Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2018-09-20
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 6:00 PM Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance __X__ Lisa Holland ____ Steven Yearsley __X__ Gregory Wilson ____ Ryan Fitzgerald __X__ Jessica Perrault __X__ Bill Cassinelli ____ Rhonda McCarvel - Chairperson Item 2: Adoption of Agenda Consent Agenda [Action Item] Approved A. Findings of Fact, Conclusion of Law for Fire Station No. 6 H- 2018-0083 by Meridian Fire Department, Located at 1435 W. Overland Rd. Item 4: Action Items Land Use Public Hearing Process: After the Public Hearing is opened the staff report will be presented by the assigned city planner. Following Staff's report the applicant has up to 15 minutes to present their application. Each member of the public may provide testimony up to 3 minutes or if they are representing a larger group, such as a Homeowners Association, they are allowed 10 minutes. The applicant is then allowed 10 additional minutes to respond to the public's comments. No additional public testimony is taken once the public hearing is closed. A. Public Hearing Continued from September 6, 2018 for EEG Office Building (H-2018-0081) by Chad Slichter, Located at 551 SW 5th Ave. 1. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a 12,825 square foot office/storage building on 0.993 acres of land in an L-O zoning district Continued to October 4, 2018 B. Public Hearing for Healthy Balance Pharmacy (H-2018-0086) by Daniel A. Schwalbe Inc., Located at 2424 E. Gala Ct. 1. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a drive-through pharmacy within 300 feet on an existing drive-through establishment on 0.772 of an acre of land in a C-G zoning district Approved C. Public Hearing for Burlingame Subdivision (H-2018-0079) by Yuriy Mukha, Located at NW Corner of West Cherry Lane and N Black Cat Rd. 1. Request: Rezone of property from R-4 (18.994 acres) to R-8; and 2. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 74 single-family residential building lots and 14 common lots on 18.994 acres of land in a proposed R-8 zoning district; and, 3. Request: Modify an existing Development Agreement to allow for additional residential and common lots, to allow for R-8 zoning and to change certain other provisions of the agreement Recommend Approval to City Council – Scheduled 10-16-18 D. Public Hearing for Hill's Century Farm Wireless Communications Facility (H-2018-0087) by Horizon Tower/Verizon Wireless C/O Powder River Development Services, Inc, Located at the southeast corner of E. Amity Rd. and S. Eagle Rd 1. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a wireless communication facility in and R-8 zoning district Continued to Future Date E. Public Hearing for Mountain View High School Addition (H- 2018-0089) by Hummel Architects, Located at 2000 S. Millennium Way 1. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a 25,204 square foot addition to the existing high school on 54.99 acres of land in the R-4 zoning district Approved F. Public Hearing for Verado West (H-2018-0085) by DevCo Development LLC, Located at 3090 N. Locust Grove Rd. 1. Request: Modification to the Existing Development Agreement for Verado Subdivision to include the subject property in the agreement; 2. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 19.44 acres of land with an R-15 zoning district; and 3. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 132 building lots and 18 common lots on 17.35 acres of land in an R-15 zoning district Recommend Approval to City Council – Scheduled 10-23-18 Meeting Adjourned 9:26 PM Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting September 20, 2018. Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of September 20, 2018, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Acting Chairman Jessica Perreault. Members Present: Commissioner Jessica Perreault, Commissioner Gregory Wilson, Commissioner Bill Cassinelli and Commissioner Lisa Holland. Members Absent: Chairman Rhonda McCarvel, Commissioner Steven Yearsley and Commissioner Ryan Fitzgerald. Others Present: Charlene Way, Andrea Pogue, Bill Parsons, Sonya Allen, Josh Beach and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-call Attendance __X____ Lisa Holland _______ Steven Yearsley __X___ Gregory Wilson _______ Ryan Fitzgerald __X___ Jessica Perreault ___X___ Bill Cassinelli _______ Rhonda McCarvel - Chairman Perreault: 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 September 20th, 2018. Let's begin with roll call. Item 2: Adoption of Agenda Perreault: Thank you very much. Next is the adoption of the agenda. The first item on the agenda. Can I get a motion to adopt the agenda, please? Cassinelli: So moved. Wilson: Second. Perreault: It's been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All those in favor say aye. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Item 3: Consent Agenda [Action Item] A. Findings of Fact, Conclusion of Law for Fire Station No. 6 H2018-0083 by Meridian Fire Department, Located at 1435 W. Overland Rd. