -- talking about the housing ratio to employment mix and so when you look at that they say the jobs per housing ratio in this area is about .5 and a good jobs housing balance will be a ratio between one and 1.5. So, in this area, yes, right now it's -- it's primarily been a residential area, but I think it's also a major corridor where there is a lot of people commuting back and forth and typically good growth tends to go along some of those major transportation corridors, so regardless of what goes here, I think we are going to see more development opportunities coming in off of these highways, especially as Highway 16 gets completed and kind of connects into that corridor. I think the developers have done a really nice thoughtful job of thinking through how they could integrate housing in kind of a tiered structure into the Costco, so it wouldn't be as much of a burden to some of those neighboring residential areas. I know we have got a lot of items to discuss here, but think I'm in favor of the project the way that they have laid out. I agree with leaving the -- the gas station where they have got it up in the corner, because I think they have made some good points about transportation flow in and out of the property. That's what I have got for now. McCarvel: Thanks. Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: I would actually prefer Commissioner Fitzgerald go first, but I will take a stab at this. So, the two big things that I think I have heard on this one is the Comprehensive Plan change and two is traffic. Interestingly enough, two to three years ago ITD finished a study identifying that the state has a three hundred million dollar shortfall in transportation funding for the state for locals and for ITD and identified that if we don't do anything, you know, we will continue to have problems. Interestingly enough, the state legislature only gave them a pittance of that 300 million and said you don't need more and then -- and, then, in that what they gave more was only designated to maintenance, not to expansion, and most of the ones who were opponents of funding transportation were actually Meridian senators and representatives. So, you complain about ITD and ACHD for not fixing the roads -- it goes farther than that. It goes to the state legislature. They are unwilling to fund transportation and transportation growth. So, having Costco step in and -- and actually fund a good portion of this growth or expansion, in my opinion, is actually a benefit to our community. They realize the deficit. They can't fix the entire problem, because that's just too enormous. That has to be done on a higher level than just Costco. But I think they have stepped up to try to fix their surrounding problems. They have worked with ACHD, they worked with ITD, to try to come up with how do we -- how do we at least fix my area. So, I do applaud them for that and understanding that growth. I have heard a lot of people asking for services in this area, you know, because a lot of them when they have moved out here, you know, they had to go back to Boise or to Eagle Road for services, now we actually can actually bring services to them, so they don't have to travel very far. I know it might be an inconvenience for a few, but I think as a whole I think this is actually a good area and, in fact, I would actually be amenable to having commercial all the way to Tree Farm, but they decided not to go that route, because they didn't want to be too much commercial. But I think there needs to be some commercial corridors in this area to service the locals and I think if you look at the Comprehensive Plan that when it was Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 61 of 161 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 1, 2018 Page 59 of 72 done it was in 2008. Many of the homes out that way were not even out there in 2008 and so we have all contributed to that traffic and that growth and -- and, you know, they are talking to not allow this to stop growth. How do you -- you know, where do you draw that line? Do you draw the line now? Do you draw the line in the future? Should we have drawn the line before you got here? Those are always tough decisions to make on how do you do that. But, you know, I think for this application, the applicant has actually put limitations on themselves for what they are asking for. Regarding the -- the apartments, everyone is concerned about apartments. They have actually limited them to a smaller number than what they could potentially be allowed. Regarding the zoning for the homes, they are limiting themselves smaller than what they could be allowed. I appreciate those limits and, actually, having those steps. So, I actually -- I believe I am in favor of this application. I am in favor of the gas station at the corner. I think it makes more sense and I think it will help with traffic congestion in that area. So, that's all I have for right now. McCarvel: Next? Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Question for staff. Just a clarification. Currently it is mixed use community; correct? And we are looking to go to mixed use regional and now to commercial; is that correct? Allen: Madam Chair, Commissioners, currently if you will look there at the map on your top left, the yellow area is medium density residential and the small corner area, the brown area, is mixed use community. The applicant's original request was for the entire property, the medium dense residential, as well as the mixed use community, to be mixed use regional. Their change has gone from -- gone back to the -- excuse me. They are now proposing for the medium density residential that exists today to remain on the western portion of the property and, then, the eastern portion of the property to go to commercial. Cassinelli: Okay. Thank you. Fitzgerald: And, Sonya, can you keep that up? Madam Chair. McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: So, I -- this one is a hard one, obviously, because I have my fellow neighbors in the audience and -- and it's tough. But I -- I have taken numerous positions on this Commission that I got to follow what I normally do and so you look at the map, Spurwing was originally designed to have commercial in it. It was designed to have -- it was -- Tree Farm was done by Derek O'Neal and it was originally looked -- supposed to look like Valen Crossing and so that was restaurants and commercial and Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 62 of 161 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 1, 2018 Page 60 of 72 it was walkable, but it was also -- it was supposed to be commercial. That and so things have shifted with the changes in times and a down -- the downturn in the economy. So, there was commercial supposed to be there and I think services were a piece of that and a piece of this hard corner. This was also a state highway. It's going to be seven lanes eventually and we hope to God that the 800 people that wrote letters to all of us and to the City Council, will send letters -- go home tonight and send letters to your legislators and tell them it's ridiculous that we are waiting this long to get highway funding. It's crazy. And so one of the conversations I have had with legislators down there is public-private partnerships may be the only way we can get our state highways funded and so this is a hard corner. I have -- it's where commercial makes the most sense. It also comes with houses aren't built in certain parts of it yet and there are buffers between the houses that are there currently and what's coming in the future. So, I -- I tend to lean towards what Commissioner Yearsley and my fellow Commissioners have said, this is -- I think Costco has done a good job of trying to defuse what issues are out there, while also providing some significant capital into the game to help us with our infrastructure issues and I do agree that the fuel station should probably stay in that corner. McCarvel: Yeah. I tend to agree. I mean even though it seems as a big leap going to the commercial designation, I think as a commercial designation goes that even though the Costco will, obviously, generate a lot of traffic, it's -- just in how they do business think it -- it's not as commercial as it could -- you know, as the designation makes it sound. I mean -- Fitzgerald: Have three story apartments. Please, folks. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Casinelli: Can I take a swing? First of all, I think we all know that -- that Brighton does a -- a first class job in -- in their developments and Costco is willing to invest 15 million in the roads that we may not see for a long time. That said, my issues with this are -- feel that this needs to go somewhere in the half mile mark where there can be a light onto Chinden directly from Costco. Trying to get out onto -- onto Ten Mile, will the current layout shows access to go left onto Ten Mile and, then, left or right onto Chinden, that may be restricted in the future and most likely will be. There is no left turn available onto Chinden. I think there is going to be -- what's going to wind up happening is a lot of traffic being routed through a residential collector distributor that is not made to handle that, going past a park, so I see a lot of -- a lot of issues with that. Also in going from the mixed use community, the retail limitation there on building size is 30,000 square feet. Now, we are going five times that size is what they are pushing for to one to -- over 168,000 square feet. I look at Boise and Nampa and those -- those are surrounded by commercial. They develop commercial around -- the Boise Costco was there before I came here, but, you know, when Nampa was built there was no residential. There is residential to the north, to the east, and being developed to the Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 63 of 161 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 1, 2018 Page 61 of 72 west there. So, I -- with that I have an issue with that, too. It's just -- it's coming in after the fact, into existing homes and I think we have got to -- you know, it's our responsibility to take a look at -- at the surrounding areas and it's -- you know, we are not bringing residential up to an existing commercial facility, it's going the other way around. So, I think that really needs to be looked at and the biggest concern that have, again, is -- is that traffic flow getting out. It's going to -- it's going to take people through the Lost Rapids, it's going to -- on that corner -- and isn't the fault of -- of the development, it's not the fault of Costco or anyone, it's just -- it's the way that these roads are laid out and access points. If there was a -- if there could be a light that would allow traffic to go left or right onto Chinden right out of -- right out of Costco I would like the project. As it stands, because of that, I'm not in favor of it. If it were at the half mile point it would have the light and I would be happy with it. Yearsley: So, can I follow up with your thought? So, if they swap this you would be in favor of the project? Cassinelli: Put it down -- put it down at Tree Farm? Yearsley: Yeah. Cassinelli: Well, I think that it's a little late for that, isn't it? Yearsley: No, I'm -- I -- Cassinelli: If it were there and the project were originally -- the entire development were already set up for that and the homes that were there and going in around it knew what was happening, I would have a -- I would have a different outlook. As it is I look at a map and I -- you know, a mile down the road between -- between 16 and Black Cat -- you can do it. Yearsley: Yeah. I was just posing it -- just a question -- McCarvel: Quiet, please. We have heard you all. Yeah. I see Ten Mile -- the access out there as being a lot like what happened -- what Cole is right now to the Costco out there. When I first started going to Costco there you could take a left or a right out of that -- not the Lost Rapids one, but the other one up north and now, you know, they put the barriers there and you can only take a right going out of that particular entrance and they have got the light down farther to the south, which is exactly what's going to happen here and that's -- you know, it's just -- it's pulled all the traffic down there, so you -- and you can go out left or right pretty easily at that mark and I would have to agree that the majority of the traffic going out onto Chinden is probably going to be going to the east, you know, at this point, so -- Cassinelli: Can I add one more thing on that? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 64 of 161 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 1, 2018 Page 62 of 72 Cassinelli: What I see if people could only -- they come out of that -- that southern drive by the commercial and came out on Lost Rapids and can only turn left and go out to Ten Mile and then -- and, then, go that way, it would look a lot different, but the fact is they can go through Lost Rapids -- they can take Lost Rapids and go over to Tree Farm and out that way and if -- if I was driving out that way that's how I would do it. I'm trying to look at this from a -- I'm trying to look at this as a -- from a -- from a neutral aspect. don't -- I don't live in that area. I'm about three miles away. Personally Costco -- the closer it is would be more convenient, but I'm trying to look at this as the big picture and what this is going to do to the city, what this is going to do to the -- the residents of Meridian that have already bought homes there and that live there and to me -- and my views here, that's -- that's always -- that's the position I have -- that I have taken is what's there first and how do we incorporate the things around it. Again, it's that traffic flow. To me that's -- and it -- I just see a lot of traffic going through -- cutting through, going through Tree Farm. I mean I see -- people are going to be backed up on Ten Mile going north. I have already been in a situation where I have been backed up. Of course, it's one lane and you do sit through a couple of cycles. People are already going to be making that -- that cut off now. Obviously, when Ten Mile -- when that intersection gets -- gets improved and you will have two left turn lanes, it will be a lot smoother and I don't think people go through that way, but I think coming out of Costco to go out to Chinden that's what's going to happen and with -- with the number of residential homes in there, with kids and there, I -- in the park, I don't like it. McCarvel: Anybody else? Commissioner Wilson? Wilson: Yes. So, rather than bash on the legislature, which I would love to do, or even talk about how I think that -- you know, I think this does fit what we are looking to do in Meridian in terms of having more economic development and good commercial development, because I think that's what Costco is. I mean just looking at that corner, again, with the Comprehensive Plan -- I mean we heard a lot about -- well, this is how we understood or, excuse me, the future land use map. This is what we understood it to be. We are making some kind of leap. I just don't -- I don't just think that's the case. Again, I mean that corner is mixed use commercial -- you know, the only thing -- I mean mixed use commercial, sample uses, personal and professional offices, schools, parks, residential, retail office, high density residential dwellings, community grocery, garden centers, hardware stores, restaurants, banks -- again, I don't think we are making a leap here in terms of our discretion in -- in allowing this Costco here. I think we are -- I think we are using a degree of discretion, but we are also following what the comprehensive -- or the future land use map tried to look forward to. Again, it was made 11 years ago. That was pre -recession. That was pre the spectacular growth that we saw -- have seen in Meridian. So, in many ways I just don't see us making a gargantuan leap here and we have a development that I think -- I mean it's a great development and I think I'm supportive of it. Perreault: Madam Chair? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 65 of 161 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 1, 2018 Page 63 of 72 McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: Unfortunately, I disagree with Commission Wilson. I -- I think it's a big leap from mixed use community to commercial. I believe the intention of mixed community is to increase pedestrian traffic to -- to make it more of that neighborhood feel and I don't think that -- that the commercial designers as it is will do that. Now, that's not to say that mixed use community still fits that location. That's just what the plan is at this -- at this moment. I do wholeheartedly agree with Commissioner Cassinelli about the traffic. I have concerns about how the traffic flows within the development, how it -- Chinden, the right -in, the right -out, not being able to turn left from Chinden into the -- into the development with a light. So, those are my main concerns are traffic flow within -- within the development and going around that -- that corner of being a state highway and definitely see opportunity for traffic issues, just with -- you know, if somebody's in that -- that left hand lane heading west and if people are coming from the east -- west to the development and, then, you know, they are slowing down in that straightaway left turn lane to get into -- or the straightaway lane to get into the left turn lane, they are slowing down and, then, they are sitting in a left turn lane stopping and how many people have you seen that pull out into a left turn lane, so that they can sit there for a minute to get into the opposite direction of traffic. I just -- I see there being a lot of traffic issues just having a left turn lane with no lights coming in and out of Chinden. Holland: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Holland. Holland: So, looking at the -- the transportation issues, I agree there will probably be a little bit more of a strain on Lost Rapids and Tree Farm Way than I would like to see as well, but I think if you have got people that are heading westbound on Chinden, if they turn left on Ten Mile at that light there, they can turn right into Lost Rapids. I think the challenge will be if they are trying to head back westbound again on Chinden, getting out of the complex, that's probably the biggest sticking point I think all of us are seeing here. At the same time I think it's really generous that Costco is willing to put up so much money to help enhance these road improvements coming earlier than what ITD or ACHD would be able to do. Whenever you have got a developer that's willing to invest in putting in some of the infrastructure, I don't think that will come along every day that we would see the ability to put in some of those infrastructure needs now, so that we can move forward in getting some of this development underway. So, I think there is kind of a double edge sword there, too. There is certainly some challenges with -- with how that Tree Farm and Lost Rapids flows, but I think enhancing those corridors so we can get people moving faster through those spaces -- good thing. McCarvel: Any other comments? Suggestions? Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 66 of 161 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 1, 2018 Page 64 of 72 Cassinelli: I just want to kind of reiterate my comment -- the one comment earlier that said in the zoning changes proposed we are going from a maximum of 30,000 square building to 168,000 square foot. So, that is -- this is a big jump. I also wanted to piggyback on something that Commissioner Fitzgerald said and that was up -- he brought up Brown Crossing and, boy, I would love to see something like that somewhere in this part of Meridian and, again, just reiterating my comment that there is so much residential already there to the north, to the east and it will be west and south -- which came first and in other locations Costco came first and not in this one. So, that's -- again, I just wanted to reiterate those comments. Thank you. McCarvel: Okay. We all still thinking? I will give you a moment. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair, question for staff. McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: Sonya, so -- a couple things for -- if this was to go forward -- so, we have 109 units we are tying this to for the high density residential, the R-8 max to the -- on the medium density residential and all the renderings and those that we have are -- all going to a DA; is that correct? Allen: Madam Chair, Commissioners, that is correct. And you can find that in Exhibit B of the staff report. Fitzgerald: Thank you. McCarvel: So, are we at the point for a motion or would we like more discussion? Have you had enough time to -- Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Turn on my microphone. I'm willing to throw out a motion and see what happens. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to City Council of file H-2018-0011 on -- on the grounds of issues with -- with the traffic layout, with ingress and egress to the complex and also opposition to a zoning change from mixed use community to commercial. Perreault: I second that motion. McCarvel: We have a second. It has been moved and seconded to recommend denial to the City Council for H-2018-0011 -- or, sorry, 2018-0004. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 67 of 161 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 1, 2018 Page 65 of 72 Wilson: No. Yearsley: No. Holland: No. Fitzgerald: No. McCarvel: Motion to deny is denied. Fails. Thank you. MOTION FAILED: TWO AYES. FIVE AYES. McCarvel: Would we like more discussion or a different motion? Holland: Madam Chair? Just one more comment. I don't know if I'm -- I'm ready to make a motion, but I would say if -- if the biggest concern we have is trying to figure out how we do the commuting patterns, I don't see justification enough to deny the project. I don't know that I want to continue it either, but I think they have done a really nice job of trying to plan some smart growth here, trying to make sure that they have -- they have taken in a lot of consideration. We have gotten a lot of public testimony, a lot of people speaking in favor of the project, as well as those speaking opposed. I don't know if there is any other solutions we can play around with for how we help with the transportation issue around that Tree Farm and Lost Rapids and I don't think we should deny it based on just that issue. Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: I have a tendency to agree and the -- the interesting thing about this is ACHD has reviewed this -- they have reviewed this traffic report and they made a motion to approve it. ITD has reviewed the traffic report and has agreed to it and -- and has agreed to the conditions. You know, we may see -- you know and -- you know, there may be some more traffic onto Tree Farm and Lost Rapids. Interestingly enough, one of the applicants -- or individuals who testified already commented that she cuts through the neighborhood. I mean it's going to happen. People do it now. They will continue to always do it. There will be some traffic impacts to this area because of the growth no matter what we put in this development here, either high density residential, which that's kind of what they are talking about is apartments on this corner, you could have four to five hundred units potentially here with similar traffic patterns, because that's what -- if you're listening to Commissioner Wilson's comment is high -- you know, that mixed use community is high density residential and looking at the plans -- I mean they are talking big high density. So, I think it's a good mix. I don't know -- I think they try to do the best they can. I'm not sure what else to do, except for maybe another access out onto Lost Rapids, which they were not wanting to do, because they are listening to the neighborhood. So, I think they are trying to be sensitive, but yet try to move their Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 68 of 161 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 1, 2018 Page 66 of 72 application forward, so -- McCarvel: Yeah. I think more access to Lost Rapids just increases the traffic out there and I just think Costco, as a commercial entity, with their business hours, is, you know, more limited than most other retailers. I think that balances some of the impact as far as the noise and that kind of thing and especially, you know, the overnight -- some of the issues you have with other types of retailers going in. Yearsley: And a lot of times you won't get the a.m. commute traffic. McCarvel: Right. They don't even open until 10:00. Yearsley: 10:00. McCarvel: Yeah. Wilson: Just -- Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Wilson. Wilson: I don't know of this is additive, but I mean I do think -- we, obviously, hear a lot about traffic when we are dealing with these big developments, but I don't -- I don't know if it's necessarily linked to the development or it's just the reality of the growth that's occurring across this area and, again, I think -- I think if -- if we think about whatever is -- that area is going to develop and whatever develops in there is going to have a significant traffic impact and, obviously, we read in the staff report that Chinden is going to be -- I mean it is already -- it's a state highway, it's going to expand to seven lanes, and just looking at that astronomical growth that's going to occur in terms of car trips to 2025 and beyond, I mean that was eye opening, because I had never thought about it. That really has nothing to do with -- if we put a Costco in here or if we put in another 400, you know, houses. The traffic -- the development is coming. We are looking -- before us we have -- I think we have a very solid proposal that I think fits with the community, that fits with what -- how we want, you know, Meridian to grow and I think I'm basing that with my support. Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: Just a question to Sonya. So, if we make a motion for this to approve, do we need to accept Brighton's recommendations -- or requests and also -- I'm trying to figure out how do you make this motion with -- with all the changes that's happened. Accept Brighton's request, modify versus your memorandum that you put together, plus the other conditions? Is that how we need to kind of phrase this? Allen: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, I would refer to the memo from Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 69 of 161 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 1, 2018 Page 67 of 72 staff -- Yearsley: Okay. Allen: -- and if there is any changes that you want to make from that document, state them on the record. Yearsley: Okay. So, your memo from -- your memo includes Brighton's request to make that change; is that correct? On the -- the -- the future land use designation change. Allen: Yes. Yearsley: Okay. Allen: Yes. Yearsley: And then -- Allen: My memo reflects the -- the applicant's change to commercial and how that impacts the staff report, so -- Yearsley: Okay. Allen: You have it there before you if you would like to reference it. Yearsley: Okay. McCarvel: Yeah. And I think the thing we do need to reference in the motion that think we were -- everybody was in agreement, if this were to go through -- is Section B, the -- B, the fuel -- fuel sales facility staying where it's at. Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number H-2018-0004 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 1, 2018, with the following modifications: To accept changes to the staff report per Planning and Zoning's memorandum, dated March 1st, 2018, with the removal of Section -- Section B to shift the fuel sales to the corner -- off the corner and to leave the fuel where it's at. Wilson: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to approve item number -- recommend Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 70 of 161 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 1, 2018 Page 68 of 72 approval to Item number H-2018-0004, Lost Rapids. All those in favor say aye. Opposed. Cassinelli: Nay. Perreault: Nay. McCarvel: Motion carries: MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO NAYS. D. 2018 UDC Text Amendment (H-2018-0011) By City of Meridian Planning Division Request: A Text Amendment to Certain Sections of the UDC Pertaining to Uses Allowed in Table 11-2A-2; Standards for Portable Signs; Daycare Facility Specific Use Standards; Provisions to Allow Multi -Family Private Open Space Standards to be Eligible for Alternative Compliance AND Modify the Subdivision Street Names Standards to Align with Newly Adopted Title 8, Chapter 2, Uniform Street Name and Addressing Number Code McCarvel: We do still have more meeting to get through, so if we could -- if you would be quiet as you exit. At this time we would like to open the public hearing for Item H- 2018-0011 -- no. Item H-2018-0011, the 2018 UDC text amendment. And in just a moment well begin with the staff report. Parsons: Where did everybody go? Are we ready? McCarvel: We are ready. Parsons: All right. Well, at least a couple of members stayed in the audience, so I do appreciate them sticking around. So, let's kind of wrap up this evening on a positive note and we will get through the last item and get you guys out of here, so you get home to your families. So, the last item on the agenda this evening is the 2018 UDC text amendment application. Again, this is citywide. So, these -- the application before you this evening really is -- a lot of them are primarily clean-up items. You have my staff report, but there are a couple that I do want to touch bases with you on tonight, just to kind of loop in and let you know where we transpired on some of these and how they have come about. So, in my presentation to you this evening I have some of these strike out underlying changes of those modifications to the UDC here and I would let you know that we did send -- as in the past we have always informed you that we do have a UDC focus group and we tend to circulate this information to them, along with the BCA, which is the Building Association of Southwest Idaho. Because these are minor changes this evening before you, I did send out the changes to the -- to those two Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 71 of 161 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 1, 2018 Page 69 of 72 groups. Received e-mails from two members, one from Becky McKay and the other from Cornell Larsen. Cornell didn't have any issues with the changes before you this evening and Becky had inquired about some of the changes that we were proposing to the reduction in the balcony private open space requirements for the multi- family development. So, I answered her questions and told her that she needed to refer her to the alternative compliance section and that would help explain what the changes are moving forward. So, I just wanted to at least go on record and let you know we -- we didn't receive anything formally from those groups, but we did have two members reach out and say they were -- they were okay with the changes this evening. And so in -- in going through the first slide here you can see -- currently we do not -- and I think this Commission has seen a lot of changes over the last -- a lot of daycares from people in the last couple of months, with daycare groups in particular and currently the way the code is written those aren't allowed in the R-4 zoning district. So, now we are proposing with this change that we allow those as a conditional use in the R-4 zoning district to kind of marry up with what's allowed in the R-8 and R-15 zones. The next item is portable signs. Currently in our downtown area business owners are allowed to have those, but it was tied to a specific use and you can see here in the strikeout version only a retail use, a restaurant use, a drinking establishment and a personal service use could take advantage of getting a portable sign. A lot of the business owners downtown were upset with that code change. We conferred with our Legal Department and we realized that that may be illegal, so we just had -- it would -- to avoid some lawsuits in the future we probably should remove that from code. Keep in mind that portable signs aren't allowed throughout any other zoning district but the Old Town zoning district and that is not changing. So, only in the Old Town zone are you allowed to have a portable sign with this proposed change. Next page. I probably won't spend a lot of time on this. It's just more of a clean-up. Currently when you want a daycare facility within the City of Meridian, typically Planning and Zoning can't allow them to get occupancy -- or allow them to even get their certificate zoning compliance until we have confirmation of their background check and that seems to kind of bog down the process for people who want to start a business for daycare. So, this particular change has cleaned it up, so it pushes it down the road that prior to us giving them occupancy we want to make sure that that process is completed. Next item is one that came before you a couple months ago with the TM Creek project and at that particular time the applicant came forward with a UDC text amendment for the TM Creek Apartments. At that time the applicant was proposing to change the multi -family specific us standards to change the -- the patio requirement from 80 square feet to 60 square feet. At that time, as we went through that public hearing process, we realized that staff realized -- in working with the applicant we realized that we didn't want to make that 60 square foot requirement across every multi -family project, we wanted to make sure that it's -- if we were going to do that that would do it or allow it through what we call an alternative compliance process. So, basically, saying we will look at that on a case-by-case basis and determine whether or not that development is in the right context to allow for smaller patio or less private open space. In advice with our attorney, because it wasn't noticed the correct way, moving it from -- it being part of the multi -family standards to it becoming an alternative compliance standard, legal felt we should go back through that process and bring this forward to you with the correct change and that's really what this Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 72 of 161 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 1, 2018 Page 70 of 72 is this evening. So, basically, Council gave us -- the developers a blessing to move forward with that change, but now it's on staff to come back and bring that for you -- before you and share it with you, that we are, in fact, making that change based on the direction and I think this Commission supported it and also the one that Council ultimately gave us the direction to do. So, that's -- what this basically does -- it says, yes, we'll look at this, but you have to go through the alternative compliance process. So, to make it very simple, all multi -family development still have to provide that 80 square feet of private open space, unless they seek alternative compliance. And, again, that would be a director's level decision alternative compliance. So, this slide and the next change -- again, just kind of marry the two up and ties this private use -- usable open space standard to the alternative compliance section and under that section you have to meet certain criteria and certain findings in order to grant that exception to that standard. Again, that would be director level. And, then, the last item that I want to touch bases with you is -- and you're pretty familiar with this, but recently City Council just approved a street naming ordinance -- a new code, essentially, and so what this last slide does it marries that UDC document with that newly adopted document by the Council. So, just what -- FYI, for your information, street name changes, if there are appeals or any issues with that, they will be coming before you for a recommend -- or for approval. Fitzgerald: And we have final or the City Council? Parsons: Yes, you would have final approval. And, Andrea, if you would like to chime in or add anything to this, I would open it up to you, but -- Pogue: No. This is -- this is just a clean up. Parsons: It was a clean up. And so other than that -- other than the two -- applicant or two -- group members, they gave me comments, staff did not receive any additional information -- or any additional comments on this application. I will conclude my presentation and stand for any questions you may have. McCarvel: Okay. Any questions for staff? Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Bill, on the -- allowing daycare in an R-4, typically R-4 is going to have larger homes, therefore, in daycare you have more capacity and that, more traffic. Was that -- was that considered? Could that potentially be an issue or is that just something we will take on a case-by-case basis with -- with the application? Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, there is a lot of things to consider here. In our code we have three different daycares that you can apply for and that's what you see on -- in that table. So, we have a daycare family, which is six or Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 73 of 161 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 1, 2018 Page 71 of 72 fewer. We have a daycare group, which is between seven and 12. And, then, we have a full blown daycare center, which is a commercial business. If you look at this graphic here, you can see -- you can actually have a daycare center in an R-4 district through a conditional use permit. So, you can have a commercial business in an R-4 zone, which makes sense. Now, the other interesting piece here is -- is how the building code plays into this. Under our current buildings -- the adopted building codes that we have in effect in the City of Meridian, a single family home still is considered -- you can have up to 12 kids in a daycare center in a residential neighborhood or in a home and still be considered a single family residence. There is no need for you to change your occupancy from a residential status to a commercial status. So, this allows you to kind of stay within what the building code allows without changing occupancy, but the other reason why we are taking this into consider is just for what you said, you get a bigger lot, so you have the ability to possibly watch more children, but you have more area in your backyard to do that. You will have -- I don't want to say you will have a bigger home. In Meridian these days you seem to have a bigger home on an R-4 lot than you are in an R-8 lot. You have a bigger garage, more parking. By leaving it a conditional use permit, again, that gives you the ability to say whether or not 12 is an appropriate in a neighborhood based on the public coming and testifying on an application. I know the recent ones that you guys have made recommendations on, some of them you agreed with the 12 and others you capped it at eight, because you didn't feel they had adequate parking or you thought it was a disruption to the neighborhood. So, that still gives you that level of scrutiny, but that's kind of staff's rationale why is it good in an R-8 zone, but why are we limiting it in the R-4 zone. And, really, there really isn't much difference between a residential district and our eyes, so why not just open it up. We have sent a lot of neighbors -- or a lot of customers that come to the counter, they have applied for six and they want the ability to go 12. So, we told them we were going to process this change and move forward and maybe see more of these if -- if you support this change, but, again, if you don't like it you can certainly make that recommendation to City Council and we can remove that from this round of the UDC changes. Perreault: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli -- Perreault. Perreault: So, if I'm understanding this correctly, currently the daycare family is permit -- or they would apply for a conditional use permit, but not the daycare group in the R-4 zone? Parsons: The daycare family requires an accessory use permit, which still requires a neighborhood meeting, but it only requires them to notice the property that's a hundred foot radius and with a conditional use permit you have to go out 300 feet. Perreault: Okay. Oh, I see. Parsons: It's just an administrative process. It doesn't require a public hearing, but it still requires them to hold a neighborhood meeting and inform the neighbors. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 74 of 161 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 1, 2018 Page 72 of 72 Fitzgerald: Madam Chair, I just want to know if I can start naming streets in -- oh, sorry. Wilson: Ryan Way. Ryan Street. Fitzgerald Boulevard. Perrault: Madam Chair, I have another question for staff. McCarvel: Absolutely. No more from Commissioner Fitzgerald. Perreault: Is there a concern with -- with the portable signs in Old Town, that it will -- I mean just if everybody sticks a sign out on the sidewalk, one business after the other after the other after the other -- I mean that becomes a situation where it's intrusive to pedestrian access. Is that a concern? I mean am I way off base on -- Parsons: Yes and no. The good thing about a portable sign is that you can take it in and out during the day. That's why it's portable. Right? You move it in and out. In our downtown area if you would ever look at a map in our GIS system, a lot of the buildings are right up to ACHD right of way, so even though the sidewalks are part of ACHD right of ways and so a few years ago the city went through a process and we entered into a master license agreement with ACHD to allow for pedestrian activities to happen within the right of way and we control that through what we call a use -- it's a use permit in the right of way. Those signs have to remain outside of the pedestrian zone. So, they -- they have to -- again, that's the thing is you can move them and they don't -- they are not permanent. They are considered a permanent sign, but they are in and out -- going in and out every day. So, yes, that has been addressed under a different process. That's a different section of code that we use to apply those rules. McCarvel: Any other questions? Besides Commissioner Fitzgerald. Okay. We had a few people sign up for this for public testimony, but I think that they thought they were signing up for Lost Rapids. So, is there anyone here that wants to testify on this application? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Zaremba wants to talk. No. McCarvel: I thought I told you to be quiet. All right. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair, I move we close the public hearing on H-2018-0011. Cassinelli: Second. McCarvel: Do we need to approve this formally or -- yeah. How about a different motion. Fitzgerald: We have to close the public hearing first. McCarvel: Oh, close the public hearing. Okay. It has been moved and seconded to Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 75 of 161 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 1, 2018 Page 73 of 72 close the public hearing on H-2018-0011. All those in favor say aye. Oppose? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number H-2018-0011 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 1 st, 2018. Wilson: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to recommended approval for H-2018- 0011. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Wilson: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Wilson. Wilson: I move to adjourn for the evening. Cassinelli: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Good night. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:15 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED RHdNDA McCARVEL - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ¢PIED A1UG, ATT T: �so '•yam r ,t City of InnTnTAN C. -JAY CPLES - CITY CLERK`./Yi 1� SEAL ern P F O Planning and Zoning Meeting Meeting Date: March 1, 2018 MAO -A Agenda Item Number: 2 . ................. . . . . Project/File Number: q Item Title: Adoption of Agenda Meetina Notes Planning and Zoning Meeting Meeting Date: March 1, 2018 Agenda Item Number: 3A Project/File Number: Item Title: APPROVE MINUTES — FEBRUARY 15, 2018 I�alhn� J Approve Minutes of the February 15, 2018 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting c✓ Meetina Notes Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 15, 2018 Page 76 of 76 Fitzgerald: Second. Cassinelli: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to approve file H-2018-0001, Pine 43. All -- with one modification. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. McCarvel: And since we have outlived the circulation in the room, can I get one more motion? Cassinelli: Madam Chair, I move to dismiss -- to -- McCarvel: To adjourn. Cassinelli: Adjourn. McCarvel: Would you like to adjourn? Would you like to go home? Fitzgerald: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:01 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) AP�iH EROVED NDA McCARVEL - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: z Chy JAY IPLES - CITY CLERK 1100,140 i SEAL- �Q Planning and Zoning Meeting Meeting Date: March 1, 2018 --- .__.-_.......... _... --- __ ....... ......... . _ ... .._ -- .._..._._..---- Agenda Item Number: 3B Project/File Number: H-2018-0001 Item Title: FFCL PINE 43 APARTMENTS Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Pine 43 Apartments (H-2018-0001) by Pine Development Partners, LLC Located North of East Pine Avenue and East of North Locust Grove Road. Meeting Notes Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 81 of 227 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 82 of 227 s-� By action of the Planning & Zoning Commission. at its regular meeting held on the I . day of NAG rrh , 2018. COMMISSIONER RHONDA MCCARVEL, CHAIRMAN VOTED COMMISSIONER RYAN FITZGERALD, VICE CHAIRMAN VOTED 1 " 7 C COMMISSIONER STEVEN YEARSLEY VOTED_ COMMISSIONER GREGORY WILSON VOTED COMMISSIONER LISA HOLLAND VOTED COMMISSIONER WILLIAM CASSINELLI VOTED COMMISSIONER JESSICA PERREAULT VOTED A evz,-� - Rho da McCarvel, Chairman �QoRp,TEDgv � l Attest: 2L .s (11y of r E IDIAM- �IOAHO y Coles `'ty ClerkO_ SEAL n Copy serveM upon the Applicant, the Planning and Development Services divisions of the Community Development Department, the Public Works Department and the City Attorney. By: 0"4Dated: Ci Clerk's Office 3-1-18 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2018-0001 Page 3 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 84 of 227 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 85 of 227 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 86 of 227 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 87 of 227 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 88 of 227 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 89 of 227 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 90 of 227 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 91 of 227 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 92 of 227 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 93 of 227 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 94 of 227 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 95 of 227 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 96 of 227 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 97 of 227 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 98 of 227 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 99 of 227 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 100 of 227 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 101 of 227 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 102 of 227 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 103 of 227 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 104 of 227 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 105 of 227 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 106 of 227 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 107 of 227 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 108 of 227 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 109 of 227 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 110 of 227 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 111 of 227 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 112 of 227 Planning and Zoning Meeting Meeting Date: March 1, 2018 Agenda Item Number: Project/File Number: H-2017-0154 Item Title: PUBLIC HEARING LASKEN ANNEXATION by Thomas H. Lasken, Located at 721 E Pine Request: An Annexation and Zoning of 0.99 of an Acres of Land with an R-2 Zoning District Meeting Notes CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET Date: March 1, 2018 Item # Project Number: Project Name: 2017-0154 LASKEN ANNEXATION Please print your name I For I Against I Neutral Do you wish to testifv (Y/N) Changes to Agenda: None Item #8F: Lasken Annexation (H-2017-0154) Application(s):  Annexation Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 0.99 of an acre of land, zoned RUT, located at 721 E. Pine Avenue, in the NE ¼ of Section 7, Township 3 North, Range 1 East. History: None Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MU-C (Mixed-Use Community) Summary of Request: The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designation for the property is Mixed-Use Community. The applicant requests annexation to hook-up the existing home and outbuildings to City water and sewer service. This site is comprised of 0.99 of an acre of land zoned RUT in Ada County. The applicant proposes to annex the property with an R-2 zoning district. Staff anticipates this property to be developed as a larger mixed use project but feels that the zoning given to the property should match existing conditions. In order to develop further, this property will need to be rezoned. The applicant is requesting annexation because it is an opportune time to acquire sewer service for the property since Pine Avenue will be reconstructed. Staff recommends the property is zoned R-2 consistent with the existing and continued residential use of the property. When a change in use or redevelopment of the site occurs, the applicant should rezone the property to a commercial or high density district consistent with the FLUM at that time. The City has the ability to require a development agreement but in this case we are not. This parcel is part of a larger mixed used area, the parcel is small and other properties need to be consolidated to develop a well-integrated mixed-use development in the area. City water & sewer service: Applicant shall be required to connect to the new sanitary sewer mainline in E. Pine Avenue when it becomes available. Access: The site currently takes access from E. Pine Avenue; however, upon redevelopment or a change in use of the site, access via Pine shall be prohibited in accord with UDC 11-3A-3A, unless otherwise waived by City Council and approved by ACHD. Commission Recommendation: Approval Summary of Commission Public Hearing: i. In favor: ii. In opposition: iii. Commenting: iv. Written testimony: v. Key Issue(s): Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission: i. Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation: i. Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: i. Written Testimony since Commission Hearing: [name(s)] - [issue(s)] 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- 2017-0154, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 1, 2018, 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-2017- 0154, as presented during the hearing on March 1, 2018, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2017-0154 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #8G: Lost Rapids (H-2018-0003) Application(s):  Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan FLUM  Annexation & Zoning  Preliminary Plat  Variance Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of approximately 69 acres of land, zoned RUT in Ada County, located at the SWC of SH 20-26/W. Chinden Blvd. & N. Ten Mile Rd. History: In 2008, an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan FLUM was approved to change the future land use designation on the 14.57 acres of land at the NEC of this site from MDR to MU-C. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MDR (52 acres) & MU-C (14.57 acres) Summary of Request: The applicant submitted a request for an amendment to the FLUM contained in the Comp Plan to change the land use designation on a combined 78.33 acres of land from MDR (61.83 acres) & MU-C (16.5 acres) to MU-R. The staff report includes analysis and conditions of approval based on this request. Since the staff report was issued, staff met with the Applicants to discuss recommended changes to the concept plan, which were fairly substantial, in order to be consistent with the Comp Plan for the requested MU-R designation. Without these changes, the proposed development plan is more consistent with the Commercial designation. The Applicant communicated to staff they’d prefer to develop the site consistent with the proposed concept plan without significant changes. Therefore, both Staff and the Applicants agreed a Commercial designation is more appropriate for the eastern portion of this site where the commercial & multi-family residential uses are proposed (i.e. the preliminary plat area); the remainder of the site would remain under the current Medium Density Residential designation. The Applicant submitted a letter to the City requesting this change (no changes were made to the zoning or other components of the application). Staff updated the conditions in the staff report accordingly and the Commission recommendation was based on this change. Annexation & zoning of 78.33 acres of land with R-15 (39.01 acres), R-40 (6.50 acres), and C-G (32.83 acres) zoning districts is requested consistent with the existing MDR and proposed Commercial FLUM designations. A conceptual development plan was submitted that demonstrates how the site is proposed to develop with a mix of SFR detached & attached age-qualified units at a gross density of 5 to 8 units/acre on the western portion of the site; a very large (168,652+/- s.f.) big box retail building (i.e. Costco) internal to the development; a fuel sales facility for Costco at the NEC of the site; (10) commercial/retail/restaurant/office pad sites adjacent to the state highway & Ten Mile Rd.; and a MFR development consisting of 109+/- townhome- and garden-style units in 9 structures at a gross density of 18-24 units/acre south of the Costco site adjacent to Lost Rapids Dr. with a clubhouse and swimming pool. Conceptual building elevations (photos & renderings) were submitted that demonstrate the general style of development proposed for the site. All structures on the site, except SFR detached, are required to comply with the design standards in the ASM. A preliminary plat is proposed consisting of 1 residential building lot, 13 commercial building lots & 1 other lot for dedication of ROW on 36.2 acres of land in the proposed R-40 & C-G zoning districts. The applicant requests that they be allowed two (2) building permits for the construction of the Costco store and associated fuel sales facility prior to recordation of the subdivision plat. Staff/Commission is amenable to this request per the DA (#1.1b.4). Two (2) driveway accesses are proposed via US 20-26/W. Chinden Blvd. a state highway; (1) driveway access is proposed via N. Ten Mile Rd., an arterial street, between Lost Rapids & Chinden Blvd.; and two (2) accesses are proposed via Lost Rapids Dr., a collector street. New approaches directly accessing a state highway are prohibited by the UDC; the applicant requests a variance to this standard. ITD submitted a letter to the City stating they will approve the proposed accesses via the state highway w/the improvements and spacing outlined in the letter. Prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy within this development, the following improvements are required to be completed: SH 20-26/W. Chinden Blvd. shall be widened to 4 lanes with signal/intersection upgrades from Tree Farm to Linder (1.5 miles); N. Ten Mile Rd. shall be widened to 4 lanes from Chinden to Walmart (0.80 of a mile); and signals shall be installed at N. Black Cat Rd. and W. Lost Rapids Dr. Within two (2) years of issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for Costco, SH 20-26/W. Chinden Blvd. shall be widened to four (4) lanes from N. Tree Farm Way to SH-16 (1.44 miles). The applicant’s narrative states that primary service access for Costco delivery trucks and other local vendors will be from the driveway access via Ten Mile Road. A driveway via Lost Rapids Dr. is also available when access via the traffic signal at Ten M ile/Lost Rapids is needed. A self- imposed restriction is proposed by the applicant for a “no thru truck traffic” sign to be installed between the Tree Farm Way intersection and the Lost Rapids Dr. service driveway access. Improvements to US 20-26/Chinden Blvd. and Ten Mile Road are planned as follows:  Phase 1: Chinden is to be widened to 4 lanes with signal/intersection upgrades from Tree Farm to Linder (1.5 miles); Ten Mile widened to 4 lanes from Chinden to Walmart (0.80 of a mile); and signals at Black Cat Rd. and Lost Rapids Dr. prior to Costco opening.  Phase 2: Chinden widened to 4 lanes from Tree Farm to SH 16 (1.44 miles) within 2 years of Costco opening. (paid for by Costco & reimbursed under the STARs agreement) In addition, Costco and the other commercial uses and residential units will pay impact fees in excess of $2 million to ACHD for local street system improvements. The street sections shown on the plat depict Chinden widened to 4 travel lanes with 2 turn lanes within 140 feet of right-of-way; and N. Ten Mile Road widened to 5 lanes. The letter states that the westernmost access via US 20-26 (1,160’ west of the US 20-26/Ten Mile intersection) will be allowed as a temporary right-in/right-out/left-in until such time as the highway is widened to 3 lanes in the eastbound direction, then, if not before, it will be limited to right-in/right-out; a 550’ long deceleration lane will be required. The driveway nearest the intersection (545’ east of the previous access and 615’ west of the intersection) will be allowed as a right-in/right-out; a 550’ long deceleration lane (including taper) is required, however, due to the distance restriction between accesses, ITD may allo w for a 10% decrease of the standard requirement. The MFR development will require approval of a CUP in the R-40 zoning district. Commission Recommendation: Approval Summary of Commission Public Hearing: i. In favor: Mike Wardle, Brighton Corporation; Brian Whelan (site selector); Peter Kahn, Costco; Andy Daleiden, Principal Engineer, Kittelson & Associates; Don Petersik; Amy Cuhaclyan; Mike Dunlap; Roger Nielson; David Zaremba; Michael Morrette; David Turnbull; Trevor Gasser. ii. In opposition: Tom McNeil; Denise LaFever; Edward Simon; Robert Neufeld; David Reyes; Andrea Carroll (Attorney representing a group of residents in Bainbridge & Spurwing Subdivisions); Ken Marshall; Shelley Lupher; Jane Albert; Robert Friedlein; Sue Fillman; Bob Rock; Megan Rock; Kim Miles; Dirk Minatre; Jerry Stevenson; Terri Dawson; Sally Reynolds; Paige Winter; Kevin Dennison. iii. Commenting: None iv. Written testimony: Mike Wardle, Brighton Corporation; and many letters of testimony (for and against) have been received – see project file in the public record. Key Issues of Public Testimony: i. In favor of a Costco in this location and opinion that they are a good neighbor and will provide great economic opportunities for the City and good paying jobs for area residents; ii. Negative impact of Costco on quality of life (i.e. noise created from delivery trucks, idling of engines at the fuel facility, hours of operation, increased density and intensity of land use) for area residents. iii. Concern related to traffic impacts from the proposed development and access restrictions from the state highway and already heavy traffic on SH-20/26; access constrained location with inadequate ingress/egress access points; unsafe pedestrian connections within the proposed development; lack of safe access for the Keith Bird Legacy Park. iv. Increased noise (i.e. roof top ventilation systems, power equipment used to maintain property, mechanical equipment, loading & unloading delivery trucks, back-up beepers, generators and refrigeration equipment) and air pollution from the site; excessive lighting generated from the site resulting in increased night sky light pollution; generation of hazardous material such as petroleum and contaminants from brake and tire wear which leads to runoff into groundwater; large impermeable surfaces of the parking lots; incompatible architecture of the industrial sized building and adjacent strip malls to the existing neighborhoods. v. Against proposed change to Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map from Medium Density Residential; vi. Positive impact to the local economy from having Costco locate here; will also generate business for other retailers/restaurants/services in the area; and will contribute to the balance and what is available for shopping and employment in Meridian. vii. The provision of much needed infrastructure in this area with the approval of this development without having to wait for funding for these improvements (i.e. road widening, intersection improvements, etc.). viii. Opinion that this site isn’t a good fit for a Costco; preference for it to be located at the SH-16/Chinden intersection to the west instead of this property. Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission: i. The Applicant’s request to change their request for an amendment to the future land use map from all Mixed Use – Regional to the eastern 32.83 acres of the site as Commercial and the remaining area staying Medium Density Residential as is currently; ii. The traffic impact from the proposed development on adjacent streets and SH-20/26; iii. Impact on quality of life for area residents; iv. The location of the fuel facility and staff’s recommendation for it to be shifted from the corner; v. Feeling that the size of buildings allowed in the current MU-C designation (i.e. 30,000 square feet) is a big jump to the proposed Commercial designation which has no size restrictions, which will allow the proposed 168,652 square foot building. Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation: i. Approved Staff’s recommended changes to the conditions of approval in Exhibit B as noted in the memo to Mayor & Council from Staff dated March 1, 2018. ii. Removed condition #1b which required the fuel facility to be shifted off the corner to the south. Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: i. Staff recommends DA provision #1.1b.16 is modified to add the language: Within two (2) years of issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the Costco Wholesale building, SH 20-26/W. Chinden Blvd. shall be widened to four (4) lanes from N. Tree Farm Way to SH-16 (1.44 miles) if right-of-way can be obtained. Written Testimony since Commission Hearing: Many letters of public testimony have been received since the Commission hearing –see the project file in the public record Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2018-0003, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 3, 2018: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2018-0003, as presented during the hearing on April 3, 2018, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2018-0003 to the hearing date of April 3, 2018 for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) Pl a n n i n g a n d Z o n i n g C o m m i s s i o n M e e t i n g Ma r c h 1 , 2 0 1 8 Sl i d e 1 h2 Ag e n d a I t e m N u m b e r s / O r d e r : ho o d c , 1 2 / 1 9 / 2 0 0 6 It e m # 4 A : L a s k e n A n n e x a t i o n Vi c i n i t y / Z o n i n g M a p It e m # 4 B : B a r a y a A p a r t m e n t s Pr o p o s e d S i t e P l a n Pr o p o s e d P l a t Pr o p o s e d L a n d s c a p e P l a n Pr o p o s e d C o n c e p t u a l E l e v a t i o n s It e m # 4 C : L o s t R a p i d s – V i c i n i t y / Z o n i n g & A e r i a l M a p Ownership Or i g i n a l Re q u e s t Pr o p o s e d Ch a n g e Co n c e p t u a l D e v e l o p m e n t P l a n fo r M u l t i - F a m i l y R e s i d e n t i a l Pr e l i m i n a r y P l a t La n d s c a p e P l a n Changes to Agenda: [if applicable] Item #[#]: Oaks West Subdivision - ([file #]) Application(s): Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of [#] acres of land, zoned [district], located at [address/general location]. History: [details] Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: [details] Summary of Request: [details] Commission Recommendation: [approval/denial] Summary of Commission Public Hearing: i. In favor: ii. In opposition: iii. Commenting: iv. Written testimony: v. Key Issue(s): Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission: i. Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation: i. Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: i. Written Testimony since Commission Hearing: [name(s)] - [issue(s)] Include Bruce’s requested changes per his memo: VI. LAND USE D. Utilities: 1. Public Works: a. Location of sewer: A sanitary sewer main intended to provide service to the subject site currently exists in W. Quintale Drive. Service is via a lift station that is located within this proposed development. b. Location of water: A water main intended to provide service to the subject site currently exists in W. Quintale Drive and in W. McMillan Road. c. Issues or concerns: Applicant shall be responsible for the extension of utilities to and through the proposed development, including the water mainline extension along the project frontage in W. McMillan and McDermott Roads from W. Quintale Drive to the south boundary line extended. 2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2.1 Site Specific Conditions of Approval 2.1.3 Applicant shall be responsible for the extension of utilities to and through the proposed development, including the water mainline extension along the project frontage in McMillan McDermott Road from W. Quintale Drive to the south boundary line extended. Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number [#], as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of [date]: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number [#], as presented during the hearing on [date], for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number [#] to the hearing date of [date] for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) Item #[#]: [Project name] ([file #]) Application(s): Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of [#] acres of land, zoned [district], located at [address/general location]. History: [details] Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: [details] Summary of Request: [details] Commission Recommendation: [approval/denial] Summary of Commission Public Hearing: vi. In favor: vii. In opposition: viii. Commenting: ix. Written testimony: x. Key Issue(s): Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission: ii. Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation: ii. Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: i. Written Testimony since Commission Hearing: [name(s)] - [issue(s)] Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number [#], as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of [date]: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number [#], as presented during the hearing on [date], for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number [#] to the hearing date of [date] for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 114 of 227 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 115 of 227 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 116 of 227 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 117 of 227 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 118 of 227 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 119 of 227 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 120 of 227 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 121 of 227 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 122 of 227 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 123 of 227 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 124 of 227 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 125 of 227 Planning and Zoning Meeting Meeting Date: March 1, 2018 G +nn • � ; Say ----- _. -- - _ -- ---.. __...._..------------------------------------- ---- ---....._.._..-------- Agenda Item Number: 2A�nlr�n� Project/File Number: H-2018-0003 Item Title: PUBLIC HEARING BARAYA APARTMENTS r0 by Schultz Development, Located at the Southwest Corner of South Ten Mile Road and West Franklin Road 1. Request: A Conditional Use Permit Consisting of 240 Multi -Family Dwelling Units on Approximately 12.59 Acres in an Existing R-40 Zoning District 2. Request: A Preliminary Plat Consisting of 13 Multi -Family Building Lots and 3 Common Lots on 12.59 Acres in an Existing R-40 Zoning District Meetina Notes 1b CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET Date: March 1, 2018 Item # Project Number: Project Name: 2018-0003 BARAYA APARTMENTS Please print your name For Against Neutral Do you wish to testify (Y/N) < a.4A- cA u-1- f -e2_- . 