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 4, 2018 – Page 61 of 273 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 20, 2018 Page 2 of 67 Perreault: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and we have one item, the Findings of Fact, Conclusion of Law for Fire Station No. 6, H-2018-0083, by Meridian Fire Department. Can I get a motion -- Cassinelli: Madam Chair, make a motion to approve the Consent Agenda. Wilson: Second. Perreault: It has been moved and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda. All those in favor. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Perreault: Okay. At this time we are going to explain the public hearing process. We will open each item individually and, then, start with the staff report. The staff will report their findings regarding 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 approval -- 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 the 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 a homeowner's association, and there is a show of hands 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, approval or denial. Item 4: Action Items A. Public Hearing Continued from September 6, 2018 for EEG Office Building (H-2018-0081) by Chad Slichter, Located at 551 SW 5th Ave. 1. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a 12,825 square foot office/storage building on 0.993 acres of land in an L-O zoning district Perreault: Okay. Let's begin with the staff report. Oh, we are continuing. That's right. Okay. We will open public hearing -- the public hearing for -- that was continued from September 6th for EEG Office Building, H-2018-0081 and we will open that for the purpose of continuing it until October 4th. Can I get a motion for continuance? Wilson: Madam Chair? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 4, 2018 – Page 62 of 273 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 20, 2018 Page 3 of 67 Perreault: Commissioner Wilson. Wilson: I move we continue H-2018-0081 to the date of October 4th, 2018. Holland: Second. Perreault: It has been moved and seconded to continue EEG Office Building, H-2018- 0081 to the date of October 4th, 2018. All those in favor? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES THREE ABSENT. B. Public Hearing for Healthy Balance Pharmacy (H-2018-0086) by Daniel A. Schwalbe Inc., Located at 2424 E. Gala Ct. 1. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a drive-through pharmacy within 300 feet on an existing drive-through establishment on 0.772 of an acre of land in a C-G zoning district Perreault: Okay. Now we will open the public hearing for Healthy Balance Pharmacy, H- 2018-0086. Beach: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, as you said, this is an application for -- it's called Healthy Balance Pharmacy. It's an application for a conditional use permit. You can see here on the zoning map, the property is zoned C-G. The site consists of approximately 7.77 of an acre of land, zoned C-G, located at 2424 East Gala Court. To the north is Overland Road and vacant commercial property, also zoned C-G. To the east is a drive-thru coffee shop zoned C-G. To the south is a multi-tenant office building and, excuse me, zoned C-G and to the west is also a multi-tenant office building, zoned L-O. In 2006 the subject property was granted annexation and zoning with R-15 and C- G zoning districts. A development agreement was approved with the annexation. A preliminary plat was -- was approved concurrently with that annexation with 64 single family detached residential lots, 24 alley-loaded attached single family residential lots, nine multi-family residential lots, 25 common lots and 32 commercial lots on approximately 77.66 acres. So, a large development. Also back in 2006 the property received final approval for Gramercy Subdivision No. -- No. 1, which consisted of 50 residential building lots, 32 building -- commercial building lots, one city park lot and 21 common lots on 62.01 acres. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is mixed use regional. The applicant is proposing to construct a 4,364 square foot, two story pharmacy with associated drive-thru per the recorded plat, direct lot access to Overland Road was not granted to this parcel. However, there is reciprocal cross-access in place for this parcel to access Gala Street to the south, Wells Avenue to the east, and use the right-in only access from Overland Road. Staff's analysis of the proposed development includes the internal site and landscape improvements. A new site circulation of the drive-thru and adjacent properties. I failed to mention the reason for the application for a conditional use permit is because it is within 300 feet of an existing drive- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 4, 2018 – Page 63 of 273 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 20, 2018 Page 4 of 67 thru, which is the coffee shop next door. The applicant's -- in the staff report we require that the applicant provide us a cross-access agreement. They have since done that, so that -- that -- that requirement has been eliminated. We have that information. The UDC requires conditional use permit if the drive-thru is within, as I said, 300 feet of an existing drive-thru. There are some specific use standards set forth in UDC 11-4-3-11 for drive- thru establishments that the applicant shall comply with. The applicant is showing several parking stalls that could be impacted by a drive-thru lane. Parking stalls here on -- on the east side of the project. Staff is requiring that those be labeled employee parking only in order to reduce the possibility of conflict in the drive-thru lane. Staff has reviewed the submitted site plan and requires the necessary provisions prior to submission of a certificate of zoning compliance. We required that the applicant provide some landscaping, so you can see in the previous iteration of this plan. There was no landscaping in this location here, so that this was all kind of pass-through parking stalls and it made staff nervous as far as circulation through the parking lot on creating conflict. So, he asked the applicant to provide some landscaping there, which they have done. Based on the overall square footage of the building, which I said is about 4,300 square feet, nine parking spaces are required and the applicant is providing 25 parking stalls. It meets that requirement. There was an existing 25 foot wide landscape buffer along Overland Road, which meets the requirement for a buffer along an arterial roadway, was constructed with the subdivision. In their landscape plan they are showing a pedestrian access out to the sidewalk along Overland Road for pedestrian connectivity and these are the conceptual elevations provided by the applicant for the structure. They appear to meet design review standards. We will review that with a certificate of zoning compliance for the site improvements and administrative design review application for the structure prior to issuing a building permit. Did receive no written testimony. Staff is recommending approval of the project with conditions. Staff feels that the use fits well with the surrounding area and surrounding medical offices along this section of Overland Road and, again, are recommending approval. Perreault: Thank you. Do the Commissioners have any questions for staff? Would the applicant, please, come forward. Please state your name and address for the record. Higgins: My name is Tyler Higgins. I didn't pass the first test. Sorry. 315 East Elm Street, Caldwell, Idaho, is our current pharmacy location business. I have been a pharmacist for 15 years. Pharmacy owner for nine years in our current location. We fill about 300 prescriptions a day and we are a hybrid type pharmacy. In other words, we do traditional retail community pharmacy and also compounding pharmacy. So, we create prescriptions from scratch, basically, so -- but through different provisions. We have had a need to expand our filling abilities for compounding, so we needed to search for another location and in searching through the valley that seemed to be the -- the best spot we could find. So, this is the spot we have. There is a lot of medical offices and also residential area that could have a need. There are currently two other independent pharmacies located in Meridian, but those are north of the freeway and so we would be the first one in Meridian south of the freeway. There is a couple other chain pharmacies that side. There is Rite Aid and also there is a W algreens on Overland and also a Walmart, but they are more than a mile away. So, it's a good spot and we are just here Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 4, 2018 – Page 64 of 273 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 20, 2018 Page 5 of 67 to get the approval on the drive-thru. We have created a means so that there are two windows for ease of drop off and pick up and if a car wanted to say just drop off and go and there was a car in front of them, there is a -- there is an extra lane for them to pull out of the drive-thru there and so they can go ahead and circle around. Typically our busiest times for pharmacy are going to be mid morning and mid afternoon is kind of when people are going to doctors, seeing them, and, then, going off to fill their prescriptions and so coffee shops are typically busy more in the morning, people going to work, so we are -- we are planning on them not -- the drive-thru is not really overlapping a whole lot is our guess for the peak hours. So, was there anything specifically I can answer as far as questions that I haven't covered? Perreault: Commissioners, do you have any questions for the applicant? Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: One quick question. Are you in agreement with everything in the staff report as they have identified it with the -- the employee parking here at the top of that drive-thru? Higgins: Yes. We did plan on putting the employee parking on the side there where the drive-thru is on the -- I guess the east side of the building and we did originally not put a -- on the south end of the parking lot a -- I guess an architectural landscape there. We were approached by the south owner of the building, who is now -- we have also pictures that we brought. There is a lot of cars actually parking in our -- our lot right now and he did approach us saying that he didn't have enough parking in his spaces there and so he asked if he could actually continue parking there, which is another reason why I wanted to create as much parking as we could. So, we thought for ease it might be easier just to not have the architectural buffer there. So, I'm not sure if that's still a possibility in this meeting if we can get that approval or not, but we thought it may be easier for them to -- to park there. We are at the end of a road, I guess you would say, between the two of us. His office building is more of -- not a lot of traffic of customers coming in and out he says. They are mostly employee parking. So there is not a lot of traffic on his side of the lot, the south side of the lot. But, anyway, that's -- that's what we would like if we could get that. Perreault: Okay. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: So, are you saying that the -- the parking that you're putting in you're -- you're happy to offer that up to your neighbor to the south to park in your stalls? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 4, 2018 – Page 65 of 273 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 20, 2018 Page 6 of 67 Higgins: Yeah. For a -- for a lease price. But, yeah, we are -- we are happy to offer that as long as we have enough space for our patients. Cassinelli: So, you feel, then, with what you have in the front of the building and, then, a couple on the side before it becomes employee parking -- I guess -- so, not that extra parking to the south, but the -- what's adjacent to the building is adequate for -- Higgins: Yeah. And it could change over time. Typically pharmacies, when they first open, they are not very busy. It takes time to -- to grow clientele I guess you would say. Over time we may need to use more of that. So, you know, I didn't promise them that we could, but I said at first we could look at trying to accommodate spaces for his employees. Cassinelli: Okay. Thank you. Perreault: And the main entrance is there on the southeast corner? It's hard to tell from this -- Higgins: Yes. Southeast corner. Perreault: Okay. And to the building as well? Higgins: Yes. Southeast corner there is a door kind of on the corner -- southeast corner. Perreault: Okay. Higgins: That's the entrance door. The main entrance door. Perreault: Okay. Higgins: And there is an employee door on the south side -- more the southwest area. Cassinelli: Madam Chair, I have another question. Perreault: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Is there a -- is there a curb or anything between what will be the drive-thru lane where that employee parking is and, then, the coffee shop? Higgins: There is a -- there is a buffer, there like a -- Cassinelli: Okay. Higgins: -- architectural buffer. Cassinelli: Okay. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 4, 2018 – Page 66 of 273 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 20, 2018 Page 7 of 67 Higgins: Yeah. Cassinelli: So, there is those two -- that traffic can't get -- Higgins: No. Cassinelli: It's separate. Higgins: It's separate. Cassinelli: Okay. Thank you. Higgins: They are separate. Yeah. Perreault: I think the idea of having the landscape buffer there on the south side is to just help prohibit folks from driving across that curb -- Higgins: Right. Perreault: -- just as a -- you know -- Higgins: Safety -- Perreault: Yeah. Higgins: Okay. Perreault: Yeah. There definitely is a purpose for it beyond just looking nice. Higgins: Okay. Perreault: Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? Thank you very much. At this time we will take public testimony. Is anybody signed up? Way: Madam Chair, there is no one signed up to testify. Perreault: Okay. Is there anyone here who would like to testify? Okay. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: I move we close the public hearing for Item H-2018-0086, Healthy Balance Pharmacy. Holland: Second. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 4, 2018 – Page 67 of 273 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 20, 2018 Page 8 of 67 Perreault: We have -- it has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing. All those in favor say aye. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: I -- I don't know how much traffic would -- would stack up at a pharmacy with a drive-thru. There is a Walgreens near my house and I don't think it's ever been more than about three cars. I don't think that's going to be an issue. There is a separation -- clear separation between -- and that's what we are really looking at is the -- is the drive- thru with -- within 300 feet of another one. I don't think it's an issue with the one next door. He's got way more parking than is required. I'm happy. Wilson: It meets your threshold. Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Wilson. Wilson: As someone who lives in that part of town I think this is a good fit for that area. I mean I think the staff report said it -- and I'm glad that these services are starting to migrate south of the freeway. So, I'm supportive of it. Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I tend to agree and I understand the applicant's requests to not have a landscape buffer, but I think it's nice to provide some extra safety between the two, so you don't just have cars kind of roaming through that curb area. I don't see any other concerns either. Perreault: Great. Yeah. I agree. I think this is a really nice use for that location and I think it promotes pedestrian access to this, too. There is a lot of apartment buildings on the south side. You know, there is -- there is people who work in offices all over there that can walk to this location on their lunch hour. It's -- it's a good location I think for this use, so -- all right. Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number H-2018-0086 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of September 20th, 2018, with no modifications. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 4, 2018 – Page 68 of 273 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 20, 2018 Page 9 of 67 Wilson: Second. Perreault: It has been moved and seconded to approve application number H-2018-0086. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. C. Public Hearing for Burlingame Subdivision (H-2018-0079) by Yuriy Mukha, Located at NW Corner of West Cherry Lane and N Black Cat Rd. 1. Request: Rezone of property from R-4 (18.994 acres) to R-8; and 2. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 74 single-family residential building lots and 14 common lots on 18.994 acres of land in a proposed R-8 zoning district; and, 3. Request: Modify an existing Development Agreement to allow for additional residential and common lots, to allow for R-8 zoning and to change certain other provisions of the agreement Perreault: All right. Let's move on to the next application, which is for the public hearing of Burlingame Subdivision, H-2018-0079. Beach: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, this is an application for a rezone for a preliminary plat and for a development agreement modification. The site consists of approximately 18.994 acres of land, which is currently zoned R-4, located to the northeast corner of West Cherry Lane and North Black Cat Road. An aerial shot here of kind of what we are looking at. So, this is the -- this is the area I kind of outlined here. Back in -- so, again, the site consists of 18, almost 19 acres. To the north is a single family residential subdivision of Turnberry Crossing, which is zoned R-4. To the south there is a single family residential property zoned RUT in Ada county, as well as West Cherry Lane. To the east are two church buildings, zoned L-O and a single family residence and daycares, zoned RUT within Ada county. And to the west are single family residences zoned RUT also within Ada county. Back in 2017 a development agreement modification was approved that replaced the previously approved concept plan and allowed for up to 60 single family residential lots and concurrently a preliminary plat was approved. It allowed, again, for up to 60 single family lots, specifically R-4 is what was designated at that time. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation for this property is low density residential. So, this is the previous plat that was approved back in 2017 and, again, on the -- on the right-hand side here is just kind of a blow up version, because it's kind of hard to see what's going on with all the line work here. So, not -- not terribly different as far as layout is concerned. Some -- some changes that -- that -- that were made to improve the project. So, we have to start out with the applicant has applied to Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 4, 2018 – Page 69 of 273 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 20, 2018 Page 10 of 67 rezone the property from R-4 to R-8 and the rezone is desired by the applicant to align with his vision to market the property to retirees and empty nesters. The applicant believes that with the rezone to R-8 and the reduced dimensional standards the project will now be much easier to market to their target demographic. The R-8 zoning district is an allowable zoning designation within the LDR or low density residential Comprehensive Plan designation and the proposed density is appropriate if a step up is approved by Council and that's something that they can ask for, to go one step in -- in density and, then, that's what they have asked for. Next a development agreement modification -- as I said, this property was -- is currently governed by a development agreement that was approved with the Burlingame Subdivision back in 2017. Again, because the applicant's vision for the property does not match what was approved and required with the previous development, the applicant has applied to modify the existing development agreement to update the development plan and building elevations. The previously approved plan included 60 single family residential lots and seven common lots with an R-4 designation, which had a density of 4.43 dwelling units per acre and -- and about 1.89 acres of open space. The previous iteration did not require a step up in density per the Comprehensive Plan, because the density was aligned with the requirements of the low density residential designation. The new plan consists of 74 residential lots and 14 common lots and has 2.26 acres of open space and has a density of 4.98 dwelling units per acre, which requires the step up in density. The new development agreement should -- should include the proposed development plan and any changes required in building elevation included as attached exhibits. So, by way of explanation, this entire parcel, with the inclusion of this area indicated by my mouse here, was included in the development agreement, but this parcel was not included in the plat. So, there are some