4 _ -Joe -� - A,)0 CANIa-I'S Po Baraya Apartments –CUP, PP H-2018-0003 PAGE 1 STAFF REPORT Hearing Date: March 1, 2018 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Josh Beach, Associate City Planner 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: Baraya Apartments – CUP, PP (H-2018-0003) I. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant, Schultz Development, has submitted an application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a multi-family development consisting of 240 dwelling units in an R-40 zoning district; and Preliminary Plat (PP) consisting of 13 building lots and 3 common lots on 12.59 acres of land. See Section IX of the staff report for more information. II. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposed CUP, and PP applications in accord with the conditions of approval in Exhibit B and the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in Exhibit C. III. PROPOSED MOTION Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H-2018-0003, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 1, 2018, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications). Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2018-0003, as presented during the hearing on March 1, 2018, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2018-0003 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) IV. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS A. Site Address/Location: The site is located in the northeast ¼ of Section 15, Township 3 North, Range 1 West. (Parcel #: S1215120850) B. Applicant/Representative(s): Schultz Development P.O. Box 1115 Meridian, ID 83680 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 127 of 227 Baraya Apartments –CUP, PP H-2018-0003 PAGE 2 C. Owner: Endurance Holdings, LLC 1977 E. Overland Road Meridian, ID 83642 D. Applicant’s Statement/Justification: Please see applicant’s narrative for this information. V. PROCESS FACTS A. The subject application is for a conditional use permit and preliminary plat. A public hearing is required before the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council on these applications, consistent with Meridian City Code Title 11, Chapter 5. B. Newspaper notifications published on: February 9, 2018 C. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: February 2, 2018 D. Applicant posted notice on site(s) on: February 16, 2018 VI. LAND USE A. Existing Land Use(s) and Zoning: This site consists of vacant commercial property, zoned C-G. B. Character of Surrounding Area and Adjacent Land Use and Zoning: 1. North: W. Franklin Road and Ten Mile Christian Chuirch, Zoned C-N. 2. East: Undeveloped property, zoned RUT in Ada County. 3. South: undeveloped commercial property, zoned C-C. 4. West: Undeveloped residential property, zoned R-15. C. History of Previous Actions: This property was annexed and granted preliminary plat in 2006 as Baraya Subdivision (AZ-06-061, PP-06-062, DA Inst. # 107123289). D. Utilities: 1. Public Works: a. Location of sewer: Sanitary sewer mains intended to provide service to the subject site currently exist in W. Franklin Road. The applicant will need to extend the sewer to the subject site. b. Location of water: Water mains intended to provide service to the subject site currently exist in W. Franklin Road. The applicant will need to extend the water to the subject site. c. Issues or concerns: None E. Physical Features: 1. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: There are no open waterways on this site. 2. Hazards: Staff is not aware of any hazards that exist on this site. 3. Flood Plain: This site does not lie within the floodplain overlay district. VII. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS The subject property is designated High Density Residential (HDR) on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) contained in the Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of this designation is to allow for the development of multi-family homes in areas where urban services are provided. Residential gross densities may exceed fifteen dwelling units per acre. Development might include duplexes, apartment Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 128 of 227 Baraya Apartments –CUP, PP H-2018-0003 PAGE 3 buildings, townhouses, and other multi-unit structures. A desirable project would consider the placement of parking areas, fences, berms, and other landscaping features to serve as buffers between neighboring uses. Developments need to incorporate high quality architectural design and materials and thoughtful site design to ensure quality of place and should also incorporate high quality architectural design and materials and thoughtful site design that incorporate connectivity with adjacent uses and area pathways, attractive landscaping and individual project identity. The applicant proposes to develop the site with 240 dwelling at a gross density of 19.06 units/acre. This land use anticipates densities greater than 15 dwelling units per acre. The applicant is also proposing 23.6% open space for the project, or 2.97 acres of land. GOALS, OBJECTIVES, & ACTION ITEMS: Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this application and apply to the proposed use of this property (staff analysis in italics):  “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 residential development will contribute to the variety of residential uses that currently exist in this area (i.e. low and medium density). Staff is unaware of how “affordable” the units will be.  “Provide housing options close to employment and shopping centers.” (3.07.02D) Because of its location in close proximity to the Ten Mile Interchange (which is rapidly developing), as well as major transportation corridors (I-84 and Ten Mile Road), this property is ideal for providing higher density housing options.  “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 multi-family development is located in close proximity to major access thoroughfares (i.e. I-84 and Ten Mile Road Road) within the City.  “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.4.  “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) Urban services can be provided to this property upon development.  “Adopt land use designations that will allow for housing opportunities for all income levels.” (3.07.01D) Few of the major employment areas within the City are adequately supported with enough housing options. Density near employment centers allow for workforce housing and promote community resiliency, potentially reducing commute times and expenses, and allowing for increased community and economic engagement. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 129 of 227 Baraya Apartments –CUP, PP H-2018-0003 PAGE 4  “Provide for a wide diversity of housing types (single-family, modular, mobile homes and multi-family arrangements) and choices between ownership and rental dwelling units for all income groups in a variety of locations suitable for residential development.” (3.07.03B) The development of multi-family homes on this site will contribute to the variety of housing types available in this part of the City.  “Consistent with the Transportation and Land Use Integration Plan, require all new residential neighborhoods to provide sidewalks, curb and gutters, and complete streets.” (3.07.02B) Curb, gutter and sidewalks will be required to be constructed along the entire frontage of this property as part of the development.  “Elevate quality of design for houses and apartments; evaluate the need for design review guidelines for single-family homes.” (3.07.02O) The multi-family structures within the proposed development will be subject to the design standards in UDC 11-3A-19 and the guidelines in the Architectural Standards Manual. Further refinement to the design of these structures is required in order for the project to meet the design review requirements.  “Require open space areas within all development.” (6.01.01A) This multi-family development is required to comply with UDC 11-4-3-27. The landscape plan indicates that approximately 23.6% of the development is landscaped, The site appears to meet the requirements of the UDC and to have provided the 23.6%. VIII. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE (UDC) A. Purpose Statement of Zone: Per UDC 11-2A-1, the purpose of the residential districts is to provide for a range of housing opportunities consistent with the Meridian comprehensive plan. Residential districts are distinguished by the dimensional standards of the corresponding zone and housing types that can be accommodated. B. Schedule of Use: Unified Development Code (UDC) Table 11-2A-8 lists the principal permitted (P), accessory (A), conditional (C), and prohibited (-) uses in the R-40 zoning district. Any use not explicitly listed, or listed as a prohibited use is prohibited. The proposed use of the site for multi-family dwellings is a conditional use in the R-40 zoning district. D. Dimensional Standards: Development of the site should be consistent with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Tables 11-2A-8 for the R-40 zoning district. E. Landscaping Standards (UDC 11-3B): The standards for landscaping contained in UDC 11-3B apply to development of this site. F. Common Open Space & Site Amenity Requirements: Common open space and site amenities are required to be provided on the site in accord with the requirements listed in UDC 11-3G-3; 11-4- 3-27C; and11-4-3-27D. G. 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. H. Parking Standards: UDC 11-3C-6A requires off-street vehicle parking to be provided on the site. For one bedroom units, 1.5 vehicle parking spaces are required per dwelling unit; at least one in a covered carport or garage. For 2-3 bedroom units, 2 parking spaces; at least one in a covered carport or garage. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 130 of 227 Baraya Apartments –CUP, PP H-2018-0003 PAGE 5 IX. ANALYSIS Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation: A. Conditional Use Permit (CUP): A CUP is requested for a multi-family development in the R-40 zoning district as required by UDC Table 11-2B-3. The proposed multi-family development consists of a total of 240 dwelling units in (13) structures on 12.59 acres of land in the R-40 zoning district. The units consist of a mix of 1, 2 and 3 bedroom units. 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. The floor plans submitted by the applicant indicate the required 80 square foot balcony required.  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 applican’t site plan indicates a maintenance building, however the remaining items are not shown on the site plan The site plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application should depict 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. All of the proposed units are between 500 and 1,200 square feet; therefore, a minimum of 60,000 square feet or 1.377 acres of common open space are required for this development in addition to the 10 percent required by UDC 11-3G-3 and UDC 11-4-3-27.  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. The applicant proposes a swimming pool, a clubhouse with an exercise room, a 50’ x 100’ open grassy area, and a tot lot as amenities in compliance with UDC standards. These amenities fall within the quality of life, open space and recreation categories 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 the Certificate of Zoning Compliance should comply with this requirement for the sides of the structures that face W. Franklin and N. Umbria Hills Avenue.  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 Certificate of Occupancy. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 131 of 227 Baraya Apartments –CUP, PP H-2018-0003 PAGE 6 Parking: For multi-family developments, off-street parking is required in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6, which requires 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit with at least one of those in a covered carport or garage. Based on (240) 1, 2- and 3-bedroom units, a minimum of 456 parking spaces are required, 240 of which should be covered. The site plan depicts a total of 456 spaces, 240 of which are covered,and a total of 9 additional ADA stalls which complies with the UDC standards. For non-residential uses such as the clubhouse, a minimum of one space is required to be provided for every 500 square feet (s.f.) of gross floor area in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-6B. The applicant has indicated that the square footage of the clubhouse is approximately 5,400 square feet, which would require an additional 11 spaces. 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 11-3C-5C. Based on 467 vehicle spaces proposed, a minimum of 19 bicycle spaces in bicycle racks are required to be interspersed throughout the development. The plans submitted with the application show 19 bicycle parking stalls. 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 on the east and west sides of the project because the adjacent uses are residential in nature. On the south side of the project, however, there is existing commercial zoning that require a 25 foot landscape buffer to be installed per UDC Table 11-2B-3, and must be landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-9. On the north side of the project alonf W. Franklin the applicant is required to install a 25 foot landscape buffer per UDC 11-3B-7. Additionally, a 20 foot landscape buffer is required along the N. Umbria Hills Ave. street frontage per UDC 11-3B-7. Mitigation: The applicant is required to comply with the mitigation standards listed in UDC 11-3B-10C.5 for any existing trees 4-inch caliper or greater that are removed from the site. Contact Elroy Huff, City Arborist (208-371-1755), prior to removal of any existing trees from the site. Building Elevations: Four building types are proposed for the future multi-family structures within the development as shown in Exhibit A.5. The architectural character of the structures shall comply with the standards listed in the City of Meridian Architectural Standards Manual. 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. 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. B. Preliminary Plat (PP): The proposed plat consists of 13 residential building lots and 3 common lots on 12.59 acres of land in the R-40 zoning district. The smallest lot is 15,080 square feet (s.f.) with an average lots size of 33,039 s.f. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 132 of 227 Baraya Apartments –CUP, PP H-2018-0003 PAGE 7 Dimensional Standards: Staff has reviewed the proposed plat for compliance with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-8 for the R-40 zoning district. All of the lots comply with the minimum standards. Construction of buildings on the site should comply with the setbacks for the R-40 district. Access: Access to streets is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-3. The proposed plat depicts one accesses for the development from W. Franklin. There will be future access to the development once the properties to the west and south develop. Stub Streets/Street Improvements: The collector being constructed as part of this project (N. Umbria Hills Avenue) will be stubbed to the south property line. Other than this, there are no stub streets proposed to adjacent properties. Traffic Impact Study (TIS): A TIS was not a requirement for this project per ACHD. Landscaping: A 25-foot wide street buffer is required adjacent to W Franklin Road and a 20 foot landscape buffer is required along N. Umbria Hills Avenue in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C A 25 foot landscape buffer is also required along the south boundary of the property in accord with UDC 11-3B-9. Open Space: A minimum of 10% (or 1.25 acres) of the area of the site is required to consist of qualified open space in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3B. The applicant has proposed to provide 2.97 acres of qualified open space, or approximately 24%. Prior to the Commission hearing, the applicant shall provide a detailed table indicating which areas are included in the qualified open space calculation. A total of 2.97 acres (or 24%) of open space is proposed consisting of common areas where the clubhouse, swimming pool and tot lot are located, the collector landscape buffer, half the arterial landscape buffer and miscellaneous open grassy areas that are a minimum of 20’ x 20’ in area (see Exhibit A.2). Amenities:The applicant proposes a swimming pool, a clubhouse with an exercise room, a 50’ x 100’ open grassy area, and a tot lot as amenities. The applicant’s proposed amenities meet the requirements for amenities per the UDC. Sidewalks: Sidewalks are required to be provided with development in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17. detached sidewalks are required along N. Umbria Hilla Avenue and W. Franklin Road per that same standard. Utilities: Street lights are required to be installed along public streets adjacent to the development in accord with the City’s adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. All development is required to connect to the City water and sewer system unless otherwise approved by t he City Engineer in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. Adequate fire protection shall be required in accord with the appropriate fire district standards. Pressurized Irrigation: An underground pressurized irrigation system is required to be provided for the development in accord with UDC 11-3A-15 as proposed and will be served by the Nampa & Meridian and Settler’s Irrigation Districts. Storm Drainage: An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments in accord with the City’s adopted standards, specifications, and ordinances, per UDC 11-3A-18. Stormwater is proposed to be retained on-site in seepage beds. In summary, Staff recommends approval of the proposed CUP and PP applications with the conditions included in Exhibit B of this report in accord with the Findings contained in Exhibit C. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 133 of 227 Baraya Apartments –CUP, PP H-2018-0003 PAGE 8 X. EXHIBITS A. Drawings/Other 1. Vicinity/Zoning Map 2. Proposed Site Plan (dated: 1/3/18) 3. Proposed Preliminary Plat (dated: 1/4/18) 4. Proposed Landscape Plan (dated: 1/8/18) 5. Proposed Building Elevations & Renderings (dated 10/17/17) B. Agency & Department Comments C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 134 of 227 Exhibit A Page 1 A. Drawings/Other Exhibit A.1: Zoning Map Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 135 of 227 - 2 - Exhibit A.2: Proposed Site Plan (dated: 1/3/18) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 136 of 227 - 3 - Exhibit A.3: Proposed Preliminary Plat (dated: 1/4/18) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 137 of 227 - 4 - Exhibit A.4: Proposed Landscape Plan (dated: 1/8/18) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 138 of 227 - 5 - Exhibit A.5: Proposed Building Elevations & Renderings (dated: 10/17/17 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 139 of 227 - 6 - Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 140 of 227 - 7 - Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 141 of 227 - 8 - B. EXHIBIT B - AGENCY & DEPARTMENT COMMENTS 1. PLANNING DIVISION 1.1 Site Specific Conditions of Approval – Preliminary Plat 1.1.1 Development of the site shall substantially comply with the preliminary plat, site plan and building elevations included in Exhibit A, the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and in the Architectural Standards Manual, and the conditions in this report. 1.1.2 The preliminary plat included in Exhibit A.3, dated 01/04/18, shall be revised as follows: a. The applicant shall provide detached sidewalks along the entire W. Franklin and N. Umbria Hills Ave., and attached sidewalk throughout the development. b. The trash enclosure and location should be approved by Bob Olson, Republic Services. A detail of the trash enclosures should be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application(s).The trash enclosures shall also accommodate recycling containers. 1.2 Site Specific Conditions of Approval – Conditional Use Permit 1.2.1 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. 1.2.2 Prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing, the applicant shall revise the site plan included in Exhibit A.2, dated 01/03/18, shall be modified as follows: a. Depict 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 in accord with UDC 11-4-3-27B.7. 1.2.3 The landscape plan included in Exhibit A.4, dated 01/08/2018, shall be revised as follows: a. Prior to the Commission hearing, the applicant shall provide a detailed landscape table indicating which areas are included in the qualified open space calculation. b. A minimum of 10% (or 1.25 acres) of the area of the site is required to consist of qualified open space in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3B in addition to that required by UDC 11-4-3-27 for multi-family developments (1.37 acres) for a total of 2.62 acres. In order to meet the requirements of the UDC the applicant shall revise the site plan to meet the requirements of UDC 11-4-3-27. 1.2.4 All elevations that face W. Franklin or N. Umbria Hills shall have landscaping along their foundations that comply with the minimum standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27E.2. 1.3 General Conditions of Approval 1.3.1 Comply with all bulk, use, and development standards of the applicable district listed in UDC Chapter 2 District regulations. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 142 of 227 - 9 - 1.3.2 Comply with the provisions for irrigation ditches, laterals, canals and/or drainage courses, as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6. 1.3.3 Install lighting consistent with the provisions as set forth in UDC 11-3A-11. 1.3.4 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. 1.3.5 Comply with the sidewalk standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-17. 1.3.6 Install all utilities consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-21 and 11-3B-5J. 1.3.7 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. 1.3.8 Construct the required landscape buffers consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3B- 7C (streets). 1.3.9 Construct storm water integration facilities that meet the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3B- 11C. 1.3.10 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. 1.3.11 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. 1.3.12 Comply with the outdoor service and equipment area standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-12. 1.3.13 Construct all required landscape areas used for storm water integration consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3B-11C. 1.3.14 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 Standards Manual. 1.3.15 Comply with all provisions of UDC 11-3A-3 with regard to maintaining the clear vision triangle. 1.3.16 Low pressure sodium lighting shall be prohibited as an exterior lighting source on the site. 1.3.17 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. 1.3.18 All storm drainage areas included in the qualified open space calculations shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-11, Stormwater Integration. 1.4 Ongoing Conditions of Approval 1.4.1 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. 1.4.2 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. 1.5 Process Conditions of Approval 1.5.1 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. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 143 of 227 - 10 - 1.5.2 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. 1.5.3 The preliminary plat approval shall be null and void if the applicant fails to obtain City Engineer signature on a final plat within two (2) years of approval of the preliminary plat; or, obtain approval of a time extension as set forth in UDC 11-6B-7. 1.5.4 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 A street light plan will need to be included in the final plat application. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-7 of the City's Design Standards. A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272.` 2.1.2 Continue the 12-inch water main south in S. Umbria Hills to the southern extent of the preplat, this main was shown as 8-inch in the submitted AutoCAD file. 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 12-13-8.3). 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. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 144 of 227 - 11 - 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 Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated, road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded, prior to applying for building permits. 2.2.10 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. 2.2.11 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. 2.2.12 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. 2.2.13 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. 2.2.14 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.2.15 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.2.16 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. 2.2.17 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. 2.2.18 The design 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. 2.2.19 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. 2.2.20 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. 2.2.21 A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 145 of 227 - 12 - requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272. 2.2.22 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. 2.2.23 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 3.1 Prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission the applicant shall provide a pedestrian lighting plan. 4. FIRE DEPARTMENT 4.1 Acceptance of the water supply for fire protection will be by the Meridian Fire Department and water quality by the Meridian Water Department for bacteria testing. 4.2 Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department in accordance with International Fire Code Section (IFC) 508.5.4 as follows: a. Fire hydrants shall have a Storz LDH connection in place of the the 4 ½” outlet. The Storz connection may be integrated into the hydrant or an approved adapter may be used on the 4 1/2" outlet. b. Fire hydrants shall have the Storz outlet face the main street or parking lot drive aisle. c. Fire hydrants shall be placed on corners when spacing permits. d. Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10’. e. Fire hydrants shall be placed 18” above finished grade to the center of the Storz outlet. f. Fire hydrants shall be provided to meet the requirements of the Meridian Water Dept. Standards. g. Show all proposed or existing hydrants for all new construction or additions to existing buildings within 1,000 feet of the project. 4.3 In accordance with International Fire Code Section 503.2.5 and Appendix D, any roadway greater than 150 feet in length that is not provided with an outlet shall be required to have an approved turn around. Phasing of the project may require a temporary approved turn around on streets greater than 150' in length with no outlet. 4.3 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. 4.4 Provide signage (“No Parking Fire Lane”) for all fire lanes in accordance with International Fire Code Sections 503.4 & D103.6. 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. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 146 of 227 - 13 - 4.6 Commercial and office occupancies will require a fire-flow consistent with International Fire Code Appendix B to service the proposed project. Fire hydrants shall be placed per Appendix C. 4.7 Provide a Fire Department Key box entry system for the complex prior to occupancy as set forth in International Fire Code Section 506. 4.8 The first digit of the Apartment/Office Suite shall correspond to the floor level as set forth in International Fire Code Section 505.1 and Meridian Amendment 10-4-1. 4.9 The applicant shall work with Public Works and Planning Department staff to provide an address identification plan and a sign which meets the requirements of the City of Meridian sign ordinance and is placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property, as set forth in International Fire Code Section 505.1 and Meridian Amendment 104-4-1. 4.10 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. 4.11 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. 4.12 The Fire Department will require Fire Department locking Connection caps on all FDC inlets. IFC 102.9 4.13 Buildings over 30’ in height are required to have access roads in accordance with the International Fire Code Appendix D Section D105. 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 10-4-1. 4.15 Emergency response routes and fire lanes shall not be allowed to have traffic calming devices installed without prior approval of the Fire Code Official. National Fire Protection Standard 1141, Section A5.2.18. 4.16 As set forth in International Fire Code Section 504.1, multi-family and commercial projects shall be required to provide an additional sixty inches (60”) wide access point to the building from the fire lane to allow for the movement of manual fire suppression equipment and gurney operations. The unobstructed breaks in the parking stalls shall be provided so that building access is provided in such a manner that the most remote part of a building can be reached with a length of 150' fire hose as measured around the perimeter of the building from the fire lane. Code compliant handicap parking stalls may be included to assist meeting this requirement. Contact the Meridian Fire Department for details. 5. REPUBLIC SERVICES 5.1 Coordinate with Bob Olson, Republic Services (208-345-1265) on the location and design of trash enclosures prior to submittal of the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. 6. PARKS DEPARTMENT 6.1 The Parks Department did not provide comments for this application. 7. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT 7.1 Site Specific Conditions of Approval 7.1.1 Construct Umbria Hills Avenue as a 50-foot wide street section (back of curb to back of curb) with two 21-foot travel lanes, two 8-foot wide center landscape islands, vertical curb, gutter, a 10- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 147 of 227 - 14 - foot wide landscape strip, and 5-foot wide detached concrete sidewalk. 7.1.2 Provide written approval from the appropriate fire department for the reduced street- section. 7.1.3 Provide a permanent right-of-way easement for any public sidewalk outside of the dedicated right-of-way. The easement shall encompass the entire area between the right-of-way line and 2- feet behind the back edge of the sidewalk. 7.1.4 Plat the center landscape island as right-of-way owned by ACHD. The applicant or the homeowners association shall apply for a license agreement with ACHD if any landscaping is proposped to be located within the islands. 7.1.5 Continue Umbria Hills Avenue, stubbing to the southern property line of the site. 7.1.6 Install a sign at the terminus of Umbria Hills Avenue stating that, “THIS IS A DESIGNATED COLLECTOR ROADWAY. THIS STREET WILL BE EXTENDED AND WIDENDED IN THE FUTURE.” 7.1.7 Construct a temporary cul-de-sac at the terminus of Umbria Hills Avenue. The cul-de- sac should be paved and provide a minimum 45-foot radius. 7.1.8 Construct a 25-foot wide driveway onto Umbria Hills Avenue located 280-feet south of Snow Canyon Drive. 7.1.9 Construct a driveway from the site onto Umbria Hills Avenue with a maximum width of 36-feet to align with Snow Canyon Street. 7.1.10 Construct the driveways as curb returns with minimum 15 -foot radii, and pave the driveways their full width and at least 30-feet into the site beyond the edge of pavement of the roadway. 7.1.11 Umbria Hills Avenue is classified as a collector roadway; direct lot access is prohibited to this roadway and should be noted on the final plat. 7.1.12 Obtain approval by the ACHD pavement cut committee before any pavement cuts occur to this segment of Franklin Road abutting the site. 7.1.13 A Traffic Impact Fee will be assessed by ACHD and will be due prior to issuance of a building permit. Please contact the ACHD Planner (see below) for information regarding impact fees. 7.1.14 Plans shall be submitted to the ACHD Development Services Department for plans acceptance, and impact fee assessment (if an assessment is applicable). 7.1.15 Comply with the Standard Conditions of Approval as noted below. 7.2 Standard Conditions of Approval 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, 7203.6, the applicant may be required to update any existing non-compliant pedestrian improvements abutting the site to meet current Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. The applicant’s engineer should provide documentation of ADA compliance to District Development Review staff for review. 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. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 148 of 227 - 15 - 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. 7.2.8 Utility street cuts in pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless app roved 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. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 149 of 227 - 16 - 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. Staff finds that the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet the dimensional and development regulations of the R-40 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. Staff finds that the proposed multi-family residential use will be harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan and that the density is appropriate for this site. The proposed use is 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. Staff 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. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council consider any public testimony that may be presented to determine whether or not the proposal will adversely affect the other properties in 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. Staff 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. Staff 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. Staff 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. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 150 of 227 - 17 - g. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. Staff finds that the proposed development should not involve activities that will create nuisances that would be detrimental to the general welfare of the surrounding area. Staff 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. Staff finds that the proposed development will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural feature(s) of major importance. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council reference any public testimony that may be presented to determine whether or not the proposed development may destroy or damage a natural or scenic feature(s) of major importance of which staff is unaware. 2. PRELIMINARY PLAT: In consideration of a preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat, the decision-making body shall make the following findings: a. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; Staff finds that the proposed plat is in substantial compliance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan in regard to land use, transportation, and circulation. Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals, Section VII, of the Staff Report for more information. b. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Staff finds that public services will be provided to the subject property upon development. (See Exhibit B of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers.) c. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City’s capital improvement program; Because City water and sewer and any other utilities will be provided by the developer at their own cost, Staff finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. d. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Staff recommends the Commission and Council rely upon comments from the public service providers (i.e., Police, Fire, ACHD, etc.) to determine this finding. (See Exhibit B for more detail.) e. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and Staff is not aware of any health, safety, or environmental problems associated with the platting of this property that should be brought to the Commission or Council’s attention. ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council consider any public testimony that may be presented when determining whether Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 151 of 227 - 18 - or not the proposed subdivision may cause health, safety or environmental problems of which Staff is unaware. f. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. Staff finds there are no significant natural, scenic or historic features associated with this property that need to be preserved with development of this site. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 152 of 227 3 f I-ee'yvt al Planning and Zoning Meeting Meeting Date: March 1, 2018 00 0al,u Agenda Item Number: 2n ; pGfru� I i' -- ........... -- - ---. _. -- — _- - __ _ __ -- ---- - - _.._. - Project/File Number: H-2018-0004 n i 2- I 15� Item Title: PUBLIC HEARING LOST RAPIDS ' oof"'?r +0 torner By GFI-Meridian Investments II, LLC and Brighton Investments Located at the Southwest of State Highway 20-26 (Chinden Blvd.) and North Ten Mile Road 1. Request: An Amendment to the Future Land Use Map Contained in the Comprehensive Plan to Change the Land Use Designation on a Combined 78.33 Acres of Land from the Medium Density Residential (61.83 Acres) and the Mixed Use - Community (16.50 Acres) to Mixed Use - Regional. C 2. Request: An Annexation and Zoning of 78.33 Acres of Land with R-15 (39.01) Acres), R-40 (6.50 Acres), and C -G (32.83 Acres) Zoning Districts. q 3. A Preliminary Plat Consisting of 1 Residential Building Lot, 13 Commercial Building Lots and 1 C6++ we, Other Lot for Dedication of right-of-way on 36.2 Acres of Land in the Proposed R-40 and C -G Zoning Districts. 4. A Variance to UDC 11 -3H -4B, Which Prohibits New Approaches Directly Accessing a State Highway to Allow 2 Accesses Via State Highway 20-26 — C��y J�� �G}i pn I y Meetina Notes Z M 04i 0o o vaorste-y 2" �: es February 28 / March 1, 2018 Bainbridge North / Lost Rapids Subdivision ACHD Commission and Meridian City Planning & Zoning Commission Public Hearings APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVES Brighton Corporation Michael Wardle —12601 W Explorer Dr. #200, Boise, ID 83713 Brighton Investments David Turnbull —12601 W Explorer Dr. #200, Boise, ID 83713 GFI — Meridian Investments II Derek Gasser — 74 East 500 South #200, Bountiful, UT 84011 Trevor Gasser Same Costco Wholesale Corporation Peter Kahn — 999 Lake Drive, Issaquah, WA 98027 Brian Whelan — 2311 W. 22nd Street #208, Oak Brook, IL 60523 Kittelson & Associates Andy Daleiden —101 S Capitol Blvd. #301, Boise, ID 83702 KM Engineering Kelly Kehrer — 9233 W State St., Boise, ID 83714 This was a Lost Rapids Sign in Page Not 2018 UDC CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET Date: March 1, 2018 Item # Project Number: Project Name: 2018-0004 LOST RAPIDS/ GO _S 7-6 Please print your name For Against Neutral Do you wish to testify (Y/N) L.. �V- �. 12 12v iV � CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING Z PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET Date: March 1, 2018 Item # Project Number: 2018-0004 Project Name: LOST RAPIDS �C 05 TC d Please print your name For Against Neutral Do you wish to testify (Y/N) V, 1'\ 1' /U -A y� Al 1�Nd A) 2 1 rv.1.VvkC\) Val �✓i Lp ' �0 N v 1� t CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET Date: March 1, 2018 Item # Project Number: 2018-0004 Project Name: LOST RAPIDS /CoS-T( 0 Please print your name For Against Neutral Do you wish to testify (Y/N) , ►� G'`' fil-, ail G pAJ4�5,*� L C u c 11lCV�(�21 �01 (11 v- 7,c T (_2 1� �D ,,S �eC77 ` e - .J L i�. Z° f Xi CQTY 0 [AiMFII, D�,,,PI LCL A NN NI ) AND Z0NI� HC) PU o LDC HEARING SDGWIN SHEET Date: March 1, 2018 Item # Project Number: Project Name: 2018-0004 LOST RAPIDS/ C v E T C 0 Please print your name For Against Neutral Do you wish to testify (Y/N) AJO tA)),I)),1A4A-fZ,7 I W�) ���&NtA Li5,41wq m,4 a X C La �►�� � ,� }� Nd VI( SM Y N� i �� oilT0r hl! F IH�ILOLI,IAH PUBUC IAF N GANG SIGN -W SHS FU T Date: March 14 2018 ROM # Project Number: Project Name: 2018-0004 LOST RAPIDS,/( ,) S -r C 0 Please print your name For Against Neutral Do you wish to testify (Y/N) u r\ un V/ r C AnIll 4, 1 6) V- J/v lOn 0 r� n AA-, �1L SIms Ct C° i "c""PH T Y (-11'� VViERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONIW_ Lf PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHE v Date: March 1, 2018 �-ger Project Number: Project Name: LOST RAPIDS/ (`vS�-C o Please print your name For Against Neutral Do you wish to testify (Y/N) ?d -C -CA r (&vv- SlJ L SpW/ AJ A -i L5O N OGI� Zo / (�a rb, �� CITY OF ME��IDh1bx M PLAN AND ZOMM[N-J PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET Date: March 1, 2018 Item # Project Number: 2018-0004 Project Name: LOST RAPIDS/ OD -5 -TC O Please print your name For Against Neutral Do you wish to testify (Y/N) Jac. V\_ -e_ C- 1�4 u vt 6,r6 U-eka, X ,� e V� t (�- ►� UIVq 1 ah v A�Thf) v�� `�� C, CITY OF MERIDIAN Q PLANNING AND ZONING D PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET Date: March 1, 2018 Item # Project Number: 2018-0004 Project Name: LOST RAPIDS 0S-7_(,0 Please print your name For Against Neutral Do you wish to testify (Y/N) / v ry U ( V I' I 1 Y '�✓{ Gr / 1 I /�,{� / �' 0 ' ?)vl�,� �� �/ O'er -MVV �'/ •=��� I U s A S+I X u NziLI ,& d CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET Date: March 1, 2018 Item # Project Number: Project Name: 2018-0004 LOST RAPIDS/ Co S-T(f O Please print your name For Against Neutral Do you wish to testify (Y/N) MA Ga A 4fu �J b o�o No An a l y s i s o f L o s t R a p i d s a p p l i c a t i o n : H - 2 0 1 8 - 0 0 0 4 Ma r c h 1 , 2 0 1 8 No r t h M e r i d i a n N e i g h b o r s f o r R e s p o n s i b l e De v e l o p m e n t Cu r r e n t C o m p P l a n De s i g n a t i o n No r t h M e r i d i a n N e i g h b o r s f o r R e s p o n s i b l e D e v e l o p m e n t Br i g h t o n M a r k e t i n g Th e a p p l i c a t i o n a n a l y s i s p r o v i d e d b y c i t y s t a f f s h o ws t h e a p p l i c a t i o n : • Is i n c o m p l e t e a n d f a i l s t o i n c l u d e t h e w e s t r e s i d e n ti a l p a r c e l , a n d n o p l a n f o r s m a l l r e t a i l p l a t s • Fa i l e d 2 3 o f t h e C o m p r e h e n s i v e P l a n R e q u i r e m e n t s a n d o n l y P a s s e d 9 , o u t o f 3 8 i t e m s a n a l y z e d . • Fa i l e d A L L 8 o f t h e 8 U n i f i e d D e v e l o p m e n t C o d e ( U D C ) R e q u i r e m e n t s . • St a f f f i n d i n g s u s i n g “ i f ” , “ w i l l b e ” , a n d ” w i t h c h a ng e s r e c o m m e n d e d ” i n t h e i r s t a t e m e n t s a n d sh o u l d n o t b e c o n s i d e r e d f o r q u a l i f y i n g a s ‘ m e e t i n g t h e r e q u i r e m e n t . ’ • Fa i l s i n c r i t i c a l a r e a s o f c o m p p l a n a l i g n m e n t , t r a ff i c s a f e t y , a c c e s s , p e d e s t r i a n s a f e t y , t r a n s i t i o n s , in t e r c o n n e c t i v i t y , a n d l i v a b i l i t y , e t c . • Ho w w a s t h i s a p p l i c a t i o n d e t e r m i n e d t o b e a p p r o v e d , w i t h a 6 0 % a n d 1 0 0 % f a i l u r e r a t e o n t h e ab o v e r e q u i r e m e n t s ? Th e p r o p o s e d d e v e l o p m e n t p l a c e s o u r c o m m u n i t y a t R i sk No r t h M e r i d i a n N e i g h b o r s f o r R e s p o n s i b l e D e v e l o p m e n t Ci t y S t a f f ’ s F i n a l a n a l y s i s s t a t e s : “ T h e a p p l i c a t i on d o e s n o t c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e w h y t h e C i t y w o u l d b e be t t e r s e r v e d b y a n M U - R i n s t e a d o f a n M U - C d e v e l o p me n t i n t h i s a r e a , o t h e r t h a n t h e s i z e o f t h e Co s t c o b u i l d i n g i s n ’ t a l l o w e d i n t h e M U - C d e s i g n a t i on ; o r w h y t h i s p r o j e c t c a n ’ t b e l o c a t e d w i t h i n a n ar e a a l r e a d y d e s i g n a t e d M U - R s u c h a s c l o s e r t o t h e SH 1 6 / U S 2 0 - 2 6 i n t e r s e c t i o n . ” Th e i m p a c t o n t h e a d j o i n i n g a n d l o c a l n e i g h b o r h o o d s s h o u l d n o t b e c o n s i d e r e d l e s s v a l i d t h a n t h o s e th a t a r e i n f a v o r t h e d e v e l o p m e n t s i m p l y b e c a u s e t h ey d e s i r e m o r e c o n v e n i e n c e t o a p r i v a t e b u s i n e s s ; th i s i s n o t a n e e d . S u p p o r t e r s ’ c o n v e n i e n c e d o e s n o t o u t w e i g h i m p a c t e d s t a k e h o l d e r s ’ r i g h t t o p e a c e f u l en j o y m e n t o f t h e i r p r o p e r t y a n d s u r r o u n d i n g s . Th e p r o p o s e d d e v e l o p m e n t d o e s n o t f i t We r e s p e c t f u l l y a s k t h a t y o u D E N Y t h i s a p p l i c a t i o n , fo l l o w t h e C o m p r e h e n s i v e P l a n , a n d p r o t e c t o u r co m m u n i t y ! No r t h M e r i d i a n N e i g h b o r s f o r R e s p o n s i b l e D e v e l o p m e n t Lo s t R a p i d s / C o s t c o • An a c c e s s c o n s t r a i n e d l o c a t i o n w i t h i n a d e q u a t e I n g r es s o r E g r e s s tr a f f i c a c c e s s p o i n t s . Si t e M a p Si t e i s ‘ a c c e s s co n s t r a i n e d ’ • In t h e i r o w n w o r d s • “ t h i s p r o j e c t w i l l g e n e r a t e a su b s t a n t i a l a m o u n t o f p a t r o n a n d de l i v e r y t r u c k t r a f f i c t h a t w o u l d b e de t r i m e n t a l to t h e s u r r o u n d i n g ne i g h b o r h o o d s “ • 2 o u t o f t h e 4 a c c e s s p o i n t s a r e TE M P O R A R Y ( 5 0 % ) • Si t e A c c e s s A : IT D w i l l a l l o w a t e m p o r a r y r i g h t - i n / ri g h t - o u t / l e f t - i n a t S i t e A c c e s s A • Co n s t r u c t a c e n t e r l e f t t u r n l a n e an d d e d i c a t e d r i g h t t u r n l a n e o n Te n M i l e R o a d f o r t e m p o r a r y f u l l ac c e s s d r i v e w a y l o c a t e d 6 6 0 - f e e t no r t h o f L o s t R a p i d s D r i v e . Es t i m a t i o n o f v e h i c l e c o u n t s o n W L o s t R a p i d s is f l a w e d . • TI S : I n t h e E x e c u t i v e s u m m a r y s e c t i o n , p a g e 5 l i s t s t h e f o l l o w i n g ; Ye a r 2 0 1 8 T o t a l t r a f f i c c o n d i t i o n s f o r C o s t c o ( P h a s e 1 ) Ro a d w a y i m p r o v e m e n t s a s s u m e d t o b e i n p l a c e i n t h e ye a r 2 0 1 8 t o t a l t r a f f i c i n c l u d e : 2 w a y l e f t t u r n l a n e b e t w e e n s i t e a c c e s s A a n d W B l ef t t u r n l a n e a t t r e e f a r m i s p r o v i d e d fo r le f t - t u r n s o u t o f s i t e a c c e s s A Re p e a t e d o n p a g e 7 ; Y e a r 2 0 2 4 T o t a l t r a f f i c c o n d i t i o ns f o r t o t a l b u i l d o u t ( P h a s e 2 ) • La c k o f d i r e c t a c c e s s t o W B C h i n d e n r e s u l t s i n m o s t tr a f f i c i n t h a t d e s t i n a t i o n t o u s e W Lo s t R a p i d s . • Wi l l a l s o b e c o m b i n e d w i t h I n g r e s s t r a f f i c b o t h W B an d E B C h i n d e n a n d s o m e E B Ch i n d e n . • WB E g r e s s 2 1 6 0 + 1 2 0 0 ( 5 0 % E B I n g r e s s ) = 3 3 6 0 . 4 2 0 / hr • Ad d 1 0 % i n g r e s s / e g r e s s W B / E B C h i n d e n = 6 4 0 = 4 0 0 0 t o ta l . 5 0 0 / h r Co s t c o B o i s e No t e : N o n e a r b y r e s i d e n t i a l r o a d s r e q u i r e d f o r ac c e s s . Co s t c o N a m p a No t e : N o n e a r b y r e s i d e n t i a l r o a d s r e q u i r e d f o r ac c e s s . Lo s t R a p i d s S u b d i v i s i o n ME R I D I A N P L A N N I N G A N D Z O N I N G MA R C H 1 , 2 0 1 8 DA V I D J . R E Y E S - B A I N B R I D G E Co m p r e h e n s i v e P l a n , Fu t u r e L a n d U s e M a p Am e n d m e n t Vi o l a t e s C o m p r e h e n s i v e P l a n G o a l s Pr o t e c t e x i s t i n g r e s i d e n t i a l p r o p e r t i e s f r o m in c o m p a t i b l e l a n d u s e d e v e l o p m e n t o n a d j a c e n t pa r c e l s ( 3 . 0 6 . 0 1 F ) Mi n i m i z e n o i s e , o d o r , a i r a n d v i s u a l p o l l u t i o n i n co m m e r c i a l d e v e l o p m e n t s a d j a c e n t t o r e s i d e n t i a l ar e a s ( 3 . 0 6 . 0 1 B ) Am e n d m e n t C r i t e r i a # C r i t e r i a Ap p l i c a t i o n 1 C o n s i s t e n t w i t h o t h e r e l e m e n t s o f t h e C P L a r g e z o n i n g c h a n g e r e q u e s t e d – i n c o n s i s t e n t wi t h t h e c o m p r e h e n s i v e p l a n 2 P r o v i d e s i m p r o v e d g u i d e t o f u t u r e gr o w t h / d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e c i t y Do e s n o t p r o v i d e p u b l i c s e r v i c e s , i n s t e a d p r o v i d e s a “ s p o t z o n e ” f o r t h e b e n e f i t o f t h e d e v e l o p e r 3 C o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e g o a l s , o b j e c t i v e s a n d po l i c i e s o f t h e C P Re q u e s t i g n o r e s t h e z o n i n g d e s i g n a t i o n s a n d pl a c e s t h e s u r r o u n d i n g a r e a a t r i s k o f u n c o n t r o l l e d co m m e r c i a l d e v e l o p m e n t 4 C o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e U D C T h e U D C p r o h i b i t s d i r e c t a c ce s s t o s t a t e h i g h w a y s 5 C o m p a t i b l e w i t h e x i s t i n g / p l a n n e d su r r o u n d i n g l a n d u s e s Do e s n o t p r o v i d e s u f f i c i e n t t r a n s i t i o n b e t w e e n me d i u m a n d l o w d e n s i t y h o u s i n g 6 W i l l n o t b u r d e n e x i s t i n g / p l a n n e d s e r v i c e ca p a b i l i t i e s Wi l l d e g r a d e t r a f f i c , w a t e r , s e w e r a n d i n t e r n e t se r v i c e s 7 P r o v i d e s s u f f i c i e n t a r e a t o m i t i g a t e a n y an t i c i p a t e d i m p a c t a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e de v e l o p m e n t o f t h e a r e a Wi l l e x p o n e n t i a l l y e x a c e r b a t e t r a f f i c i m p a c t 8 I s i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t o f t h e c i t y o f M e r i d i a n U s e f o r t h i s s i t e i s t o o i n t e n s e f o r t h e s u r r o u n d i n g ne i g h b o r h o o d s – s e t s b a d p r e c e d e n t Pr i o r a c t i o n s o n t h i s s i t e Ja n i c e k P r o p e r t i e s : C P A - 0 8 - 0 0 1 “O f f i c e d o e s n o t s u p p o r t d i r e c t a c c e s s f r o m t h e pr o p e r t y t o U S 2 0 / 2 6 ” “W e h a v e s a f e t y a n d m o b i l i t y c o n c e r n s … ac c e s s s o c l o s e ( a p p r o x . 5 7 0 f t . ) t o t h e T e n M i l e in t e r s e c t i o n Pe r s o n a l 20 1 5 : R e l o c a t e d f r o m C a l i f o r n i a t o I d a h o Re l i e f f r o m r e s u l t s o f u n c o n t r o l l e d d e v e l o p m e n t CP a n d F L U M w e r e k e y k e y e l e m e n t s i n d e c i s i o n t o se t t l e i n B a i n b r i d g e Lo s t R a p i d s a p p l i c a t i o n o p e n s t h e d o o r t o un c o n t r o l l e d d e v e l o p m e n t i n N o r t h M e r i d i a n Re q u e s t : D e n y t h e L o s t R a p i d s A p p l i c a t i o n Th a n k y o u ! Lost Rapids – CPAM, AZ, PP, VAR H-2018-0004 PAGE 1 STAFF REPORT Hearing Date: March 1, 2018 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Sonya Allen, Associate City Planner 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: Lost Rapids – CPAM, AZ, PP, VAR (H-2018-0004) I. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant, GFI – Meridian Investments II, LLC and Brighton Investments, has submitted a joint application for the following:  Amendment to the Future Land Use Map contained in the Comprehensive Plan to change the land use designation on a combined 78.33 acres of land from the Medium Density Residential (61.83 acres) and the Mixed Use – Community (16.50 acres) to Mixed Use – Regional.  Annexation and zoning of 78.33 acres of land with R-15 (39.01 acres), R-40 (6.50 acres), and C-G (32.83 acres) zoning districts;  Preliminary Plat consisting of 1 residential building lot, 13 commercial building lots, and 1 other lot for dedication of right-of-way on 36.2 acres of land in the proposed R-40 and C-G zoning districts; and,  Variance to UDC 11-3H-4B.2 which prohibits new approaches directly accessing a state highway to allow two (2) new accesses via US 20-26/W. Chinden Blvd. See Section IX of the staff report for more information. II. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposed CPAM, AZ, and PP applications with the recommended changes to the conceptual development plan and conditions of approval noted in Exhibit B; and denial of the proposed VAR application in accord with the conditions of approval in Exhibit B and the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in Exhibit D. Note: The Variance request does not require action from the Commission; City Council is the decision making body. III. PROPOSED MOTION Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H-2018-0004, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 1, 2018, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications). Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2018-0004, as presented during the hearing on March 1, 2018, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 154 of 227 Lost Rapids – CPAM, AZ, PP, VAR H-2018-0004 PAGE 2 Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2018-0004 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) IV. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS A. Site Address/Location: The site is located at the southwest corner of US 20-26/W. Chinden Blvd. and N. Ten Mile Rd., in the NE ¼ of Section 27, Township 4N., Range 1W. Parcel No.’s: S0427110011, S0427110023, S0427141803, S0427120611, S0427120916 B. Owner(s): GFI – Meridian Investments II, LLC 74 East 500 South, Ste. 200 Bountiful, UT 84010 Brighton Investments, LLC 12601 W. Explorer Dr., Ste. 200 Boise, ID 83713 C. Applicant: GFI – Meridian Investments II, LLC 74 East 500 South, Ste. 200 Bountiful, UT 84010 D. Representative: Kelly Kehrer, KM Engineering, LLP 9233 W. State St. Boise, Idaho 83714 E. Applicant’s Statement/Justification: Please see applicant’s narrative for this information. V. PROCESS FACTS A. The subject application is for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map, Annexation and Zoning, Preliminary Plat and a Variance. A public hearing is required before the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council on all of these applications except for the Variance, which only requires Council approval, consistent with Meridian City Code Title 11, Chapter 5. B. Newspaper notifications published on: February 9, 2018 C. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: February 5, 2018 D. Applicant posted notice on site(s) on: February 14, 2018 E. Posted to Next Door: February 5, 2018 VI. LAND USE A. Existing Land Use(s) and Zoning: This site consists of undeveloped agricultural land, zoned RUT in Ada County. B. Character of Surrounding Area and Adjacent Land Use and Zoning: 1. North: US 20-26/W. Chinden Blvd. and single-family residential properties in Spurwing Orchard Subdivision and Westwing Estates, zoned R-4, R-8 and R-15 in the City and RUT in Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 155 of 227 Lost Rapids – CPAM, AZ, PP, VAR H-2018-0004 PAGE 3 Ada County, respectively 2. East: Single-family residential properties in Irvine Subdivision and a rural residential parcel, zoned R-8 in the City and RUT in Ada County, respectively 3. South: Existing and future single-family residential properties in Bainbridge Subdivision and a church, zoned R-8 and L-O, respectively 4. West: Future single-family residential properties in Bainbridge Subdivision, zoned R-8 C. History of Previous Actions: In 2008, an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map was approved to change the land use designation on 14.57 acres of land at the northeast corner of the site from Medium Density Residential to Mixed Use - Community (Janicek – Ten Mile/Chinden, CPA-08-001). A conceptual development plan was submitted that showed how the property might develop in the future with a mix of retail [62,988 square feet (s.f.)], retail/office (11,412 s.f.), and multi-family residential (39 units) uses. However, because annexation and zoning was not requested, a development agreement was not required to tie future development to the conceptual development plan. D. Utilities: 1. Public Works: a. Location of sewer: The sanitary sewer main intended to provide service to the subject site currently exists in W. Lost Rapids Drive along the southern boundary. b. Location of water: Water mains intended to provide service to the subject site currently exist in N. Ten Mile Road and in W. Lost Rapids Drive. c. Issues or concerns: None E. Physical Features: 1. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: The Harrell Lateral runs along the eastern portion of the southern boundary of this site and is piped. 2. Hazards: Staff is not aware of any hazards that exist on this property. 3. Flood Plain: This site is not located in the Meridian Floodplain Overlay District. VII. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS CURRENT LAND USE DESIGNATION(S): Approximately 14.57 acres of the annexation area is designated on the Future Land Use Map as Mixed Use – Community (MU-C) and the remaining 52 acres is designated Medium Density Residential (MDR). MU-C: The purpose of the MU-C designation is to allocate areas where community-serving uses and dwellings are seamlessly integrated into the urban fabric. The intent is to integrate a variety of uses, including residential, and to avoid mainly single-use and strip commercial type buildings. Non- residential buildings in these areas have a tendency to be larger than in Mixed Use – Neighborhood areas, but not as large as in Mixed Use – Regional areas. Goods and services in these areas tend to be of the variety that people will mainly travel by car to, but also walk or bike to (up to 3 or 4 miles). Employment opportunities for those living in and around the neighborhood are encouraged. Developments are encouraged to be designed according to the conceptual MU-C plan depicted below (Figure 3-3 in the Comprehensive Plan, pg. 27). Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 156 of 227 Lost Rapids – CPAM, AZ, PP, VAR H-2018-0004 PAGE 4 Developments should have a mix of at least 3 land use types [i.e. commercial (includes retail, restaurants, etc.), office, residential, civic (includes public open space, parks, entertainment venues, etc.), and industrial]; residential uses should comprise a minimum of 20% of the development area at densities ranging from 6 to 15 units/acre; non-residential buildings should be proportional to and blend in with adjacent residential buildings; vertically integrated structures are encouraged; supportive and proportional public and/or quasi-public spaces and places including but not limited to parks, plazas, outdoor gathering areas, open space, libraries, and schools that comprise a minimum of 5% of the development area are required. MDR: The purpose of the MDR designation is to allow smaller lots for residential purposes within City limits. Uses may include single-family homes at gross densities of 3 to 8 dwelling units per acre (d.u./acre). PROPOSED LAND USE DESIGNATION: The applicant proposes an amendment to the FLUM to change the land use designation on a combined 78.33 acres of land from the MDR (61.83 acres) and MU-C (16.50 acres) to the Mixed Use – Regional (MU-R) designation. MU-R: The purpose of the MU-R designation is to provide for a mix of employment, retail, and residential dwellings and public uses near major arterial intersections. The intent is to integrate a variety of uses together, including residential, and to avoid predominantly single use developments such as a regional retail center with only restaurants and other commercial uses. Developments should be anchored by uses that have a regional draw with the appropriate supporting uses. For example, an employment center should have support retail uses; a retail center should have supporting residential uses as well as support retail uses; a retail center should have supporting residential uses as well as supportive neighborhood and community services. The standards for the MU-R designation provide an incentive for larger public and quasi-public uses where they provide a meaningful and appropriate mix to the developments. The developments are encouraged to be designed according to the conceptual MU-R plan depicted in Figure 3-5 of the Comprehensive Plan shown below. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 157 of 227 Lost Rapids – CPAM, AZ, PP, VAR H-2018-0004 PAGE 5 TRANSPORTATION: The subject property is located at the southwest corner of N. Ten Mile Road and US 20-26/W. Chinden Blvd. and is two miles east of US-16 and five miles north of Interstate 84 (I- 84). Ten Mile Road, between Chinden and I-84, is improved with two lanes between Chinden and W. Ustick Rd. and five lanes south of W. Ustick Rd. to I-84. A Traffic Impact Study (TIS) was prepared for this development and submitted to the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) and Ada County Highway District (ACHD) for review. ITD is requiring US 20-26/W. Chinden Blvd. to be widened to 4 lanes between Tree Farm Way and Linder Rd. with a concrete median island; widening is to include construction west of Tree Farm Way to taper the pavement back to a 3-lane section; and installation of conduit with fiber optics the entire length of the widening. A signal is required to be installed at the Black Cat Rd./Chinden intersection in accord with ACHD requirements and should be interconnected with the signals at Tree Farm Way and SH-16. An additional eastbound and westbound thru lane is required as part of the overall US 20- 26/Chinden widening at the Ten Mile/Chinden intersection with the eastbound lane configuration on Chinden to include two thru lanes – one left and one dedicated right turn lane. An additional westbound left turn lane is required with lane configurations on Chinden including one combined thru/right turn lane, one thru lane and two left turn lanes. A STARS agreement is in process for these improvements. The applicant has requested a variance from the City for the proposed accesses via US 20-26/W. Chinden Blvd as the UDC prohibits new accesses via the state highway. Staff is very concerned that these accesses will critically impact the mobility of the SH 20-26/Chinden transportation corridor long term if approved by City Council. No improvements or additional right-of-way (ROW) dedication are proposed or required by ACHD for the existing W. Lost Rapids Drive. A traffic signal at the Lost Rapids/Ten Mile intersection is proposed by the applicant. The applicant proposes to utilize the STAR agreement to widen Ten Mile Road to 5 lanes between Chinden Blvd. and Milano Drive to include bike lanes, planter strips and detached sidewalks, which Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 158 of 227 Lost Rapids – CPAM, AZ, PP, VAR H-2018-0004 PAGE 6 will require the dedication of an additional 48 feet of ROW from the centerline of Ten Mile Rd. This will move up ACHD’s roadway widening project scheduled for 2022. Conceptual Development Plan: A concept plan (and narrative) was submitted that depicts/describes how this site is proposed to develop with a mix of commercial, retail and office uses and a fuel sales facility at the intersection of US 20-26/Chinden Blvd. and N. Ten Mile Road. A very large box store (168,652+/- square feet) is proposed for Costco Wholesale internal to the development to the south and west of the commercial, retail, office pads; multi-family residential is proposed to the south of the Costco site and west of the commercial pads along Ten Mile Rd.; and single-family attached and detached residential uses are proposed directly west of and abutting the commercial site. GOALS, OBJECTIVES, & ACTION ITEMS: Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this application and apply to the proposed use of this property (staff analysis in italics):  “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) A variety of residential categories are proposed in this development consisting of single- family attached and detached homes, and townhome and garden style apartments. Staff is unaware how “affordable” the units will be.  “Coordinate with ACHD, ITD, COMPASS, and other agencies to determine future infrastructure plans, transportation corridors, highway alignments, etc. and allow only compatible adjacent land uses, appropriate site designs and traffic patterns.” (3.06.02H) ACHD, ITD, and COMPASS have all been provided an opportunity to review and comment on the proposed application. ITD and ACHD have both held several additional meetings to review and discuss the proposed application. Agency staffs continue to discuss what “appropriate” and “compatible” site design and traffic patterns entail. Staff recommends the Commission and Council consider any additional comments or conditions that are provided by ACHD, ITD or COMPASS.  “Provide housing options close to employment and shopping centers.” (3.07.02D) The proposed project would provide additional shopping opportunities for existing and future residents. However, staff is concerned that the concept plan does not provide any pedestrian connections between residential and commercial uses; therefore, staff recommends pedestrian connections are provided. The proposed location is not within a current designated employment area.  “Protect existing residential properties from incompatible land use development on adjacent parcels.” (3.06.01F) There are no existing residential properties that abut this site; the closest residential properties are separated from the site by collector and arterial roadways and associated street buffers. The applicant’s narrative states that no deliveries will take place between the hours of 10:00 pm and 5:00 am; commercial truck deliveries will be restricted away from residential uses; and site lighting will be reduced within one hour of closing and lighting will be designed so that it is 0.0 foot candles at property lines. Note: Many letters of testimony have been received by the City from adjacent property owners in response to the proposed development. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 159 of 227 Lost Rapids – CPAM, AZ, PP, VAR H-2018-0004 PAGE 7  “Plan for and encourage services like health care, daycare, grocery stores and recreational areas to be built within walking distance of residential dwellings.” (2.01.01C) The proposed Costco Wholesale store will provide grocery as well as other household products in close proximity to residential dwellings; however, the concept plan does not take into account any pedestrian or vehicular interconnectivity between the residential and commercial portions of the development. The plan should be revised to provide for interconnectivity between the uses.  “Work with transportation agencies and private property owners to preserve transportation corridors, future transit routes and infrastructure, road and highway extensions, and to facilitate access management planning.” (3.01.01J) City Staff has been coordinating with both the applicant and the transportation agencies (ACHD and ITD) on this project. The proposed project will preserve right-of-way for future US Highway 20/26 widening projects. The applicant is in the process of entering into a STAR agreement with ITD to make some off-site improvements to US 20/26. These improvements would widen the highway to 4-travel lanes and improve impacted intersections in conjunction with ITD’s project to widen the corridor from Eagle Road. The Commission and Council should consider ACHD’s and ITD’s comments when determining appropriate access and circulation for this site. The City has policies limiting access points to arterial roadways and State highways. The submitted site plan shows two direct access points to a State Highway, including one full access, and one access point to Ten Mile Road, an arterial street. Every additional access is a point of conflict that can impact roadway functionality. Costco stores can be busy and congestion at facilities in both Boise and Nampa spill over onto adjacent roadways (none of which are State facilities). Traffic waiting to exit the site at the signal on Cole Road at the Boise facility backs up to the point of blocking vehicles from exiting parking stalls. This slows vehicles entering the site. Staff recommends that site access be designed to prioritize and encourage access from Ten Mile and Lost Rapids, rather than a State facility.  “Support land uses that do not harm natural systems and resources.” (3.06.01H) The existing land is farmed and there are no natural systems which remain to be protected.  “Except in North Meridian and the Ten Mile Specific Area, where a specific collector system is planned, realize continuous collectors at regular intervals around the north-south and east- west half-mile lines within the undeveloped sections of Meridian's Area of City Impact at the time of new development. Such collectors should be the primary designated bike lane routes in lieu of arterial streets, whenever possible.” (3.03.03E) Lost Rapids is an existing collector roadway that connects into Tree Farm Way to the north, across US 20-26/Chinden Blvd, and extends to the east across Ten Mile Rd into Lochsa Falls Subdivision.  “Require pedestrian access connectors in all new development to link subdivisions together to promote neighborhood connectivity as part of a community pathway system.” (3.03.03B) There are no pedestrian walkways depicted on the concept plan for interconnectivity between the commercial site and the residential portions of the site; the plan should be revised to include pedestrian access connectors.  “Reduce the number of existing access points onto arterial streets by using methods such as cross-access agreements, access management, and frontage/backage roads.” (3.03.02N) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 160 of 227 Lost Rapids – CPAM, AZ, PP, VAR H-2018-0004 PAGE 8 There is only one existing farm access road which bisects the existing farm fields, half-way between Ten Mile Road and Lost Rapids Drive. There are no existing public access points on either the State facility or Ten Mile Road. The entire property has access from an improved collector roadway to the west and south of the site which may act and function as a backage road.  “Identify transitional areas to buffer commercial and residential uses, to allow uses such as offices and other low intensity uses.” (3.05.03A) The proposed concept plan does not depict any transitional areas other than landscaping to buffer the residential and commercial uses. The Costco building (and loading area), the most intense commercial use on the site, directly abuts the single-family residential portion of the site. The lower intensity commercial uses (i.e. office and retail pads) are proposed on the periphery of the development adjacent to US 20-26/Chinden Blvd. and N. Ten Mile Rd. instead of as a buffer between the residential and higher intense commercial use (see Exhibit A.3). Staff recommends the concept plan is revised to provide transitional areas as noted, specifically between the Costco building and single-family residential area. The high-density residential area as well as the street buffer and collector street (W. Lost Rapids Dr.) does buffer impacts from the Costco site on the adjacent future single-family residential properties to the south of Lost Rapids.  “Coordinate with public works, police, and fire departments on proposed annexation and development requests, and the impacts on services.” (3.04.01H) Public Works, Police, and Fire were all invited to pre-application and project review meetings for this project. Their comments and conditions, if provided, are included in Exhibit B of this report.  “Plan for a variety of commercial and retail opportunities within the Area of City Impact.” (3.05.01J) This area is planned for some commercial uses and the proposed site plan would expand resident and stakeholder access to closer commercial and retail opportunities.  “Minimize noise, odor, air pollution, and visual pollution in industrial and commercial development adjacent to residential areas.” (3.06.01B) The proposed Master Plan included in Exhibit A.3 depicts dense landscaping to buffer the abutting residential uses from the commercial uses.  “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.  “Evaluate comprehensive impact of growth in all land use decisions (e.g., traffic impacts, school enrollment, parks, etc).” (3.01.01B) ACHD was provided with a traffic impact study and has included analysis in their report. The application was forwarded on to partner agencies and other City Departments for analysis of impacts to services; some of their comments are included in Exhibit B.  “Adopt land use designations that will allow for housing opportunities for all income levels. (3.07.01D) The adopted future land use designations allow for a variety of housing types that may be attractive to all income levels. The applicant is proposing to annex and zone portions of the Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 161 of 227 Lost Rapids – CPAM, AZ, PP, VAR H-2018-0004 PAGE 9 site as R-15 (Medium-high Density Residential) and R-40 (High Density Residential).The proposed residential is within the specified area and range described in the Comprehensive Plan, but the overall concept plan lacks many of the mixed use elements necessary for it to be integrated successfully as a mixed use project. See the General Mixed Use text analysis below.  “Consider the adopted COMPASS regional long-range transportation plan in all land-use decisions.” (3.03.02G) The Communities in Motion (CIM) 2040 Plan identifies US 20/26 as a priority corridor with a typology of expressway. It is currently listed as an “unfunded” priority, though some early improvements are pending. The following is a summary from the CIM US 20/26 Priority Corridor Summary. “As a major mobility highway, US 20/26 is experiencing congestion along much of its length but especially between Linder Road and State Highway 55 (Eagle Road), a stretch with only two travel lanes. US 20/26 has been a regional priority for a number of years but it remains unfunded, causing traffic to divert to other routes such as McMillan Road. In addition to high traffic levels on this road, the intersection with State Highway 55 (Eagle Road) is ranked #2 on ITD’s list of high-accident locations. By 2040, daily traffic between Middleton Road and State Highway 55 is expected to increase substantially. o From Middleton Road to Star Road, traffic is projected to more than double, from 12,000 in 2013 to 30,000 in 2040. o From Star Road to Linder Road, traffic is projected to double, from 14,000 in 2013 to 28,000 in 2040.  This would be similar to current traffic on US 20/26 (Chinden Boulevard) in Garden City. o From Linder Road to State Highway 55 (Eagle Road), traffic is projected to increase 80%, from 21,000 in 2013 to 38,000 in 2040.  This would be similar to current traffic on Eagle Road north of US 20/26. o Rush hour driving time between Middleton Road and Glenwood Street is expected to more than double, from 25 minutes in 2013 to 60 minutes in 2040.”  “Consider ACHD’s Master Street Map (MSM) in all land use decisions.” (3.03.04K) With the exception of Chinden Blvd (which is an ITD facility), the arterial and collector roadways shown on ACHD’s street map are already improved or scheduled for widening.  “Protect citizen investments in existing public facilities (water, sewer, streets, fire, police, etc.) by encouraging controlled growth through development application reviews and development agreements.” (3.04.01G) The proposed project is surrounded by urban development and would be well served by the City. To ensure public infrastructure is adequate to serve the development and control the timing for said improvements, staff recommends that a development agreement be required with annexation of the project.  “Evaluate development proposals based on physical, social, economic, environmental, and aesthetic criteria.” (3.01.01G) The proposed site plan indicates large landscape buffers and generally appealing architectural designs. Off-site impacts such as trucks and lighting are described or shown as being reduced, and the high density residential is on a major transportation corridor. However, it is unclear how the proposed site development furthers inclusive mixed use design elements, or how the proposed FLUM designation and site plan is better for the Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 162 of 227 Lost Rapids – CPAM, AZ, PP, VAR H-2018-0004 PAGE 10 neighbors and City than a development with more neighborhood and community accessible services.  “Restrict private curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets” (3.06.02D) The proposed concept plan and application requests one direct access via N. Ten Mile Road, an arterial street, located approximately half-way between W. Lost Rapids Dr., a collector street, and Chinden Blvd, a State highway and a mobility corridor. Another access is proposed via W. Lost Rapids Dr. along the southern boundary of the site. Local street access is not available for this site.  “Locate small-scale neighborhood commercial areas within planned residential developments as part of the development plan.” (3.05.01E) Future and existing residential areas are located on the backside of Costco, with the small- scale neighborhood serving type pad sites generally located furthest from existing and proposed neighborhoods. This layout is inconsistent with the intent of Mixed Use designation, Figure 3-5, and the purpose of backage and collector type roadways.  “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.” (3.07.02L) The proposed high-density residential is near two parks (Keith Bird Legacy and Heroes’ Park) and a major access thoroughfare (US 20-26).  “Provide for a wide diversity of housing types (single-family and multi-family arrangements) and choices between ownership and rental dwelling units for all income groups in a variety of locations suitable for residential development.” (3.07.03B) The proposed site plan would add to Meridian’s diversity of housing with medium and high density residential uses in close proximity to a major transportation corridor. Staff is unaware if the units will be owner occupied or rentals.  “Integrate land use and transportation planning to ensure that they mutually support the communities' goals and desires.” (7.01.01F) City and transportation agencies have met multiple times to discuss the subject project. With some changes to the proposal, staff believes the project could support the communities’ goals and desires.  “Coordinate with transportation agencies to ensure provision of services and transit development.” (6.02.02H) The applicant should coordinate with Valley Regional Transit to determine if an ADA bus stop is needed at this location. In reviewing development applications, the following items will be considered in all Mixed Use areas: (Staff’s analysis in italics) • Residential densities should be a minimum of six dwellings/acre. A gross density of 5 to 8 units per acre is anticipated to develop in the R-15 area with 18 to 24 units per acre in the R-40 area. • Where feasible, higher density and/or multi-family residential development will be encouraged, especially for projects with the potential to serve as employment destination centers and when the project is adjacent to US 20/26, SH-55, SH-16 or SH-69. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 163 of 227 Lost Rapids – CPAM, AZ, PP, VAR H-2018-0004 PAGE 11 A mix of mostly single-story attached and detached units are proposed to the west of the commercial area between the collector street (i.e. N. Tree Farm Way/W. Lost Rapids Dr.) and US 20-26/W. Chinden Blvd.; and 2-story townhome style and 3-story garden style apartments are proposed to the south of the commercial area adjacent to the collector street. While this project is adjacent to US 20-26, it is not an “employment center”; Costco is the only store with a regional draw to the development. An employment center in this general area is contemplated for the property located near the northwest corner of W. McMillan and N. Ten Mile Roads; a half-mile south of the proposed development. • A conceptual site plan for the entire mixed-use area should be included in the application. A concept plan was submitted for the entire site with this application; however, the plan does not demonstrate consistency with development goals and objectives of the MU-R designation as submitted. Staff has included recommendations for revisions to the plan that would be consistent with the MU-R designation in Exhibit B as discussed below in Section IX. • In developments where multiple commercial and/or office buildings are proposed (not residential), the buildings should be arranged to create some form of common, usable area, such as a plaza or green space. The concept plan for the commercial area does not include any form of common area. Staff recommends the plan is revised to incorporate common usable area within the commercial portion of the development as noted. • The site plan should depict a transitional use and/or landscaped buffering between commercial and existing low- or medium-density residential development. There is no existing residential development directly adjacent to the commercial portion of the site. However, single-family and multi-family residential uses are proposed directly adjacent to the commercial portion of the development to the west and south. A dense landscape buffer with berms is depicted on the Master Plan between the uses and is required (see Exhibit A.3). • A mixed-use project should include at least three types of land uses [i.e. commercial (includes retail, restaurants, etc.), office, residential, civic (includes public open space, parks, entertainment venues, etc.), and industrial]. Exceptions may be granted for smaller sites on a case-by-case basis. The proposed concept plan depicts a Costco, future commercial subdivision and two types of residential uses. The application narrative states office uses are part of the development plan but does not specify which lots/pads will contain those uses. A mix of at least three types of land uses is required to be provided. • Community-serving facilities such as hospitals, churches, schools, parks, daycares, civic buildings, or public safety facilities are expected in larger mixed-use developments. None of these types of uses are proposed within this development; however, several of these uses exist in close proximity to this site, as follows: a 7.5 acre City Park (Keith Bird) exists directly across the street (W. Lost Rapids Dr.) to the south; another City Park (Hero’s) exists to the southeast kitty corner to this site across Ten Mile Rd.; schools exists a ½ mile to the east at the southwest corner of Chinden Blvd. and N. Long Lake Way and on Everest Ln., east of Long Lake Way; a fire station exists approximately 2 miles to the south on Ten Mile Rd.; a church exists directly to the south at the southwest corner of Lost Rapids Dr. & Ten Mile Rd.; and an assisted living facility exists 1.5 mile to the east on Chinden Blvd. While these uses/facilities are near the site, they are not integrated into the proposed development as desired. All required open space and amenities are centralized within their Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 164 of 227 Lost Rapids – CPAM, AZ, PP, VAR H-2018-0004 PAGE 12 respective developments (i.e. the single-family and multi-family portions) without any shared facilities nearer to or within the commercial area. • Supportive and proportional public and/or quasi-public spaces and places including but not limited to parks, plazas, outdoor gathering areas, open space, libraries, and schools are expected; outdoor seating areas at restaurants do not count. The concept plan does not depict any public and/or quasi-public spaces/places within this development. Staff recommends the plan is revised accordingly to include public and/or quasi-public spaces/places within the development. • All mixed-use projects should be directly accessible to neighborhoods within the section by both vehicles and pedestrians. The overall site is separated from adjacent developments by public streets (i.e. US 20- 26/Chinden, N. Ten Mile Rd., and W. Lost Rapids Dr.) that will provide access to the development. There is no interconnectivity, vehicular or pedestrian, proposed between the single-family residential, multi-family residential and the commercial portions of the site. Staff recommends the plan is revised to include some form of interconnectivity between the residential and commercial portions of the site. • Street sections consistent with the Ada County Highway District Master Street Map are required within the Unified Development Code. There is an existing collector street (W. Lost Rapids Dr.) that runs along the southern boundary of the site consistent with the Master Street Map; no other streets are depicted on the Map for this site. In reviewing development applications, the following items will be considered in MU-R areas: • Development should generally comply with the general guidelines for development in all Mixed-Use areas. See analysis above. • Residential uses should comprise a minimum of 10% of the development area at densities ranging from 6 to 40 units/acre. The concept plan depicts 58% (45.5 acres) of the total project area with residential uses. Densities in the single-family portion of the development are anticipated to range from 5- to 8-units/acre with densities in the multi-family portion ranging from 18- to 24-units/acre. • Retail commercial uses should comprise a maximum of 50% of the development area. Retail, commercial and office uses are proposed to comprise 42% (or 32.83 acres) of the development area per the concept plan included in Exhibit A.3 and the applicant’s narrative; therefore, the retail portion alone will be under 50%. • There is neither a minimum nor maximum imposed on non-retail commercial uses such as office, clean industry, or entertainment users. There are no clean industry or entertainment users proposed at this time; this provision is noted for the office uses.  Where the development proposes public and quasi-public uses to support the development, the developer may be eligible for additional area for retail development (beyond the allowed 50%) as provided for on Pg. 31 of the Comprehensive Plan. The concept plan does not include any public and/or quasi-public uses to support the development nor is it discussed in the applicant’s narrative. Staff recommends the plan is Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 165 of 227 Lost Rapids – CPAM, AZ, PP, VAR H-2018-0004 PAGE 13 revised to include public/quasi-public uses as desired in mixed use and MU-R designated areas. VIII. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE (UDC) A. Purpose Statement of Zoning District(s): 1. The purpose of the residential districts is to provide for a range of housing opportunities consistent with the Meridian comprehensive plan. Residential districts are distinguished by the dimensional standards of the corresponding zone and housing types that can be accommodated (UDC 11-2A-1). 2. The purpose of the commercial districts is to provide for the retail and service needs of the community in accordance with the Meridian comprehensive plan. Six (6) districts are designated which differ in the size and scale of commercial structures accommodated in the district, the scale and mix of allowed commercial uses, and the location of the district in proximity to streets and highways (UDC 11-2B-1). Allowed uses in the C-G district are of the largest scale and broadest mix of retail, office, service and light industrial uses and are usually located in close proximity and/or with access to interstate or arterial intersections. B. Schedule of Use: 1. UDC Table 11-2A-7 lists the principal permitted (P), accessory (A), conditional (C), and prohibited (-) uses in the R-15 zoning district. Any use not explicitly listed is prohibited. 2. UDC Table 11-2A-8 lists the principal permitted (P), accessory (A), conditional (C), and prohibited (-) uses in the R-40 zoning district. Any use not explicitly listed is prohibited. 3. UDC Table 11-2B-2 lists the principal permitted (P), accessory (A), conditional (C), and prohibited (-) uses in the C-G zoning district. Any use not explicitly listed is prohibited. C. Dimensional Standards: Development of the site should be consistent with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-7 for the R-15 zoning district; UDC Table 11-2A-8 for the R-40 zoning district; and 11-2B-3 for the C-G zoning district. D. Landscaping: Landscaping is required within street buffers in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. E. Off-Street Parking: NA (not required or reviewed with the subject application) IX. ANALYSIS Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation: NOTE: A LOT of public testimony has been received in response to this application; please see the public record. A. Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment (CPAM): (Applies to the overall site) An amendment to the Future Land Use Map contained in the Comprehensive Plan is proposed to change the land use designation on a combined 78.33 acres of land from the Medium Density Residential (MDR) (61.83 acres) and the Mixed Use – Community (MU-C) (16.50 acres) to Mixed Use – Regional (MU-R) is requested (see Section VII above and Exhibit A.2). While the property is proposed to be designated entirely MU-R, the concept plan shows two, if not three, distinct separate projects as follows: medium density residential in accord with the current FLUM on the western portion of the site; commercial on the northern portion of the site; and high density residential on the southern portion of the site. There is no pedestrian Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 166 of 227 Lost Rapids – CPAM, AZ, PP, VAR H-2018-0004 PAGE 14 connectivity between any of these projects and only a driveway access is proposed along the east side of the multi-family project to/from the commercial property via the collector street (W. Lost Rapids Dr.). No integration is shown between the commercial and residential uses, which essentially creates a predominantly single-use development with Costco as the primary anchor with smaller commercial/office uses and separate residential areas, which is not the intent of the MU-R designation. The MU-R diagram in Section VII above depicts a big box retail store transitioning to high density residential or office uses, a local/collector street and then single-family residential uses. This provides a buffer spatially as well as use-wise between the higher intense commercial uses and medium density (single-family) residential uses. The proposed concept plan depicts the most intense commercial use (i.e. the 168,652 square foot Costco building) directly abutting single- family homes with only landscaping as a buffer, which is not a transition in uses and is not consistent with the MU-R designation. The fuel sales facility associated with Costco is proposed at the Chinden/Ten Mile intersection, an entryway corridor into the City, at the northeast corner of the development. Due to the lack of access in the corner of the development, Staff is concerned this will create traffic conflicts and congestion and possibly blockage of drive aisles in and out of the facility at this location. Additionally, staff would like to see a beautification effort in the form of a landscaped design/entryway feature at the corner of the site due to it being an entryway corridor into the City. Traffic circulation within the site as well as entering/exiting the site via Lost Rapids is also likely to be a problem. The driveway access via Lost Rapids leading to/from the commercial portion of the development is only 330’+/- from the centerline of the Ten Mile/Lost Rapids intersection, which will likely create conflicts with vehicles trying to merge into traffic on Lost Rapids with vehicles waiting to get onto Ten Mile at the future signal. The application does not clearly indicate why the City would be better served by an MU-R instead of an MU-C development in this area, other than that the size of the Costco building isn’t allowed in the MU-C designation; or why this project can’t be located within an area already designated MU-R such as closer to the SH-16/US 20-26 intersection. Although the application demonstrates that north Meridian (and all of northern Ada and Canyon counties) is “underserved” and distant from existing Costco sites in Nampa and Boise, it doesn’t explain how the community would be better served by a regional project than a community sized project as currently envisioned for this area. By proposing a Costco with unique traffic and circulation patterns on a smaller commercial portion of a mixed use designated site, connectivity and integration requirements are difficult. To address the above-noted concerns, Staff recommends significant changes are made to the concept plan in order for the development to be consistent with the requested MU-R designation, as follows:  Rearrange the site layout so that there is a transition in intensity of uses [e.g. single- family attached/detached residential to multi-family residential to commercial/retail/office to the most intense commercial (i.e. Costco)]. Most intense commercial uses should be located adjacent to the state highway (US 20-26/Chinden) and arterial street (Ten Mile), rather than abutting residential areas, especially low-density residential areas.  Shift the fuel sales facility off the corner to the south near the driveway via Ten Mile Rd.; or, to the west near one of the driveways via US 20-26/Chinden Blvd. (if the driveway(s) are approved by Council and ITD). Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 167 of 227 Lost Rapids – CPAM, AZ, PP, VAR H-2018-0004 PAGE 15  Include a landscaped design/entryway feature at the northeast corner of the site adjacent to the US 20-26/Ten Mile intersection for beautification purposes at the City’s entryway corridor.  Shift the driveway access to/from the site via Lost Rapids further to the west away from the Ten Mile/Lost Rapids intersection to alleviate traffic congestion at the intersection.  Integrate the commercial with the residential portions of the development through the provision of pathways and/or vehicular connections and changes to the site layout that may include re-positioning of buildings so that the rears of buildings aren’t facing abutting uses.  In the commercial/office portion of the development, the buildings should be arranged to create some form of common, usable area, such as a plaza or green space.  Include supportive and proportional public and/or quasi-public spaces and places as desired in MU-R designated areas (see Comprehensive Plan, page 28).  Site access should be designed to prioritize and encourage access from Ten Mile and Lost Rapids, rather than a State facility (i.e. US 20-26).  A pedestrian circulation plan should be submitted demonstrating pedestrian interconnectivity within the overall site. Without these changes, staff is of the opinion the proposed development is more consistent with the Commercial (which includes multi-family residential) and existing Medium Density Residential designations than the proposed Mixed Use - Regional designation and should be designated accordingly (see Commercial in the Comprehensive Plan, pages 21-22 for more information). B. Annexation & Zoning (AZ): (Applies to the overall site) Annexation and zoning of 78.33 acres of land with R-15 (39.01 acres), R-40 (6.50 acres), and C- G (32.83 acres) zoning districts is requested consistent with the proposed MU-R FLUM designation. The legal description submitted with the application, included in Exhibit C, shows the boundaries of the property proposed to be annexed and zoned. The property is contiguous to land that has been annexed into the City and is within the Area of City Impact boundary. Conceptual Development Plan: The applicant has submitted a conceptual development plan, included in Exhibit A.3, which depicts a 168,652 square foot big box (Costco Wholesale) interior to the development; a fuel sales facility at the northeast corner of the site at the intersection of N. Ten Mile Rd. and US 20-26/W. Chinden Blvd.); (10) future commercial, retail, restaurant, professional and office pads located at the northeast corner of the site adjacent to US 20-26/W. Chinden Blvd. and N. Ten Mile Rd.; (6) townhouse-style multi-family structures containing 49+/- units, (3) garden-style multi-family structures containing 60+/- units, and a clubhouse and swimming pool at the southeast boundary of the site adjacent to W. Lost Rapids Dr., south of the Costco site; and single-family attached and detached age-qualified units on the western portion of the site. Conceptual Building Elevations: Conceptual building elevations (photos and renderings) were submitted that depict the general style of development proposed for the single-family attached and detached, multi-family and commercial structures as shown in Exhibit A.7. Except for the Costco Wholesale building, the end-users in the commercial portion of the development are not known at this time; therefore, detailed building elevations will be submitted Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 168 of 227 Lost Rapids – CPAM, AZ, PP, VAR H-2018-0004 PAGE 16 in the future as each building develops and be reviewed through the design review process. As noted above in Section VII, non-residential buildings should be proportional to and blend in with adjacent residential buildings; f uture building elevations submitted for design review should demonstrate compliance with this requirement. All structures, except single-family residential detached homes, are required to comply with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and in the Architectural Standards Manual. To ensure compliance, a design Review application is required to be submitted to the Planning Division and approved prior to application for building permits. None of the proposed concept elevations are approved with this application. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance application is also required to be submitted and approved for all new uses on the site, except for single-family residential detached homes, to ensure the use and site design is consistent with UDC standards. The City may require a development agreement (DA) in conjunction with an annexation pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A. To ensure the site develops as proposed and recommended by staff with this application and in accord with the Comprehensive Plan, staff recommends a DA is required with the annexation containing the provisions included in Exhibit B. Because there are to be two different property owners/developers for this site, staff recommends two separate DA’s are required that contain provisions for each portion of the development area. C. Preliminary Plat (PP): (Only applies to the C-G and R-40 zoned portion of the site – the single- family residential portion of the site is not proposed to be platted at this time.) NOTE: if the concept plan is revised per staff’s recommendation above, this will require modifications to the plat to coincide with the concept plan. The applicant proposes a preliminary plat consisting of (1) residential building lot, (13) commercial building lots, and (1) other lot for dedication of right-of-way on 36.2 acres of land in the proposed R-40 and C-G zoning districts. Although ultimate build-out of this project will be market-driven, the applicant intends to plat the subdivision in one phase. Commercial, retail and office uses are proposed to develop within the C-G zoned portion of the site adjacent to US 20-26/W. Chinden Blvd. and N. Ten Mile Road; housing within the R-40 zoned portion of the site adjacent to W. Lost Rapids Dr. is proposed to consist of townhome and garden style multi-family units with expected densities between 20 and 24 units per acre. The applicant requests that they be allowed two (2) building permits for the construction of the Costco store and fuel sales facility prior to recordation of the subdivision plat. Staff is amenable to this request. Existing Structures: There are no existing structures on this site. Dimensional Standards: The proposed plat and subsequent development is required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Tables 11-2B-3 for the C-G zoning district and 11- 2A-8 for the R-40 zoning district. Staff has reviewed the proposed plat and finds that all of the proposed lots comply with the minimum standards. The maximum building height is 65 feet in the C-G district; and 60 feet in the R-40 district. Access: Access to streets is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-3 and 11- 3H-4. Access is proposed as discussed in Section VII above per the concept plan in Exhibit A.3. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 169 of 227 Lost Rapids – CPAM, AZ, PP, VAR H-2018-0004 PAGE 17 The UDC requires access to be taken from a local street when available; however, there is no local street access available to this site. One (1) access is proposed via N. Ten Mile Rd., an arterial street between Lost Rapids and Chinden Blvd.; two (2) accesses are proposed via US 20- 26/W. Chinden Blvd., a state highway; and two (2) accesses are proposed via Lost Rapids Dr., a collector street. New approaches directly accessing a state highway are prohibited; the applicant requests a variance to this standard (see analysis below in Section D). The applicant’s narrative states that primary service access for Costco delivery trucks and other local vendors will be from the driveway access via Ten Mile Road. A driveway via Lost Rapids Dr. is also available when access via the traffic signal at Ten Mile/Lost Rapids is needed. A self- imposed restriction is proposed by the applicant for a “no thru truck traffic” sign to be installed between the Tree Farm Way intersection and the Lost Rapids Dr. service driveway access. A cross-access/ingress-egress easement and driveways are required to be provided between all of the proposed lots in the subdivision and should be depicted on the plat. Improvements to US 20-26/Chinden Blvd. and Ten Mile Road are planned as follows:  Phase 1: Chinden is to be widened to 4 lanes with signal/intersection upgrades from Tree Farm to Linder (1.5 miles); Ten Mile widened to 4 lanes from Chinden to Walmart (0.80 of a mile); and signals at Black Cat Rd. and Lost Rapids Dr. prior to Costco opening.  Phase 2: Chinden widened to 4 lanes from Tree Farm to SH 16 (1.44 miles) within 2 years of Costco opening. In addition, Costco and the other commercial uses and residential units will pay impact fees in excess of $2 million to ACHD for local street system improvements. The street sections on Sheet C2.0 of the plat included in Exhibit A.4 depict Chinden widened to 4 travel lanes with 2 turn lanes within 140 feet of right-of-way; and N. Ten Mile Road widened to 5 lanes. Traffic Impact Study (TIS): A TIS was prepared for this development and submitted to ITD and ACHD for review with this application. Staff has not yet received comments from ACHD on this application. A letter was received from ITD in response to the TIS, included in Exhibit B.9. The letter states that the westernmost access via US 20-26 (1,160’ west of the US 20-26/Ten Mile intersection) will be allowed as a temporary right-in/right-out/left-in until such time as the highway is widened to 3 lanes in the eastbound direction, then, if not before, it will be limited to right-in/right-out; a 550’ long deceleration lane will be required. The driveway nearest the intersection (545’ east of the previous access and 615’ west of the intersection) will be allowed as a right-in/right-out; a 550’ long deceleration lane (including taper) is required, however, due to the distance restriction between accesses, ITD may allow for a 10% decrease of the standard requirement. Landscaping: Landscaping is required to be provided with development in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B. Street buffers are required to be provided along all streets as set forth in UDC Table 11-2B-3 and landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. A 35-foot wide street buffer is required along both US 20-26/W. Chinden Blvd. and N. Ten Mile Rd., both entryway corridors; and a 20- foot wide street buffer is required along W. Lost Rapids Dr., a collector street. Staff recommends the entire street buffer and pathway/sidewalk along N. Ten Mile Road and SH 20-26/W. Chinden Blvd. for the subdivision is constructed with the first phase of development. All commercial street buffers are required to be on a common lot or on a permanent dedicated buffer, maintained by the property owner or business owners’ association. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 170 of 227 Lost Rapids – CPAM, AZ, PP, VAR H-2018-0004 PAGE 18 All residential street buffers are required to be on a common lot maintained by a homeowner’s association. A 25-foot wide buffer to residential uses is required to be provided with development on the C-G zoned portion of the site in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-9C. The concept plan depicts a buffer with dense landscaping between the commercial and residential portions of the site. The buffers should facilitate pedestrian access from the residential to the commercial development in accord with UDC 11-3B-9C.3. Parking lot landscaping will be required internally within the site in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C with development. Note: Landscaping associated with internal parking areas and residential common areas will be reviewed with future subdivision, Conditional Use Permit and/or Certificate of Zoning Compliance applications; these areas should be shown on the plan in a lighter line type. Open Space & Site Amenities: Qualified open space and site amenities are required to be provided in the multi-family (R-40 zoned) portion of the development (Lot 1, Block 1) in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3 and 11-4-3-27C & D. A conditional use permit is required to be submitted for approval of the multi-family development in the R-40 district; compliance with these standards will be evaluated at that time. Sidewalks: Sidewalks are required to be provided with development in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17. Detached sidewalks are required along N. Ten Mile Rd. & US 20-26/W. Chinden Blvd., both arterial streets; and along W. Lost Rapids Dr., a collector Street. Pathways: The UDC (11-3H-4C.4) requires a 10-foot wide multi-use pathway to be constructed in a public use easement within the street buffer along the frontage of this site on US 20-26/W. Chinden Blvd. The applicant should coordinate with Kim Warren, Park’s Department Pathways Project Manager (208-888-3579), regarding specifications for the pathway and the public use easement; the easement should be submitted to the Planning Division prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. The pathway along US 20-26/W. Chinden Blvd. satisfies the requirement for a detached sidewalk. Waterways: There are no major waterways that cross this site. All ditches that cross this site should be piped as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6. Fencing: All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. Utilities: Street lights are required to be installed along public streets adjacent to the development in accord with the City’s adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. All development is required to connect to the City water and sewer system unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. Adequate fire protection shall be required in accord with the appropriate fire district standards. Pressurized Irrigation: An underground pressurized irrigation system is required to be provided for the development in accord with UDC 11-3A-15 as proposed and will be served by Settler’s Irrigation district. Storm Drainage: An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments in accord with the City’s adopted standards, specifications, and ordinances, per UDC 11-3A-18. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 171 of 227 Lost Rapids – CPAM, AZ, PP, VAR H-2018-0004 PAGE 19 D. Variance (VAR): (Only applies to the C-G zoned portion of the site adjacent to US 20-26/W. Chinden Blvd.) The applicant requests a variance to UDC 11-3H-4B.2, which prohibits new approaches directly accessing a state highway (i.e. SH 20/26). The applicant requests approval of (2) accesses via US 20-26 as shown on the preliminary plat included in Exhibit A.4. A letter received from ITD dated October 18, 2017, included in Exhibit B, states that they will allow the two (2) proposed accesses via SH 20-26 with the improvements and spacing outlined in the letter. The UDC (11-5B-4) allows requests for a variance for the placement and/or number of access points to state highways. In order to grant a variance, the Council is required to make 3 findings: 1) the variance can’t grant a right or special privilege that isn’t otherwise allowed in the district; 2) the variance relieves an undue hardship because of characteristics of the site; and 3) the variance can’t be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare (see Exhibit D). Because staff can’t make all of the required findings listed in Exhibit D, staff is recommending denial of the proposed variance application. In summary, Staff recommends approval of the proposed CPAM and AZ applications with the requirement of a development agreement(s) that includes the provisions listed in Exhibit B with revisions to the concept plan consistent with the MU-R designation; approval of the PP application with the conditions contained in Exhibit B; and denial of the VAR application in accord with the Findings in Exhibit D. X. EXHIBITS A. Drawings/Other 1. Vicinity/Zoning Map 2. Existing & Proposed Future Land Use Map 3. Overall Conceptual Development Plan (dated: 1/12/2018) & Master Plan 4. Preliminary Plat (dated: 1/12/2018) 5. Landscape Plan (dated: 1/12/2018) 6. Conceptual Site Plan for Multi-Family Residential & 7. Conceptual Building Elevations (Photos & Renderings) B. Agency and Department Comments and Conditions C. Legal Description & Exhibit Map for Annexation & Zoning Boundary D. Required Findings from Unified Development Code Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 172 of 227 - 2 - A. Drawings/Other Exhibit A.1: Vicinity/Zoning Map Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 173 of 227 - 3 - Exhibit A.2: Existing & Proposed Future Land Use Map Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 174 of 227 - 4 - Exhibit A.3: Overall Conceptual Development Plan (dated: 1/12/2018) & Master Plan Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 175 of 227 - 5 - Exhibit A.4: Preliminary Plat (dated: 1/12/18) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 176 of 227 - 6 - Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 177 of 227 - 7 - Exhibit A.5: Landscape Plan (dated: 1/12/018) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 178 of 227 - 8 - Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 179 of 227 - 9 - Exhibit A.6: Conceptual Site Plan for Multi-Family Development (dated: 9/5/2017) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 180 of 227 - 10 - Exhibit A.7: Conceptual Building Elevations (Photos & Renderings) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 181 of 227 - 11 - Single-Family Attached/Detached Units: Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 182 of 227 - 12 - Commercial: Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 183 of 227 - 13 - Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 184 of 227 - 14 - Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 185 of 227 - 15 - B. EXHIBIT B - AGENCY AND DEPARTMENT COMMENTS AND CONDITIONS 1. PLANNING DEPARTMENT Staff recommends the conceptual development plans in Exhibit A.3 & A.6 are revised prior to Commission action on this application to address inconsistencies with development in the MU-R designation as discussed in Sections VII and IX above, as follows: a. Rearrange the site layout so that there is a transition in intensity of uses [e.g. single-family attached/detached residential to multi-family residential to commercial/retail/office to the most intense commercial (i.e. Costco)]. Most intense commercial uses should be located adjacent to the state highway (US 20-26/Chinden) and arterial street (Ten Mile), rather than abutting residential areas, especially low-density residential areas. b. Shift the fuel sales facility off the corner to the south near the driveway via Ten Mile Rd.; or, to the west near one of the driveways via US 20-26/Chinden Blvd. (if the driveway(s) are approved by Council and ITD). c. Include a landscaped design/entryway feature at the northeast corner of the site adjacent to the US 20- 26/Ten Mile intersection for beautification purposes at the City’s entryway corridor. d. Shift the driveway access to/from the site via Lost Rapids further to the west away from the Ten Mile/Lost Rapids intersection to alleviate traffic congestion at the intersection. e. Integrate the commercial with the residential portions of the development through the provision of pathways and/or vehicular connections and changes to the site layout that may include re-positioning of buildings so that the rears of buildings aren’t facing abutting uses. f. In the commercial/office portion of the development, the buildings should be arranged to create some form of common, usable area, such as a plaza or green space. g. Include supportive and proportional public and/or quasi-public spaces and places as desired in MU-R designated areas (see Comprehensive Plan, page 28). h. Site access should be designed to prioritize and encourage access from Ten Mile and Lost Rapids, rather than a State facility (i.e. US 20-26). i. A pedestrian circulation plan should be submitted demonstrating pedestrian interconnectivity within the overall site. 1.1 A Development Agreement (DA) is required as a provision of annexation of this property. Prior to the annexation ordinance approval, a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian, the property owner(s) at the time of annexation ordinance adoption, and the developer(s). Currently, a fee of $303.00 shall be paid by the applicant to the Planning Division prior to commencement of the DA(s). The DA(s) shall be signed by the property owner(s) and returned to the Planning Division within six (6) months of the City Council granting annexation. a. The DA for the property owned by Brighton Corporation (the R-15 zoned property) shall, at minimum, incorporate the following provisions: 1. Future development of this site shall substantially comply with the conceptual development plan and building elevations included in Exhibit A and the conditions included in Exhibit B of the staff report. 2. Future development shall comply with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and the City of Meridian Architectural Standards Manual. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 186 of 227 - 16 - 3. Noise abatement in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3H-4D shall be provided for residential uses adjoining US 20-26/W. Chinden Blvd. 4. Qualified open space and site amenities shall be provided within the development in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3 for residential developments. 5. Prior to issuance of any building permits on the subject property, the property shall be subdivided. 6. Prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy within this development, the road widening improvements required by the Idaho Transportation Department associated with this development shall be completed. b. The DA for the property owned by GFI – Meridian Investments II, LLC (the C-G and R-40 zoned property) shall, at minimum, incorporate the following provisions: 1. Future development of this site shall substantially comply with the conceptual development plan, preliminary plat, landscape plan and conceptual building elevations included in Exhibit A and the conditions contained herein. 2. Future development shall comply with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and the City of Meridian Architectural Standards Manual. 3. A mix of uses at least three types of land uses [i.e. commercial (includes retail, restaurants, etc.), office, residential, civic (includes public open space, parks, entertainment venues, etc.), and industrial] shall be provided within this development as proposed. Note: The medium density residential uses on the western portion of the development area included in a separate development agreement will count as one of the land use types (i.e. residential). 4. Up to two (2) building permits for the Costco Wholesale and associated fuel sales facility structures are allowed to be issued on the subject property prior to recordation of the subdivision plat. 5. Prior to issuance of any building permits on this site, a property boundary adjustment application shall be approved and a Record of Survey recorded for the reconfiguration of existing parcels to coincide with the boundary of the preliminary plat. 6. Provide a detached 10-foot wide multi-use pathway within the street buffer along US 20-26/W. Chinden Blvd. as set forth in UDC 11-3H-4C.4. A 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement is required to be submitted to the Planning Division prior to submittal of the final plat for City Engineer signature and will be subsequently approved by City Council and recorded. The applicant shall coordinate with Kim Warren, Park’s Department Pathways Project Manager (208- 888-3579), regarding specifications for the pathway and easement. 7. The street buffer landscaping and multi-use pathway/sidewalk along the entire frontage of US 20- 26/Chinden Blvd. and N. Ten Mile Road shall be constructed with the first phase of development. 8. Business hours of operation in the C-G zoning district are limited from 6:00 am to 11:00 pm when the property abuts a residential use or district; extended hours of operation may be requested through a conditional use permit as set forth in UDC 11-2B-3A.4. 9. Qualified open space and site amenities shall be provided within the multi-family portion of the development in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3 for residential developments and 11-4-3-27 for multi-family developments. 10. A conditional use permit is required for a multi-family development in the R-40 zoning district as set forth in UDC Table 11-2A-2; compliance with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4- 3-27, Multi-Family Development, is required. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 187 of 227 - 17 - 11. A buffer planted with dense landscaping consistent with the Master Plan in Exhibit A.3 is required on the commercial portion of the development to the residential uses as set forth in UDC Table 11-2B-3 in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-9C. 12. A maximum gross density of 24 residential units per acre is allowed to develop within the multi- family residential portion this site. 13. As committed to by the Applicant/Developer in response to neighborhood concerns, the following restrictions shall apply: a. The primary service access for Costco delivery trucks and other local vendors shall be from the driveway access via N. Ten Mile Road, approximately 660 feet north of W. Lost Rapids Drive. The driveway access via W. Lost Rapids Drive driveway, approximately 350 feet west of N. Ten Mile Road, may be used when access to the Lost Rapids/Ten Mile traffic signal is needed. Businesses within the development shall notify their delivery providers of this access preference. b. A “no thru truck traffic” sign shall be installed between the N. Tree Farm Way intersection and the W. Lost Rapids Dr. service driveway access. c. No deliveries shall take place for Costco between the hours of 10:00 pm and 5:00 am. d. Parking lot lighting shall be designed for 0.0 foot-candles at the property line in accord with UDC 11-3A-11C. e. Lighting on the site shall be reduced to the level necessary only for public safety and security purposes within one (1) hour of closing. 14. The Applicant/Developer shall coordinate with Valley Ride Transportation (VRT) to determine if an ADA bus stop is needed on this site; written documentation from VRT should be submitted. 15. Prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy within this development, the following improvements shall be completed: SH 20-26/W. Chinden Blvd. shall be widened to 4 lanes with signal/intersection upgrades from Tree Farm to Linder (1.5 miles); N. Ten Mile Rd. shall be widened to 4 lanes from Chinden to Walmart (0.80 of a mile); and signals shall be installed at N. Black Cat Rd. and W. Lost Rapids Dr. 16. Within two (2) years of issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the Costco Wholesale building, SH 20-26/W. Chinden Blvd. shall be widened to four (4) lanes from N. Tree Farm Way to SH-16 (1.44 miles). 1.2 Site Specific Conditions – Preliminary Plat 1.2.1 The preliminary plat included in Exhibit A.4, dated 1/12/2018, shall be revised as follows: a. Depict a cross-access/ingress-egress easement between all lots within the subdivision. b. Note #5: “Lot 14 15 is a non-buildable lot . . .” c. Under Preliminary Plat Data, Zoning, Proposed Zoning, C-G (Lots 2-1415) d. Depict the street buffers within the residential (R-40 zoned) portion of the development within a common lot maintained by the homeowner’s association; and the commercial (C-G zoned) portion of the development within a common lot or on a permanent dedicated buffer maintained by the property owner or business owners’ association in accord with UDC 11 -3B-7C.2. 1.2.2 The landscape plan included in Exhibit A.5, dated 1/12/2018, shall be revised as follows: a. All internal landscaping and the site plan should be shown in a lighter line type; only street buffer improvements should be shown. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 188 of 227 - 18 - 1.2.3 The entire street buffer and pathway/sidewalk along N. Ten Mile Road and US 20-26/W. Chinden Blvd. shall be constructed with the first phase of development. 1.2.4 The applicant shall coordinate with Valley Regional Transit to determine if an ADA bus stop is needed at this location. 1.2.5 All fencing shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. 1.3 General Conditions of Approval – Preliminary Plat 1.3.1 Comply with all bulk, use, and development standards of the applicable district listed in UDC Chapter 2 District regulations. 1.3.2 Comply with the provisions for irrigation ditches, laterals, canals and/or drainage courses, as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6. 1.3.3 Install lighting consistent with the provisions as set forth in UDC 11-3A-11. 1.3.4 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. 1.3.5 Comply with the sidewalk standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-17. 1.3.6 Install all utilities consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-21 and 11-3B-5J. 1.3.7 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. 1.3.8 Construct the required landscape buffers consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3B-7C (streets). 1.3.9 Construct storm water integration facilities that meet the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3B-11C. 1.3.10 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. 1.3.11 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. 1.3.12 Comply with the outdoor service and equipment area standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-12. 1.3.13 Construct all required landscape areas used for storm water integration consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3B-11C. 1.3.14 Comply with the structure and site design standards, as set forth in UDC 11-3A-19 and the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. 1.3.15 Comply with all provisions of UDC 11-3A-3 with regard to maintaining the clear vision triangle. 1.3.16 Low pressure sodium lighting shall be prohibited as an exterior lighting source on the site. 1.3.17 All fencing constructed on the site shall comply with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-7. 1.4 Ongoing Conditions of Approval – Preliminary Plat 1.4.1 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. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 189 of 227 - 19 - 1.5 Process Conditions of Approval – Preliminary Plat 1.5.1 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. 1.5.2 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 applications for the single-family attached, multi-family and commercial structures. 2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2.1 Site Specific Conditions of Approval 2.1.1 The 12-inch diameter water main in N. Ten Mile Road will need to be extended north to the point where it changes direction and enters the site. From that transition point into the site, the mainline size shall drop down to an 8-inch diameter. This project will be served from water pressure zone 2. The existing water mainline stub into the property west of the PRV located in W. Lost Rapids shall either be abandoned per meridian Public Works standards, or preserved as an emergency interconnect between pressure zone 1 and 2. 2.1.2 The conceptual engineering submitted with this application do not show any of the proposed routing of sanitary sewer or water through the multi-family portion of the development. Applicant shall be required to complete a looped system through the area to connect to the mainline along the back of Costco. 2.1.3 A street light plan will need to be included in the final plat and/or building permit application. 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 at http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272 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 12-13-8.3). 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 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 190 of 227 - 20 - 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. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 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 Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated, road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded, prior to applying for building permits. 2.2.10 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. 2.2.11 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. 2.2.12 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. 2.2.13 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features c omply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 2.2.14 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.2.15 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.2.16 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. 2.2.17 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. 2.2.18 The design 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. 2.2.19 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. 2.2.20 At the completion of the project, the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 191 of 227 - 21 - 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. 2.2.21 A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. 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 at http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272. 2.2.22 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. 2.2.23 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 3.1 Pedestrian connectivity should be provided between the residential developments and the commercial development. 3.2 Security and safety lighting should be provided within the multi-family portion of the development on all the micro pathways between the buildings and to the parking lots and open space/play areas. 3.3 The loading dock area for the Costco shall be screened for both sight and sound; or, enclosed. 4. FIRE DEPARTMENT 4.1 Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department in accordance with International Fire Code Section (IFC) 508.5.4 as follows: a. Fire hydrants shall have a Storz LDH connection in place of the the 4 ½” outlet. The Storz connection may be integrated into the hydrant or an approved adapter may be used on the 4 1/2" outlet. b. Fire hydrants shall have the Storz outlet face the main street or parking lot drive aisle. c. Fire hydrants shall be placed on corners when spacing permits. d. Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10’. e. Fire hydrants shall be placed 18” above finished grade to the center of the Storz outlet. f. Fire hydrants shall be provided to meet the requirements of the Meridian Water Dept. Standards. g. Show all proposed or existing hydrants for all new construction or additions to existing buildings within 1,000 feet of the project. 4.2 In accordance with International Fire Code Section 503.2.5 and Appendix D, any roadway greater than 150 feet in length that is not provided with an outlet shall be required to have an approved turn around. Phasing of the project may require a temporary approved turn around on streets greater than 150' in length with no outlet. 4.3 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. 4.4 Provide signage (“No Parking Fire Lane”) for all fire lanes in accordance with International Fire Code Sections 503.4 & D103.6. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 192 of 227 - 22 - 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 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. 4.7 To increase emergency access to the site a minimum of two points of access will be required for any portion of the project which serves more than 30 homes, as set forth in International Fire Code Section D107.1. The two entrances should be separated by no less than ½ the diagonal measurement of the full development as set forth in International Fire Code Section D104.3. The applicant shall provide a stub street to the property to the (west/east/north/south). 4.8 Commercial and office occupancies will require a fire-flow consistent with International Fire Code Appendix B to service the proposed project. Fire hydrants shall be placed per Appendix C. 4.9 Maintain a separation of 5’ from the building to the dumpster enclosure as set forth in International Fire Code Section 304.3.3. 4.10 Provide a Fire Department Key box entry system for the complex prior to occupancy as set forth in International Fire Code Section 506. 4.11 The first digit of the Apartment/Office Suite shall correspond to the floor level as set forth in International Fire Code Section 505.1 and Meridian Amendment 10-4-1. 4.12 The applicant shall work with Public Works and Planning Department staff to provide an address identification plan and a sign which meets the requirements of the City of Meridian sign ordinance and is placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property, as set forth in International Fire Code Section 505.1 and Meridian Amendment 104-4-1. 4.13 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. 4.14 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. 4.15 There shall be a fire hydrant within 100’ of all fire department connections as set forth in local amendment to the International Fire Code 10-4-1. 4.16 The Fire Department will require Fire Department locking Connection caps on all FDC inlets. IFC 102.9. 4.17 Buildings over 30’ in height are required to have access roads in accordance with the International Fire Code Appendix D Section D105. 4.18 Emergency response routes and fire lanes shall not be allowed to have traffic calming devices installed without prior approval of the Fire Code Official. National Fire Protection IFC 503.4.1. 4.19 COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL - Buildings or facilities exceeding 30 feet (9144mm) or three stories in height shall have at least two means of fire apparatus access for each structure. The access roads shall be placed a distance apart equal to not less than one half of the length of the overall diagonal dimension of the property or area to be served, measured in a straight line as set forth in International Fire Code Appendix D104.1. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 193 of 227 - 23 - 4.20 COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL - Buildings or facilities having a gross building area of more than 62,000 square feet (5760 m2) shall be provided with two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads separated by one half of the maximum overall diagonal dimension of the property or area to be served, measured in a straight line between accesses as set forth in International Fire Code Appendix D104.2. Exception: Projects having a gross building area of up to 124,000 square feet (11520 m2) that have a single approved fire apparatus access road and all buildings are equipped throughout with approved automatic sprinkler systems. (Remoteness Required) 4.21 As set forth in International Fire Code Section 504.1, multi-family and commercial projects shall be required to provide an additional sixty inch (60”) wide access point to the building from the fire lane to allow for the movement of manual fire suppression equipment and gurney operations. The unobstructed breaks in the parking stalls shall be provided so that building access is provided in such a manner that the most remote part of a building can be reached with a length of 150' fire hose as measured around the perimeter of the building from the fire lane. Code compliant handicap parking stalls may be included to assist meeting this requirement. Contact the Meridian Fire Department for details. 5. REPUBLIC SERVICES 5.1 Please coordinate trash enclosure design and locations with Bob Olson, Republic Services (208-345-1265 office, or 208-371-1745 cell; or, email: ROlson@republicservices.com ) prior to submittal of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. Also, provide provisions for recycling. 6. PARKS DEPARTMENT 6.1 The Park’s Department has no comments on this application at this time. 7. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT - COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING DIVISION COMMENTS Comprehensive Plan Analysis The following analysis for the Lost Rapids application is based on adherence of the proposed site concept plan and narrative with the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan. Included are general comments and analysis based on the text and policy statements of the Comprehensive Plan. General Comments: The subject property is located on the southwest corner of Ten Mile Road and Chinden Blvd (US-20/26), is 2-miles east of US-16, and 5-miles north of Interstate 84. Ten Mile Road, between Chinden and I-84, is improved with 2-lanes between Chinden and Ustick and 5-lanes south of Ustick to I-84. The future land use designations for the subject site are Medium Density Residential and Mixed Use Community. These two land uses allow for and encourage a transition of residential densities with supportive commercial opportunities. The application proposes changing the Medium Density Residential and Mixed Use Community future land use designation to the Mixed Use Regional designation for all 70 acres. While the property is proposed to be mixed use regional, the conceptual site plan shows two distinct, separate projects. One is medium density residential (west side), as the Future Land Use Map currently shows and allows, and the other is commercial with some high density residential (north and south respectively). There are no connections made between these two projects, either pedestrian or automotive, and no integration or “mix” of uses are shown or described. Staff recommends better integration of the various land use types (single-family, commercial and multi-family) proposed. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 194 of 227 - 24 - Analysis Specific to Text: The Comprehensive Plan provides the following description for the Mixed Use Community designation, the current designation for a portion of this property. The purpose of this designation is to allocate areas where community-serving uses and dwellings are seamlessly integrated into the urban fabric. The intent is to integrate a variety of uses, including residential, and to avoid mainly single-use and strip commercial type buildings. Non-residential buildings in these areas have a tendency to be larger than in Mixed Use—Neighborhood areas, but not as large as in Mixed Use – Regional areas. Goods and services in these areas tend to be of the variety that people will mainly travel by car to, but also walk or bike to (up to three or four miles). Employment opportunities for those living in and around the neighborhood are encouraged. Medium Density Residential which allows for residential densities ranging between 3 and 8 units per acre works well adjacent to Mixed Use Community, which has a target residential density of 6 to 15 units per acre. These two land use types can be seamlessly integrated and allow for full compliance with the specific policies of Mixed Use General and Mixed Use Community policies. The Comprehensive Plan provides the following description for the Mixed Use Regional future land use, the designation proposed by the Applicant. The purpose of this designation is to provide a mix of employment, retail, and residential dwellings and public uses near major arterial intersections. The intent is to integrate a variety of uses together, including residential, and to avoid predominantly single use developments such as a regional retail center with only restaurants and other commercial uses. Developments should be anchored by uses that have a regional draw with the appropriate supporting uses. For example, an employment center should have support retail uses; a retail center should have supporting residential uses as well as supportive neighborhood and community services. The standards for the MU-R designation provide an incentive for larger public and quasi-public uses where they provide a meaningful and appropriate mix to the development. The developments are encouraged to be designed according to the conceptual MU-R plan depicted in Figure 3-5. The application does not clearly indicate why the City would be better served by Mixed Use Regional or more specifically by a Costco at the subject location, rather than within an already adopted Mixed Use Regional location located closer to the Highway 16 and US-20/26 intersection. The application does show north Meridian (and all of northern Ada and Canyon counties) as being “underserved” and distant from existing Costco sites in Nampa and Boise, but neither this or prior studies explain why the community is better served by a regional project than a community sized project currently envisioned. By proposing a Costco with unique traffic and circulation patterns on a smaller commercial portion of the site, connectivity and integration requirements are difficult. This isn’t to suggest that Costco is bad, quite the contrary, only that size and configuration of very distinct and separate developments presents some formidable challenges for a site with Costco, and within a mixed use designation. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 195 of 227 - 25 - Figure 3-5 from the Comprehensive Plan With regard to proposed residential components, the bulk of the single-family product (west side) is described as between 5 and 8 dwelling units per acre and is consistent with the adopted Medium Density Residential (MDR) land use. The requested R-15 zoning designation is atypical for MDR, but the applicant describes it as an age-restricted product type with specific lot dimensional needs. This portion of the proposed application may be consistent with the adopted future land use. It may also be consistent with the Mixed Use Regional designation, provided significant improvements are made to the interrelated connectivity improvements of the larger site. The application does not however indicate why high density residential (in excess of what would be allowed under MU-C) is proposed to the south. There is currently no major employment in the area and Costco is the only regional use proposed with the application. All other minor pad sites would likely be allowed within the MU-C designation (though a different configuration would be preferred) and do not constitute an employment area as described by the Comprehensive Plan. It could simply be that the application is proposing higher density residential because of density targets within the proposed Mixed Use Regional designation, but the minimum density range is only six dwelling units per acre. The proposed application does not show or describe any integrated public or quasi-public open space, community serving facilities such as churches, schools, or parks, the retail and services are separated and only indirectly accessible to proposed residential, and the commercial areas do not show or describe any type of plaza or gathering areas. The open space in the proposed residential areas (R-15 and R-40) contributes to the required open space for those designations, but is not centralized or designed to integrate the various uses. The proposed uses are all shown in distinct areas, separated by drive aisles, streets, and tall impassable berms and fencing. Only indirect public sidewalks facilitate access between different uses at the perimeter. There are no pedestrian focused areas or pathway connections to comingle neighborhood serving type uses and the community. As previously stated, a Mixed Use development by the City’s standards is not simply several types of uses. All of the missing elements discussed within the context of the mixed use text are intended to interrelate and activate different uses. Without many of these tenants, the basic principles of the City’s mixed use standards are not met. What is proposed is really no different than what may occur within a Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 196 of 227 - 26 - traditional Medium Density Residential project adjacent to a Commercial project. While some of the desired element opportunities, such as a church and public park are near the site, neither are integrated into the fabric of any portion of the proposed mixed use area, nor are smaller or similar opportunities described or shown to interrelate the proposed uses. All of these missing elements would help to justify having higher density residential because they would better integrate the varying uses. Without these it’s unclear why high density is appropriate, at least with regards to the text of the Comprehensive Plan and more specifically to the mixed use standards. The application narrative also states and implies that commercial development along a State Highway should be regional in scale and that direct access is the best approach. While this may be what is in the best interest of a potential user(s), and is easily understood, this is not suggested or supported by Comprehensive Plan text or policies, or by City code. In fact, this is not necessarily typical of development in other areas. A Costco in Tigard, OR for example is adjacent to the intersection of a State freeway and highway, but does not take access from either. Instead it faces an internal collector roadway connecting to the adjacent highway. Costco’s “back” is to the state facilities and it faces the collector roadway. Similarly the Winco across the street from the Tigard Costco facility also faces the collector roadway. Several Costco stores near the Portland International Airport, Aloha, Clackamas, Hillsboro, and Willsonville similarly either do not take direct access from mobility highways, instead fronting frontage/backage roads or “local” arterials, or are not located on any similar state mobility corridor. Costco facilities in Nampa and Boise are both located near to, but off of, State facilities, instead taking access from roadways with drastically fewer vehicles than existing and planned traffic on US-20/26. That these other facilities do not take direct access is important because local congestion, into and out of the site, does not directly impact the State facilities. A primary entryway drive aisle backed up and onto a State facility could hinder regional traffic. Given the peak hour congestion at other Costco sites, a scenario such as this does not seem far-fetched. In fact, the adjacent roadways to both of these existing Costco sites bear these types of problems. The Applicant’s narrative also suggests that it is in the communities’ best interest that access to Chinden be provided, to alleviate and prevent auto traffic impacts on the existing neighborhood. The application states that, …this project will generate a substantial amount of patron and delivery truck traffic that would be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhoods should it be forced out onto the local and collector streets alone. Critical to this project's success, and to that of Costco specifically, is the ability to provide egress/ingress to/from Chinden Boulevard through two dedicated access points. The application also states however that deliveries will be limited, with no traffic between 10:00 PM and 5:00 AM. It also appears that access to Lost Rapids near to Ten Mile could be designed in a way to accommodate heavy truck traffic, minimizing impacts to existing residential regardless of hours. Lost Rapids is a collector roadway and intended to serve more than just local residential traffic, and Staff believes any necessary capacity improvements could be made to Lost Rapids to bear additional traffic burdens without creating new points of conflict and congestion on the State system. The State facility is arguably more important than local roadway impacts, not just for the locals using it to commute, but for all regional users. Again, Costco has a proven record both locally and within other metropolitan areas of operating both off of and without any direct access to mobility highways. Clearer justification or rationale beyond that they want it should be provided to justify it as being in the City’s best interest. It is generally understood that it would benefit their operations and business, but regardless of any widening that may be done to US-20/26, any additional access will create points of conflict and reduce level of service. While stating that ITD approved a traffic study is an accomplishment and an important step for the proposed application, this does not mean that it’s in Meridian best interest. The applicant is also proposing to enter into a STARS agreement with ITD but it is Meridian staff’s understanding that the agreement has not yet been finalized. Essentially, the applicant is proposing to improve US 20/26 to four lanes between Linder Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 197 of 227 - 27 - and Lost Rapids before Costco opens and then improve the highway to four lanes further west, to SH-16 within two years. Staff is not stating or implying that a future land use amendment may be inappropriate or outside of the City’s best interest, only that the site layout as depicted and described is not typical of all Costco stores; that no justification of need for direct or primary access to mobility highway is described relative to City policies; and that the mixed use concept shown does not generally align with text of the Comprehensive Plan. General Mixed Use Text Analysist Per the Comprehensive Plan, while reviewing development applications, the following items will be considered in all Mixed Use areas: o Residential densities should be a minimum of six dwellings/acre. Proposed residential densities described by the application and within or near to the proposed mixed use designation are between 20 and 24 units per acre. The medium density residential portion of the site is described as being between 5 and 8 dwelling units per acre. o Where feasible, higher density and/or multi-family residential development will be encouraged, especially for projects with the potential to serve as employment destination centers and when the project is adjacent to US 20/26, SH-55, SH-16 or SH-69. The subject application is located adjacent to US 20/26. However, this area is not an employment destination today such as Silverstone, El Dorado, the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan, the Pine corridor near Eagle Rd, or the St Luke’s & Portico area, but there is potential for there to be employment centers in the future. o A conceptual site plan for the entire mixed use area should be included in the application. A conceptual site plan has been provided with the Lost Rapids application for the entire area. o In developments where multiple commercial and/or office buildings are proposed (not residential), the buildings should be arranged to create some form of common, usable area, such as a plaza or green space. The smaller pads sites with the proposed application are not detailed and do not describe common areas. Future buildings should be arranged to create some form of common, usable area(s). o The site plan should depict a transitional use and/or landscaped buffering between commercial and existing low- or medium-density residential development. The proposed application is not immediately adjacent to any existing low or medium density homes. Adjacent proposed single-family homes are described as being separated by tall berms and dense vegetation. o A mixed use project should include at least three types of land uses. Exceptions may be granted for smaller sites on a case-by-case basis. The proposed site plan only explicitly describes commercial and residential uses, but two different types of residential are proposed (single-family and multi-family). No dedicated offices or services type uses are shown (though they may occur on the pad sites). o Community-serving facilities such as hospitals, churches, schools, parks, daycares, civic buildings, or public safety facilities are expected in larger mixed use developments. There are no community-serving facilities as defined above integrated into the mixed use development. A church and park are nearby. All required open space amenities are centralized within their respective developments without any shared facilities nearer to or within the commercial areas. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 198 of 227 - 28 - o Supportive and proportional public and/or quasi-public spaces and places including but not limited to parks, plazas, outdoor gathering areas, open space, libraries, and schools are expected; outdoor seating areas at restaurants do not count. There are no public or quasi-public spaces shown or described as part of the proposed application. o All mixed use projects should be directly accessible to neighborhoods within the section by both vehicles and pedestrians. There are only in-direct connections to existing and proposed neighborhoods. The proposed future neighborhood to the west has no direct access, pedestrian or automotive, to the commercial uses. However, Lost Rapids Drive is a collector that allows Bainbridge access without having to get on the arterial roadway network. o Street sections consistent with the Ada County Highway District Master Street Map are required within the Unified Development Code. There is an existing collector roadway, Lost Rapids, adjacent to the proposed site and complies with ACHD’s Master Street Map. Mixed Use Regional Text Analysis In reviewing development applications, the following items will be considered in MU-R areas: o Development should generally comply with the general guidelines for development in all Mixed Use areas. See General Mixed Use Text Analysis. o Residential uses should comprise a minimum of 10% of the development area at densities ranging from six to 40 units/acre. Within the proposed application, residential densities are described by the application as being between 5 to 8 and 20 to 24 units per acres and comprise 87 of the mixed use regional area. 58% of the site is proposed as residential. o Retail commercial uses should comprise a maximum of 50% of the development area. Within the proposed mixed use area, retail uses are approximately 42% of the area. Some of the smaller pad sites may be office or service uses. o There is neither a minimum nor maximum imposed on non-retail commercial uses such as office, clean industry, or entertainment uses. No non-retail commercial uses are shown, except that some office may occupy pad sites. o Where the development proposes public and quasi-public uses to support the development, the developer may be eligible for additional area for retail development (beyond the allowed 50%), based on the ratios below: The development does not show or describe any public or quasi-public uses integrated within the mixed use area. The developer is showing approximately 42% of the site as being retail, which is less than the maximum 50% area. o For land that is designated for a public use, such as a library or school, the developer is eligible for a 2:1 bonus. That is to say, if there is a five-acre library site, the project would be eligible for ten additional acres of retail development. No public uses are shown or proposed. o For active open space or passive recreation areas, such as a park, tot-lot or playfield, the developer is eligible for a 2:1 bonus. That is to say, if the park is 10 acres in area, the site would be eligible for 20 additional acres of retail development. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 199 of 227 - 29 - No public or quasi-public open space or passive recreation areas are shown or described. The only qualified open space shown private as part of the individual residential components. Analysis Specific to the Policy Statements: o 3.01.01B, “Evaluate comprehensive impact of growth in all land use decisions (e.g., traffic impacts, school enrollment, parks, etc).” ACHD was provided with a traffic impact study, but as of the writing of this report, the analysis was not complete. The application was forwarded on to partner agencies and other City Departments for analysis of impacts to services. o 3.01.01F, “Permit new development only where urban services can be reasonably provided at the time of final approval and development is contiguous to the City.” The proposed project is located in an area where development has and is already occurring, and City services are all readily available in the vicinity. o 3.01.01G, “Evaluate development proposals based on physical, social, economic, environmental, and aesthetic criteria.” The proposed site plan indicates large landscape buffers and generally appealing architectural designs. Offsite impacts such as trucks and lighting are described or shown as being reduced, and the high density residential is on a major transportation corridor. It is unclear however how the proposed site development furthers inclusive mixed use design elements, or how the proposed future land use designation and site plan is better for the neighbors and City than a development with more neighborhood and community accessible services. o 3.01.01J, “Work with transportation agencies and private property owners to preserve transportation corridors, future transit routes and infrastructure, road and highway extensions, and to facilitate access management planning.” City Staff has been coordinating with both the applicant and the transportation agencies (ACHD and ITD) on this project. The proposed project will preserve right-of-way for future US Highway 20/26 widening projects. In fact, the applicant is proposing to enter into a STAR agreement with ITD to make some off-site improvements to US 20/26. These improvements would widen the highway to 4-travel lanes and improve impacted intersections in conjunction with ITD’s project to widen the corridor from Eagle Road. The Commission and Council should consider ACHD’s and ITD’s comments when determining appropriate access and circulation for this site. The City has policies limiting access points to arterial roadways and State highways. The submitted site plan shows two direct access points to a State Highway, including one full access, and one access point to Ten Mile Road, an arterial street. Every additional access is a point of conflict that can impact roadway functionality. Costcos can be busy and congestion at facilities in both Boise and Nampa spill over onto adjacent roadways (none of which are State facilities). Traffic waiting to exit out onto the signal at Cole at the Boise facility, backs up to the point of blocking vehicles from exiting parking stalls. This slows vehicles entering into the site. Staff recommends that site access be designed to prioritize and encourage access from Ten Mile and Lost Rapids, rather than a State facility. o 3.03.02G, “Consider the adopted COMPASS regional long-range transportation plan in all land- use decisions.” The Communities in Motion (CIM) 2040 Plan identifies US 20/26 as a priority corridor with a typology of expressway. It is currently listed as an “unfunded” priority, though some early improvements are pending. The following is a summary from the CIM US 20/26 Priority Corridor Summary. “As a major mobility highway, US 20/26 is experiencing congestion along much of its length but especially between Linder Road and State Highway 55 (Eagle Road), a stretch with only two travel lanes. US 20/26 has been a regional priority for a number of years but it remains Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 200 of 227 - 30 - unfunded, causing traffic to divert to other routes such as McMillan Road. In addition to high traffic levels on this road, the intersection with State Highway 55 (Eagle Road) is ranked #2 on ITD’s list of high-accident locations. By 2040, daily traffic between Middleton Road and State Highway 55 is expected to increase substantially. o From Middleton Road to Star Road, traffic is projected to more than double, from 12,000 in 2013 to 30,000 in 2040. o From Star Road to Linder Road, traffic is projected to double, from 14,000 in 2013 to 28,000 in 2040.  This would be similar to current traffic on US 20/26 (Chinden Boulevard) in Garden City. o From Linder Road to State Highway 55 (Eagle Road), traffic is projected to increase 80%, from 21,000 in 2013 to 38,000 in 2040.  This would be similar to current traffic on Eagle Road north of US 20/26. o Rush hour driving time between Middleton Road and Glenwood Street is expected to more than double, from 25 minutes in 2013 to 60 minutes in 2040.” o 3.03.02N, “Reduce the number of existing access points onto arterial streets by using methods such as cross-access agreements, access management, and frontage / backage roads.” There is only one existing farm access road which bisects the existing farm fields, half-way between Ten Mile Road and Lost Rapids Drive. There are no existing public access points on either the State facility or Ten Mile Road. The entire property has access from an improved collector roadway to the west and south of the site which may act and function as a backage road. o 3.03.03E, “Except in North Meridian and the Ten Mile Specific Area, where a specific collector system is planned, realize continuous collectors at regular intervals around the north-south and east-west half-mile lines within the undeveloped sections of Meridian's Area of City Impact at the time of new development. Such collectors should be the primary designated bike lane routes in lieu of arterial streets, whenever possible.” Lost Rapids is an existing collector roadway that connects into Tree Farm Way to the north, across Chinden Blvd, and extends to the east across Ten Mile Rd into Lochsa Falls. o 3.03.04K, “Consider ACHD's MSM (Master Street Map) in all land use decisions” With the exception of Chinden Blvd (which is an ITD facility), the arterial and collector roadways shown on ACHD’s street map are already improved or scheduled for widening. o 3.04.01G, “Protect citizen investments in existing public facilities (water, sewer, streets, fire, police, etc.) by encouraging controlled growth through development application reviews and development agreements.” The proposed project is surrounded by urban development and would be well served by the City. o 3.04.01H, “Coordinate with public works, police, and fire departments on proposed annexation and development requests, and the impacts on services.” Public Works, Police, and Fire were all invited to pre-application and project review meetings. Further, they are invited as part of a comments meeting. Their comments and conditions, if provided, are included as part of the staff report. o 3.05.01E, “Locate small-scale neighborhood commercial areas within planned residential developments as part of the development plan.” Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 201 of 227 - 31 - Future and existing residential areas are located on the backside of Costco, with the small-scale neighborhood serving type pad sites generally located furthest from existing and proposed neighborhoods. This layout is inconsistent with the intent of Mixed Use designation, Figure 3-5, and the purpose of backage and collector type roadways. o 3.05.01J, “Plan for a variety of commercial and retail opportunities within the Area of City Impact.” This area is planned for some commercial uses and the proposed site plan would expand resident and stakeholder access to closer commercial and retail opportunities. o 3.05.03A, “Identify transitional areas to buffer commercial and residential uses, to allow uses such as offices and other low intensity uses.” Potential low intensity users are located away from existing and proposed residential areas and do not provide a buffer. The high density residential does buffer Costco impacts from existing residential, which is similarly buffered from the existing low density residential by a collector roadway with wide landscape buffers. o 3.06.01F, “Protect existing residential properties from incompatible land use development on adjacent parcels.” The nearest existing residential developments are separated by collector and arterial roadways. Additional landscaping will separate proposed residential uses from commercial uses (Costco). The application narrative indicates that no deliveries will take place between 10:00 PM and 5:00 am, that commercial truck deliveries will be restricted away from residential, and that all lighting will be shielded and 0.0 foot candles at property lines. o 3.06.01H, “Support land uses that do not harm natural systems and resources.” The existing land is farmed and there are no natural systems which remain to be protected. o 3.06.02D, “Restrict private curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets” The proposed site plan and application requests direct access to Ten Mile Road located roughly half-way between Lost Rapid, a collector roadway s and Chinden Blvd, a State highway and a mobility corridor. o 3.06.02H, “Coordinate with ACHD, ITD, COMPASS, and other agencies to determine future infrastructure plans, transportation corridors, highway alignments, etc. and allow only compatible adjacent land uses, appropriate site designs and traffic patterns.” ACHD, ITD, and COMPASS have all been provided an opportunity to review and comment on the proposed application. ITD and ACHD have both held several additional meetings to review and discuss the proposed application. Agency staffs continue to discuss what “appropriate” and “compatible” site design and traffic patterns entail. Staff recommends the Commission and Council consider any additional comments or conditions that are provided by ACHD, ITD or COMPASS. o 3.07.01D, “Adopt land use designations that will allow for housing opportunities for all income levels.”” The adopted future land use designations allow for a variety of housing types that may be attractive to all income levels. The applicant is proposing to annex and zone portions of the site as R-15 (Medium-high Density Residential) and R-40 (High Density Residential).The proposed residential is within the specified area and range described in the Comprehensive Plan, but the overall concept plan lacks many of the mixed use elements necessary for it to be integrated successfully as a mixed use project. See the General Mixed Use text analysis. o 3.07.02D, “Provide housing options close to employment and shopping centers” The proposed project would provide additional shopping opportunities for existing and proposed residents. However, Staff is concerned that the site plan does not provide adequate pedestrian Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 202 of 227 - 32 - connections between residential and retail uses. This proposed location is not within a current employment area. o 3.07.02L, “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.” The proposed high-density residential is near two parks (Keith Bird Legacy and Heroes’ Park) and a major access thoroughfare (US-20/26). o 3.07.03B, “Provide for a wide diversity of housing types (single-family and multi-family arrangements) and choices between ownership and rental dwelling units for all income groups in a variety of locations suitable for residential development.” The proposed site plan would add to Meridian’s diversity of housing, and provides for high density residential in close proximity to a major transportation corridor. The density of residential was not however justified well, particularly in light of the applications compliance with the mixed use standard and that it would exceed densities allowances within the adopted MU-C land use. o 7.01.01F, “Integrate land use and transportation planning to ensure that they mutually support the communities' goals and desires.” City and transportation agencies have met multiple times to discuss the subject project. With some changes to the proposal, staff believes the project could support the communities’ goals and desires. Summary Comments and Recommendation: In summary, the proposed application and concept plan is not generally consistent with either of the proposed future land use designations. The major and only envisioned anchor, Costco, is entirely auto centric and there is limited opportunities given the store size and remaining commercial area to meet the intent of any mixed use designation. The proposed configuration, centralized on the site and facing Chinden, is not ideal for the existing and proposed community. Rather than using the collector as a backage road and integrating less intense retail and office type uses adjacent the existing neighborhood, the collector is used as secondary access. Given the size of the commercial area left after Costco, and unless commercial portions of the site are rotated 180-degrees to be inclusive with the existing neighborhoods, it is unlikely that any number of small adjustments will allow the proposed development to comply with the mixed use designation. Further, the centralized location and orientation of Costco makes interconnectivity between residential and commercial and neighborhood serving portions of the site difficult. As the sole anchor and largest portion of the commercial area, a simple Commercial future land use designation may be a more appropriate designation for this corner. Other changes should still be considered to better integrate and protect any proposed residential from traffic conflicts, such as cut- through driving, and to protect the State facility from internal drive aisle congestion. Lessons learned from Eagle Road should also be considered with regard to access of State facilities, and the impacts and driving behaviors that occur as a result. Access to Chinden may be appropriate, but the emphasis should be elsewhere and less directly into parking areas. Consider opportunities for better connecting the proposed residential areas to both Costco (with a great food center), and the satellite pads, which may have more neighborhood serving uses. More efforts should be explored to improve pathway connections and dedicated pedestrian environments so that existing and proposed residential may access the site without having to drive. To comply with mixed use requirements, more substantial site layout revisions would be necessary. Lessons learned from Eagle Road should also be considered with regard to access to a State facilities, and the impacts and driving behaviors that occur as a result. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 203 of 227 - 33 - 8. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT (ACHD) There are no site specific conditions of approval associated with the Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Annexation & Zoning applications. 8.1 Site Specific Conditions of Approval (Preliminary Plat) 8.1.1 Comply with requirements of ITD and City of Meridian for the Chinden Boulevard/US 20-26 frontage. 8.1.2 Enter into a Cooperative Development Agreement (CDA) with ACHD for the widening of Ten Mile Road to 5 lanes between Chinden Boulevard and Milano Drive, prior to ACHD’s signature on the first final plat. 8.1.3 The Cooperative Development Agreement should include the roadway construction, contract requirements, as well as allocation of costs. ACHD will only provide reimbursement for the costs of permanent roadway improvements consistent with the IFYWP and CIP. Interim improvements are not eligible for reimbursement and all costs would be the responsibility of the applicant. 8.1.4 In order to ensure the roadway will be improved when warranted, the following items must be in place prior plans acceptance for the final plat necessitating the improvements.  Cooperative Development Agreement;  Financial surety provided by the applicant meeting the terms of the Cooperative Development Agreement;  Dedication of all of the right-of-way necessary to complete the road widening project. 8.1.5 If the STAR Agreement does not occur prior to ACHD's signature on the first final plat enter into a Cooperative Development Agreement with the District to improve the Chinden Boulevard/Black Cat Road intersection, as listed in the ACHD's CIP.  The Cooperative Development Agreement shall include the intersection construction, as well as allocation of costs. ACHD will only provide impact fee credit for impact fee eligible costs of permanent intersection improvements consistent with CIP. 8.1.6 In order to ensure the Chinden Boulevard/Black Cat Road intersection will be improved when warranted, the following items must be in place prior plans acceptance for the final plat necessitating the improvements.  Cooperative Development Agreement;  Financial surety provided by the applicant meeting the terms of the Cooperative Development Agreement;  Dedication of all of the right-of-way necessary to complete the intersection project. 8.1.7 If the widening of Ten Mile Road to 5 lanes between Chinden Boulevard and McMillan Road is removed from the STAR agreement or if the construction of the proposed improvements is not feasible due to of timing of ACHD roadway construction projects in the area, then the following improvements shall be constructed.  Dedicate right-of-way to total 48-feet from the centerline of Ten Mile Road.  Construct a 5-foot wide detached concrete sidewalk located a minimum of 41-feet from the centerline of Ten Mile Road abutting the site. Provide a permanent right-of-way easement for detached sidewalks located outside of the dedicated right-of-way.  Construct a center left turn lane and dedicated right turn lane on Ten Mile Road for the temporary full access driveway located 660-feet north of Lost Rapids Drive. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 204 of 227 - 34 -  Install a signal at the Ten Mile Road/Lost Rapids Drive intersection. The applicant should be required to enter into a signal agreement with ACHD for the design, construction, and installation of the signal. The signal agreement should note that the intersection should be designed to provide a 3 X 4 intersection with three 12-foot wide travel lanes; one receiving lane, one dedicated left turn lane, and one thru/right lane on the north, south, and east approach, and with four 12 -foot wide travel lanes on the west approach; one receiving lane, one dedicated left turn lane, one thru lane, and one dedicated right lane. The applicant is responsible for all costs associated with the hardware, design, and installation of the signal. 8.1.8 Replace any broken or deteriorated portions of curb, gutter, and sidewalk on Lost Rapids Drive abutting the site. 8.1.9 Remove the existing center landscape island on Lost Rapids Drive at the Ten Mile Road intersection. 8.1.10 When the multifamily portion of the site develops, install "NO PARKING" signs on Lost Rapids Drive abutting the site. 8.1.11 Close the existing driveway onto Ten Mile Road from the site located 480-feet south of Chinden Boulevard. 