requirements on that plat from the development agreement that are -- it's a little bit funky, so I will just kind of explain that a little bit here. They did a property boundary adjustment to exclude that parcel from the plat, but because it was in the development agreement there are some specific requirements for that parcel that we would like to -- to keep in the development agreement. So, as I said, the home was split and it was still part of the recorded development agreement. Staff has reviewed the recorded development agreement and finds that even though it's not part of the plat as required, in the recorded development agreement, that the home should be required to hook up to city services immediately, close the existing access to Cherry Lane, extend a ten foot multi-use pathway along the frontage, provide a 25 foot landscape buffer in accord with UDC and take access from the proposed West Montgomery Way and shall abandon direct access to Cherry Lane prior to the city's signature on the first final plat. Next a preliminary plat is proposed, again, consisting of 74 building lots, 14 common lots and about 18.9 acres of land and what they are asking for is an R-8 the zoning district, proposed to develop in three phases and it's a little difficult to see here, but the phase one would be approximately -- the north boundary would be where my mouse is and wrap down to Cherry Lane. The second phase would start where my mouse is and kind of follow this line here. The second phase would connect with Turnberry Crossing and, then, the third phase is this -- this area indicated by my -- by my mouse. You can kind of see the dashed line there. The average lot size in the development is 7,152 square feet. The minimum is 5,600 square feet, which meets the UDC standards. Lots in the proposed subdivision are required to comply with the dimensional standards in the R-8 zoning district and as well as the block length Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 4, 2018 – Page 70 of 273 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 20, 2018 Page 11 of 67 standards, which they do. The subject property is currently developed with two existing residences. Both of the homes have an access from a 25 foot wide private access easement to Black Cat Road, which is currently indicated by my mouse here. There is an easement between both of the church properties out to Black Cat, which will be eliminated as an access point, since the one home that will be remaining in this location will be accessed internally and the other home will be removed. For the development the applicant is proposing to construct a new public street access to Cherry Lane and extend O'Connor Avenue into the site from the north. Two stub streets are proposed, one along the west boundary -- so a stub street approximately in this location to the west and a stub street in this location to the east and staff is generally supportive of the proposed street system. ACHD has submitted comments and conditions back to the city for this project and they have not required any significant changes to the -- to the plat. Street buffer landscape, again, is required to be provided as set forth in the UDC. The applicant is proposing a 25 foot landscape buffer and, as I said, even though this parcel is not part of the plat, a 25 foot landscape buffer was required with the previous development agreement and we are going to require that that stay that way and that it be landscaped according to the UDC. The pathways masterplan depicts a regional pathway on the site along the north side of Cherry Lane and another section of the ten foot regional pathway along the north side of the property adjacent to the Settlers Canal. So, I'm going to go to the landscape plan here. You can kind of see the ten foot multi-use pathway that will be required along Cherry Lane and there is also a pathway that's required along the south side of the Settlers Canal, so it will be in an easement or wrap behind the lots on the west side of the LDS church and eventually our -- our plan is to have that go along the easement out to Black Cat, but those -- that would be something that we can't require right now, because neither church is part of the application, so the thought is that eventually when those -- one or the other come in for some improvements on their site we will require a multi-use pathway at that time eventually out to Black Cat. And because this -- this is an access road for the irrigation district -- the Settlers Irrigation District, they -- the irrigation district has allowed the applicant to pave that, instead of having it be dirt or gravel, so it can be a dual purpose multi-use pathway and an access road to access their irrigation facilities. The applicant is also proposing to construct several micro paths within the development as part of the internal pathway system and the proposed micro path must be five feet in width and landscaped in accord with the UDC. As I said, there are existing irrigation easements along the north and a portion of the east boundary of the project. During the project review meeting with the other city departments concerns were raised that this area could be unsafe due to the lack of visibility. In discussing this with the applicant it was determined that