8.1.12 Construct a 36 to 40-foot wide temporary full access driveway onto Ten Mile Road located 660-feet north of Lost Rapids Drive, as proposed. Construct the driveway as a curb return type driveway with a 30-foot radii and pave the driveway its entire width at least 30-feet into the site beyond the edge of pavement of Ten Mile Road. This driveway may be restricted in the future as traffic conditions warrant as determined by ACHD. 8.1.13 Construct one driveway onto Lost Rapids Drive located 350-feet west of Ten Mile Road, aligned centerline to centerline with an existing driveway on the south side Lost Rapids Drive. Construct the driveway as a curb return type driveway with a 30-foot radii and pave the driveway its entire width at least 30-feet into the site beyond the edge of pavement of Lost Rapids Drive. 8.1.14 Construct one driveway onto Lost Rapids Drive located 700-feet west of Ten Mile Road, align centerline to centerline with a public street on the south side Lost Rapids Drive. Construct the driveway as a curb return type driveway with a 30-foot radii and pave the driveway its entire width at least 30-feet into the site beyond the edge of pavement of Lost Rapids Drive. 8.1.15 Other than access approved as part of this application, direct lot access to Ten Mile Road and Lost Rapids Drive is prohibited and shall be noted on the final plat. 8.1.16 Payment of impact fees is due prior to issuance of a building permit. 8.1.17 Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval. 8.2 Standard Conditions of Approval (Preliminary Plat) 8.2.1 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). 8.2.2 Private Utilities including sewer or water systems are prohibited from being located within the ACHD right-of-way. 8.2.3 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. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 205 of 227 - 35 - 8.2.4 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. 8.2.5 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. 8.2.6 All utility relocation costs associated with improving street frontages abutting the site shall be borne by the developer. 8.2.7 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. 8.2.8 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. 8.2.9 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. 8.2.10 Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable requirements of ACHD prior to District approval for occupancy. 8.2.11 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. 8.2.12 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. 9. IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT (ITD) (See next page) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 206 of 227 - 36 - Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 207 of 227 - 37 - Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 208 of 227 - 38 - Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 209 of 227 - 39 - Exhibit C: Legal Description & Exhibit Map for Annexation & Zoning Boundary Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 210 of 227 - 40 - Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 211 of 227 - 41 - Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 212 of 227 - 42 - Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 213 of 227 - 43 - Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 214 of 227 - 44 - D. Required Findings from Unified Development Code 1. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT: Upon recommendation from the Commission, the Council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing, review the application. In order to grant an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, the Council shall make the following findings: a. The proposed amendment is consistent with the other elements of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff finds that the proposed map amendment from Mixed Use – Community and Medium Density Residential to entirely Mixed Use – Regional as currently designed is not consistent with elements of the Comprehensive Plan as noted in Sections VII & IX above. b. The proposed amendment provides an improved guide to future growth and development of the city. Staff finds that the proposal to modify the Future Land Use Map to allow for mixed use regional type uses will be compatible with future adjacent residential uses if revisions are made to the concept plan as recommended in Section IX and Exhibit B. c. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff finds that the proposed amendment will be consistent with the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan if revisions are made to the conceptual development plan as recommended by staff in Exhibit B (see Sections VII and IX for detailed analysis). d. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Unified Development Code. Staff finds that the proposed amendment is consistent with the Unified Development Code. e. The amendment will be compatible with existing and planned surrounding land uses. Staff finds the proposed amendment will be compatible with adjacent existing and planned future residential uses if revisions are made to the conceptual development plan as recommended by Staff. f. The proposed amendment will not burden existing and planned service capabilities. Staff finds that the proposed amendment will not burden existing and planned service capabilities in this portion of the city. Sewer and water services are available to be extended to this site. g. The proposed map amendment (as applicable) provides a logical juxtaposition of uses that allows sufficient area to mitigate any anticipated impact associated with the development of the area. Staff finds the proposed map amendment with the changes recommended by Staff to the conceptual development plan will provide a logical juxtaposition of uses. h. The proposed amendment is in the best interest of the City of Meridian. For the reasons stated in Sections VII and IX and the subject findings above, Staff finds that the proposed amendment is in the best interest of the City if changes are made to the conceptual development plan as recommended by Staff. 1. ANNEXATION & ZONING: Upon recommendation from the Commission, the Council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing, review the application. In order to grant an annexation, the Council shall make the following findings: Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 215 of 227 - 45 - a. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; Staff finds that the proposed map amendment to the R-15, R-40 and C-G zoning districts is consistent with the existing MDR and proposed MU-R FLUM designation for this site and should be compatible with existing and future uses in the area. Therefore, Staff finds the amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan (see section VII above for more information). b. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Staff finds that the proposed map amendment to the R-15, R-40 and C-G zoning districts is consistent with the purpose statements of the commercial and residential districts as detailed in Section VIII above. c. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Staff finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare if the site is developed in accord with the conditions of approval in Exhibit B. City utilities will be extended at the expense of the applicant. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council consider any oral or written testimony that may be provided when determining this finding. Many letters of public testimony have been submitted for this project. d. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the City including, but not limited to, school districts; and, Staff finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not result in any adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing services to this site. e. The annexation is in the best of interest of the City (UDC 11-5B-3.E). Staff finds the proposed annexation of this property is in the best interest of the City if the applicant develops the site in accord with the conditions listed in Exhibit B. 3. PRELIMINARY PLAT: In consideration of a preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat, the decision- making body shall make the following findings: a. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; Staff finds that the proposed plat is in substantial compliance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan in regard to land use if Council approves the requested amendment to the FLUM to MU-R; if the applicant complies with the conditions included in this report, the conceptual development plan should be consistent with the transportation and circulation goals. Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals, Section VII, of the Staff Report for more information. b. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Staff finds that public services will be provided to the subject property upon development. (See Exhibit B of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers.) c. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City’s capital improvement program; Because City water and sewer and any other utilities will be provided by the developer at their own cost, Staff finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 216 of 227 1 2 3 BAINBRIDGE NORTH – LOST RAPIDS APPLICATIONS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT ANNEXATION WITH R-15, R-40, AND C-G ZONING COMMERCIAL / MULTI-FAMILY PRELIMINARY PLAT 4 5 6 7 TE N M I L E CHINDEN 8 August 6, 2002 October 7, 2008 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP 9 LANDSCAPE BUFFERS 10 11 12 Costco Membership and Site Selection Costco Info •Typical Hours of Operation: –Warehouse 10:00 am – 9:00 pm (Mon – Fri) 9:30 am – 6:00 pm (Sat) 10:00 am – 6:00 pm (Sun) –Gas Station 6:00 am – 10:00 pm •NO Deliveries from 10pm-5am •250-300 Employees, 125-175 Employees/Shift •Average wage $22/ hr US warehouses Costco Parcel Costco Fuel Facility Costco Warehouse Costco’s Site Plan Costco Parcel No Commercial Truck Access on Lost Rapids Dr Costco Fuel Truck Route W Chinden Blvd 10 Mi l e R d Truck Routes Costco Gasoline – Internal Circulation Costco Gasoline – Vehicle Queue Storage 19 Costco Front Entry Perspective Costco East Perspective Costco North Perspective Costco Site Perspective Taken from Lost Rapids Dr. SW of Costco warehouse Pedestrian Connections Costco Site Lighting 50% reduction in lighting levels after store closes. Chinden Blvd Chinden Blvd 1 0 M i l e R d 1 0 M i l e R d Costco site lighting during store hours. Costco site lighting after store closes. Transportation Impact Study (TIS) •TIS approved by ACHD Commission and accepted by ITD staff. •Time periods –Weekday AM & PM peak hours –Saturday midday peak hour –Daily •Proposed improvements bring intersections and roadways to an acceptable level of service Study Area Access Locations •Ten Mile Road (Milano Drive to Chinden Blvd.) –Widen to 4 lanes with turn lane/raised median (~0.80 miles) –Signalize Lost Rapids Drive/Ten Mile Road –Install separate right-turn lane for driveway •Chinden Blvd. (Linder Road to SH 16) –Widen to 4 lanes with turn lane/raised median (~2.90 miles) –Add 2nd westbound left turn and northbound left turn lanes at Ten Mile Road intersection –Signal modifications at Tree Farm Way, Ten Mile Road, and Long Lake Way –Install separate right-turn lanes at two driveways Proposed Transportation Improvements Proposed Transportation Improvements Estimated Cost and Schedule •Estimated cost of transportation improvements –~$15 million •Anticipated schedule –Governmental Approvals  2018 –Design and Right of Way  2018 to 2019 –Anticipated construction  2019 to 2020 –Costco opening  2020 32 Q & A - 46 - d. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Staff recommends the Commission and Council rely upon comments from the public service providers (i.e., Police, Fire, ACHD, etc.) to determine this finding. (See Exhibit B for more detail.) e. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and Staff is not aware of any health, safety, or environmental problems associated with the platting of this property that should be brought to the Commission or Council’s attention. ACHD and ITD consider road safety issues in their analyses. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council consider any public testimony that may be presented when determining whether or not the proposed subdivision may cause health, safety or environmental problems of which Staff is unaware. f. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. Staff is not aware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features on this site that need to be preserved. 4. VARIANCE: The City Council shall apply the standards listed in Idaho Code 67-6516 and all the findings listed in Section 11-5B-4.E of the UDC to review the variance request. In order to grant a variance, the Council shall make the following findings: a. The variance shall not grant a right or special privilege that is not otherwise allowed in the district; Staff finds granting the proposed accesses via US 20-26/W. Chinden Boulevard would grant a right or special privilege as the UDC specifically prohibits access via the state highway unless otherwise approved through a variance. b. The variance relieves an undue hardship because of characteristics of the site; and Staff finds there are no unique characteristics of the site that create an undue hardship that granting a variance would relieve. c. The variance shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare. Staff finds granting the variance for two accesses via Chinden Boulevard, an existing two lane highway proposed to be widened to four travel lanes with deceleration lanes and turn lanes, will have long term impacts to the traffic flow of the state highway. However, with improvements made to the highway as required by ITD with this development, public health safety and welfare should be preserved. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 217 of 227 Planning and Zoning Meeting Meeting Date: March 1, 2018 Agenda Item Number: Project/File Number: H-2018-0011 Item Title: PUBLIC HEARING 2018 UDC TEXT AMEN By City of Meridian Planning Division ENT Request: A Text Amendment to Certain Sections of the UDC Pertaining to Uses Allowed in Table 11-2A-2; Standards for Portable Signs; Daycare Facility Specific Use Standards; Provisions to Allow Multi -Family Private Open Space Standards to be Eligible for Alternative Compliance AND Modify the Subdivision Street Names Standards to Align with Newly Adopted Title 8, Chapter 2, Uniform Street Name and Addressing Number Code Meeting Notes rte✓ STAFF REPORT HEARING DATE: March 1, 2018 TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Bill Parsons, Planning Supervisor 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2018-0011 – 2018 UDC Text Amendment I. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT’S REQUEST The Planning Division of the Community Development Department has applied to amend certain sections of the Unified Development Code (UDC) pertaining to uses allowed in Table 11-2A-2; standards for portable signs; daycare facility specific use standards; provisions to allow multi-family private open space standards to be eligible for alternative compliance AND modify the subdivision street names standards to align with newly adopted Title 8, Chapter 2, Uniform Street Name and Addressing Number Code. NOTE: All of the proposed text changes to the UDC are provided in underline and strike- through format in Exhibit A below for the Commission’s and Council’s review and consideration. II. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposed text amendments to the UDC based on the analysis provided in Section VII and the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law listed in Exhibit B. III.PROPOSED MOTION Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H-2018-0011 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 1, 2018 with the following modifications: (add any proposed modifications.) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2018-0011 as presented during the hearing on March 1, 2018 for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial.) Continuance After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to continue File Number H-2018- 0011, to (insert specific hearing date), and direct staff to make the following changes: (insert comments here.) IV. APPLICATION FACTS A. Site Address/Location: Citywide B. Applicant: Planning Division, Community Development Department City of Meridian 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Ste. 102 Meridian, Idaho 83642 2018 UDC Text Amendment – H-2018-0011 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 219 of 227 C. Applicant's Statement/Justification: See narrative and Exhibit A for more information. V. PROCESS FACTS A. The subject application is for a Unified Development Code Text Amendment as determined by City Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of the Meridian City Code Title 11 Chapter 5, a public hearing is required before the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council on this matter. B. Newspaper notifications published on: February 9, 2018 (Commission) C. A public service announcement was broadcast via email on February 2, 2018 (Commission) regarding this application. D. The proposed amendment was shared with the UDC Focus Group and the Building Contractors Association of Southwest Idaho. Becky McKay and Cornel Larson provided comments on the subject application. Comments were forwarded on to the City Clerk’s office to be included as part of the public record. VI. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS Staff finds that the subject Unified Development Code Text Amendment complies with and furthers the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The specific objectives and actions that support the proposed amendment are listed below: • “Keep current the Unified Development Code and Future Land Use Map to implement the provisions of this plan.” (7.01.01A) The proposed UDC amendment is meant to keep the UDC relevant with current development trends in the City without compromising life, safety or the general welfare of the community. Most of the changes are general clean-up items however; the private open space standard is being proposed based on a direction from City Council on a previous land use application. • “Enforce City Codes.” (3.05.02D) The proposed amendment represents changes that City Staff finds will make the implementation of UDC more understandable and enforceable. VII. ANALYSIS The proposed update is meant to modify certain sections of the Unified Development Code (UDC) as follows: 1. Table 11-2A-2 – Proposes to allow daycare groups as a conditional use permit in the R-4 district; 2. UDC 11-3D-8(A)16 – Remove this requirement so all lawfully established uses in the O-T district have the ability to apply for a portable sign permit. The current code only allows for specific uses in the Old Town District to obtain a portable sign permit. 3. UDC 11-4-3-9(A)4 – Modify the daycare facility standards to allow the background checks and fire inspections occur with certificate of occupancy rather than prior to the issuance of the certificate of zoning compliance. 4. UDC 11-4-3-27(B)3 – Allow the multi-family private open space standards to be eligible for alternative compliance. This was originally requested by a developer during the TM Creek Apartment project. However, the applicant’s request included changes to the private open space standards for all apartment projects and the City believed changes to the private open space standards should reviewed on a case by 2018 UDC Text Amendment – H-2018-0011 2 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 220 of 227 case basis and processed as alternative compliance. The change is being processed based on feedback from the City Council and concurrence from the applicant that initially processed the previous text amendment for this requirement. 5. Table 11-5B-5 – Modification to this table to coincide with the request above in #4 above. 6. UDC 11-6C-3(B)3 – Modifying this subdivision street names standards to align with the newly adopted Title 8, Chapter 2, Uniform Street Name and Addressing Number Code. The City Council recently approved this document. All of the proposed changes to the UDC including the support documents are attached for your review in PDF format. As noted above, this round of proposed UDC text changes were shared with the UDC Focus Group and the BCA. Two of the members of the UDC Focus Group did provide comments on the subject application but no concerns or changes were proposed. 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. VIII. EXHIBITS A. Strike-out/Underline Version of the Proposed Changes (DRAFT FORM) B. Required Findings from the Unified Development Code 2018 UDC Text Amendment – H-2018-0011 3 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 221 of 227 Exhibit A. – Strike-out/Underline Version of the Proposed Changes Proposed UDC Text Amendments UDC Section Topic Problem/Question Potential Fix Table 11-2A-2 Allowed uses in the residential districts Include daycare, group as an allowed use in the R-4 district. TABLE 11-2A-2 ALLOWED USES IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Use R-2 R-4 R-8 R-15 R-40 Daycare center1 - C C P P Daycare, family1 - A A A C Daycare, group1 - -C C P P Direct Sales A A A A A 11-3D-8(A)16. Portable signs Remove item b. to allow all lawfully established uses the ability to apply for a portable sign in the O-T zoning district. 16. Portable Signs: Portable signs, when allowed by this article, shall meet the following standards: a. Any portable sign shall count as part of the overall freestanding sign allowance as set forth in subsections B through H of this section. b. The following uses shall qualify for any portable sign: retail, restaurants, drinking establishments, and personal services. bc. Placement of any portable sign shall meet the following standards: (1) The placement of any portable sign shall be limited to the portion of the sidewalk that is located directly in front of the business applying for the sign permit and shall not be placed in front of another business. (2) It shall be the responsibility of the property owner to comply with the American disabilities act (ADA) standards for pedestrian walkways and clearance for handicap accessible parking stalls. cd. A maximum of one portable sign is allowed per entrance with no more than one portable sign per street frontage. de. The maximum background area of any portable sign shall not exceed eight (8) square feet. Any portable sign may be single or double sided. ef. Portable signs shall be constructed of stable and durable materials that will hold up under adverse weather conditions. fg. A permit is required for any portable sign. 2018 UDC Text Amendment – H-2018-0011 4 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 222 of 227 11-4-3-9(A)4. Daycare facility Modify daycare standards to allow the background checks and fire inspections occur with certificate of occupancy rather than prior to the issuance of the certificate of zoning compliance. A. General standards for all child daycare and adult care uses, including the classifications of daycare center; daycare, family; and daycare, group: 1. In determining the type of daycare facility, the total number of children at the facility at one time, including the operator's children, is the determining factor. 2. On site vehicle pick up, parking and turnaround areas shall be provided to ensure safe discharge and pick up of clients. 3. The decision making body shall specify the maximum number of allowable clients and hours of operation as conditions of approval. 4. Upon tentative approval of the application by the director or commission for a daycare center facility, tThe applicant or owner shall provide proof of criminal background checks and fire inspection certificates as required by title 39, chapter 11, Idaho Code. Said proof shall be provided prior to issuance of certificate of zoning complianceoccupancy. The applicant or owner shall comply with all state of Idaho and department of health and welfare requirements for daycare facilities. 5. In residential districts or uses adjoining an adjacent residence, the hours of operation shall be between six o'clock (6:00) A.M. and eleven o'clock (11:00) P.M. This standard may be modified through approval of a conditional use permit. 6. Prior to submittal of an application for an accessory daycare facility in a residential district, the applicant or owner shall hold a neighborhood meeting in accord with subsection 11-5A-4B of this title. Notice of the neighborhood meeting shall be provided to all property owners of record within one hundred feet (100') of the exterior boundary of the subject property. The applicant shall not exceed the maximum number of clients as stated in the approved permit or as stated in this title, whichever is more restrictive. B. Additional standards for daycare facilities that serve children: 1. All outdoor play areas shall be completely enclosed by minimum six foot (6') nonscalable fences to secure against exit/entry by small children and to screen abutting properties. 2. Outdoor play equipment over six feet (6') high shall not be located in a front yard or within any required yard. 3. Outdoor play areas in residential districts adjacent to an existing residence shall not be used after dusk. C. Additional standards for family daycare facilities conducted as home occupation accessory uses: 1. In no way shall the family daycare emit lighting, noise, fumes, smoke, dust, odors, vibrations, or electrical interference that can be observed outside the dwelling. A sign may be displayed for advertising the family daycare facility in accord with the standards set forth in UDC 11-3D-8B. 2. Off street parking shall be provided as set forth in section 11-3C-6 of this title, in addition to the required off street parking for the dwelling. 2018 UDC Text Amendment – H-2018-0011 5 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 223 of 227 11-4-3-27(B)3. Multi-family development Make this section eligible for alternative compliance in accord with section 11-5B-5. B. Site Design: 1. Buildings shall provide a minimum setback of ten feet (10') unless a greater setback is otherwise required by this title. Building setbacks shall take into account windows, entrances, porches and patios, and how they impact adjacent properties. 2. All on site service areas, outdoor storage areas, waste storage, disposal facilities, and transformer and utility vaults shall be located in an area not visible from a public street, or shall be fully screened from view from a public street. 3. A minimum of eighty (80) square feet of private, usable open space shall be provided for each unit. This requirement can be satisfied through porches, patios, decks, and/or enclosed yards. Landscaping, entryway and other accessways shall not count toward this requirement. In circumstances where strict adherence to such standard would create inconsistency with the purpose statements of this section, the director may consider an alternative design proposal through the alternative compliance provisions as set forth in section 11-5B-5 of this title. 4. For the purposes of this section, vehicular circulation areas, parking areas, and private usable open space shall not be considered common open space. 5. No recreational vehicles, snowmobiles, boats or other personal recreation vehicles shall be stored on the site unless provided for in a separate, designated and screened area. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) 6. The parking shall meet the requirements set forth in chapter 3, "Regulations Applying To All Districts", of this title. (Ord. 16-1672, 2-16-2016) 7. Developments with twenty (20) units or more shall provide the following: a. A property management office. b. A maintenance storage area. c. A central mailbox location, including provisions for parcel mail, that provide safe pedestrian and/or vehicular access. d. A directory and map of the development at an entrance or convenient location for those entering the development. 2018 UDC Text Amendment – H-2018-0011 6 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 224 of 227 Table 11-5B-5 Alternative compliance Allow the required eighty (80) square feet of private usable open space to be eligible for alternative compliance per the City Council’s direction. B. Applicability: 1. This process is intended to replace specific requirements as set forth throughout this title as follows: (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) TABLE 11-5B-5 ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE Permit Section Common driveway 11-6C-3 Common open space and site amenity requirements 11-3G Fence requirements 11-3A-7 Height maximum in commercial districts 11-2B-3 Height maximum in industrial districts 11-2C-3 Height maximum in TN-C district 11-2D-5 Landscape buffer for wireless communication facilities 11-4-3-43E Landscape requirements 11-3B Landscaping for base of freestanding sign 11-3D-8 Lighting standards for pathway along State Highway 55 11-3H-4C3 Outdoor lighting requirements 11-3A-11 Multi-family private usable open space standards 11-4-3-27B3 Parking and loading plan requirements 11-3C-5 Parking requirements 11-3C-6 Private street standards 11-3F-4 Projecting sign allowance 11-3D-8E and F Sign location in the O-T district 11-3D-5 Structure and site design review standards 11-3A-19 2018 UDC Text Amendment – H-2018-0011 7 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 225 of 227 11-6C-3(B)3. Subdivision standards Modifying this section of code to align with the newly adopted Title 8, Chapter 2, Uniform Street Name and Addressing Number Code. 11-6C-3: STANDARDS: A. Compliance: 1. Through properties are prohibited except where it is shown that unusual topography or other conditions make it impossible to meet this requirement. Through properties shall be limited to one (1) street access on one (1) frontage, designated by a note on the final plat. 2. The plat shall comply with all applicable requirements as set forth in chapter 2, "District Regulations", of this title. 3. The plat shall comply with all applicable requirements as set forth in chapter 3, "Regulations Applying To All Districts", of this title. (Ord. 16-1672, 2-16-2016) B. Streets: 1. Dedication: Within a proposed subdivision, arterial and collector streets as shown on the Comprehensive Plan shall be dedicated to the public in all cases; in general, all other streets shall also be dedicated to public use. 2. Street Specifications: The design, location, and widths of all street and street intersections shall comply with the requirements of the transportation authority, unless alternative standards are adopted by the City of Meridian. 3. Street Names: The naming of streets shall comply with Title 8, Chapter 2, “Uniform Street Name and Address Number Code”, of this code. conform to the requirements of the Ada County Street Name Committee, with the following exceptions: a. The street name shall generally comply with section 8-2-6, "Standards For Designation Of Street Names", of this Code. b. Street names shall not duplicate any existing street name within the County, except where a new street is a continuation of an existing street. c. Street names that may be spelled differently but sound the same as existing streets shall not be used. d. All new streets shall be named as follows: streets having predominantly north-south direction shall be named "avenue" or "road"; streets having a predominantly east-west direction shall be named "street" or "way"; meandering streets shall be named "drive", "lane", "terrace", "path", or "trail"; and cul-de-sacs shall be named "circle", "court", and "place". e. For streets that provide primary access to a subdivision or neighborhood and that align with an existing or planned street across an intersection that is not part of the same subdivision or neighborhood, the street name shall not duplicate the name of the subdivision or neighborhood. f. Proposed streets which are a continuation of an existing street shall be given the same name as the existing street. g. Street name signs shall be installed in the appropriate locations at each street intersection. h. The Meridian city council may approve exceptions to the requirements for street names in accord with subsections B3a through B3g of this section. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) 4. Cul-De-Sacs: No streets or series of streets that ends in a cul-de-sac or a dead end shall be longer than four hundred fifty feet (450'). (Ord. 14- 1623, 9-2-2014) 5. Alleys: a. Alleys shall have a minimum of sixteen feet (16') of paving. b. All alleys shall serve as fire lanes. c. All alleys shall be concrete or asphalt with a concrete ribbon curb. d. The entrance to the alley from the public street shall provide a minimum twenty eight foot (28') inside and forty eight foot (48') outside turning radius. No parking shall be allowed on either side of the street within fifty feet (50') of the alley entrance as measured from the centerline of the alley. 2018 UDC Text Amendment – H-2018-0011 8 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 226 of 227 Exhibit B. – Required Findings from Unified Development Code 1. Unified Development Code Text Amendments: Upon recommendation from the Commission, the Council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing, review the application. In order to grant a text amendment to the Unified Development Code, the Council shall make the following findings: A. The text amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Staff finds that the proposed UDC text amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals, Section 6, of the Staff Report for more information. B. The text amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; and Staff finds that the proposed zoning ordinance amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. It is the intent of the text amendments to further the health, safety and welfare of the public. C. The text amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the City including, but not limited to, school districts. Staff finds that the proposed zoning ordinance amendment does not propose any significant changes to how public utilities and services are provided to developments. All City departments, public agencies and service providers that currently review applications will continue to do so. Please refer to any written or oral testimony provided by any public service provider(s) when making this finding. 2018 UDC Text Amendment – H-2018-0011 9 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 227 of 227