the Settlers Irrigation District, as I said, needs this area to remain open so they have access to their facility. The applicant is proposing two common driveways, Lot 20, Block 5, and Lot 13, Block 3. All common driveways should comply with the standards set forth in the UDC. A detached sidewalk shall be constructed along the entire frontage of West Cherry Lane. With that I received one -- one comment from Jeanette O'Brian with concerns about overcrowded schools and congested roads. These are some of the -- not the landscape plan, these are conceptual building elevations for this subdivision. These are the -- I believe the exact same elevations are proposed with the previous project and just a comparison quickly on the -- the landscaping and open space. With the previous project 1.89 acres or ten percent Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 4, 2018 – Page 71 of 273 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 20, 2018 Page 12 of 67 of the project was proposed with one amenity. This project is proposing 2.26 or 11.9 percent open space and they have -- are proposing two sections of multi-use pathway, but they are also proposing a play structure, a gazebo, and some internal pathways. With that staff is recommending approval on the project. The project is comparable to the subdivision to the north, though, obviously, the lot sizes aren't -- aren't quite as big as the subdivision to the north, but staff feels that with the increased open space, better design and layout of the subdivision and better amenities, that it would be a better fit than the previous project. So, we are recommending approval. Stand for any questions. Perreault: Thank you. Any questions? Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: Josh, just one clarification question. On access points into this neighborhood, they are going to take away the private drive on Cherry Lane, but that -- the Cherry Lane is going to be the major access point for the neighborhood; is that correct? Beach: Right. So, the main -- the main access point in -- with the first phase will be off of Cherry Lane and, as I said, there is an existing home here and they -- I believe the applicant has an exhibit showing how they are going to -- you can kind of see where my mouse is here where an access easement is for that parcel, so they won't have access to Cherry Lane. Holland: Thank you. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Josh, what -- out of curiosity what happened with the previous project that we approved last year? Beach: You can ask the applicant. Cassinelli: Same applicant? Beach: Same applicant. Same property owner. Cassinelli: Okay. And, then, also a couple other questions on the pathway system. The access right now off of Black Cat between the -- I think -- does that go between the two churches? Is that right? Beach: It's essentially on the property line. Correct. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 4, 2018 – Page 72 of 273 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 20, 2018 Page 13 of 67 Cassinelli: Okay. And is it -- it says one or both of the churches. They -- that's their property. Beach: Yeah. The easement crosses both -- both of their -- Cassinelli: So, access to a future pathway and stuff, that's going to come -- Beach: We can't require that currently, but, as I said, when -- when either or both of those properties come in to redevelop at some point we will -- we will get that pathway. Cassinelli: Okay. Beach: You can still use it. It's still -- the easement is still in place. Cassinelli: So, folks can still walk on that if they want to? Beach: So, it -- the easement is there for public access. Cassinelli: Okay. I remember -- I remember this last time and I remember the pathways were -- that -- that we talked a lot about that and, then, on the access for Settlers Irrigation along the east boundary -- yeah. Is that -- that is -- that is -- that is their drive and pathway? Is that a combination of both? Beach: Correct. So, you can ask the applicant. W e have discussed that a little bit, so -- the irrigation district has allowed them to pave it wider -- a wider pathway. I can't remember -- 14 feet, maybe, that they need in order to get their vehicle back there, but we also required that there be landscaping on either side, so they will -- they will have to -- they will have to be a little bit wider than what we typically get, which is just 20 feet. Cassinelli: Okay. Beach: Ten foot, five feet on either side of landscaping. Cassinelli: Okay. All right. Thank you. Perreault; Okay. Would the applicant come forward. McKay: Thank you, Madam Chairman, Members of the Commission. I'm Becky McKay with Engineering Solutions. Business address 1029 North Rosario in Meridian. Glad to be here tonight. I'm representing Yuriy Mukha, who is the applicant on this particular project. As -- Josh can you -- oh, there. As Josh indicated, this particular property is just located west of Black Cat, north of Cherry Lane. As you can see Turnberry Subdivision, which is zoned R-4 to the north. To the east we have the LDS Church and the Seventh- Day Adventist Church, which are zoned L-O. We have some RUT parcels to the south of us, to the west of us, and, then, kind of kitty corner to us we do have an R-8 designation. This kind of gives you an aerial photo of the property. It's basically a consolidation of Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 4, 2018 – Page 73 of 273 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 20, 2018 Page 14 of 67 multiple parcels. That's why you have three homes on the property. There was an existing home right here at Cherry Lane with the garage oriented to the south, an existing house right here in the midsection, and, then, another one over on the east side and these homes took access off of a cross-access easement that went out to Black Cat Road in between the two church properties. A little bit of history on these properties. This property has kind of been hanging around for 12 years. It first came through the city as Incline Village, as Josh indicated, back in 2006. That's when the property was annexed and zoned R-4. It was approved for a preliminary plat. Construction plans were prepared, final plat was prepared, submitted to the city. They obtained all their necessary approvals, but, obviously, then, the recession hit and the property was not developed. So, it kind of languished over time. Yuriy picked the property up, he went ahead, as Josh stated, did a one time split for this existing home right here on Cherry Lane and, then, he brought this project through in 2017. They came before you and the City Council with an R-4 designation that was already previously approved and had 60 lots. There were some issues that they struggled with, pathways, providing adequate easement for the Settlers Irrigation District. Some of the key issues that were mentioned in the staff report was the amount of open space that was provided. The Council -- or the Commission was -- was not very pleased with the amount of open space, they -- they -- their concern was that the open space and the amenities were not distributed evenly throughout the subdivision. So, it was approved and shortly after it was approved Yuriy came to me and he said, you know, I have this approved development, I have got a development agreement modification they want me to sign, but I -- I really don't think that this is the best use on the property and the best layout and I have talked to builders and -- and, basically, they are telling me that, you know, they -- they think that something better could be designed on this property. So, he went ahead, signed that development agreement modification on my recommendation and, then, we started looking at the project and looking at this particular layout and trying to figure out, you know, based on the concerns the Commission had, even though it was approved, the concern staff had, the concerns the neighbors had, what can we do to change it. So, in -- in looking at this project my recommendation was that they just -- they just retain one home on the property here, because this is, obviously, the nicest home, eliminate the home on the easterly side, which, then, allowed us to bring that street through. The -- the project with just the cul- de-sacs wasn't really neighborhood friendly. They had only allocated 30 feet for the -- there is two laterals here, the Safford Lateral, which is Nampa-Meridian and, then, the Settlers Southern Canal, which is under Settlers Irrigation District and they had only allocated 30 feet. In my conversations with Settlers Mack indicated that they needed about 45. They also -- the Safford is -- or not the Safford. I'm sorry. The Settlers is piped through -- along the east side here and they had easements into the lots. Well, I -- I really do not like having irrigation district easements in private lots. It just -- you're just asking for conflict between the future homeowners and the irrigation district. So, my recommendation to Yuriy was, you know, we create separate lots. This is a separate 30 foot wide lot here. This is a separate 45 foot wide lot here. None of the buildable lots are encumbered by the irrigation easements. In talking with Mack I said, you know, they want a multi-use pathway to come up and, then, go westward for future extension and I said, you know, would you object to that. He indicated to me, no, you know, we would work with you. So, typically what happens, instead of us doing just the ten foot wide multi-use Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 4, 2018 – Page 74 of 273 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 20, 2018 Page 15 of 67 pathway, we do a 14 foot wide multi-use pathway and it basically serves for a dual purpose. It's a maintenance road and it is traffic rated, so that the irrigation district ditch riders can drive on it. There are some existing trees all along that pipeline and, then, as you can see all along here. The irrigation district indicated we know that there is trees there. We are not going to let you plant any more trees. We will allow you to do turf and shrubs and your pathway with a license agreement, but we won't allow any trees to encroach within our easement and so when we took -- took a look at this, we got rid of those -- those dead end cul-de-sacs and we created kind of a loop street and one of the things that was contentious is they had a pond back here and the residents of Turnberry were very concerned about, obviously, mosquitoes, the aesthetics of the pond. So, my recommendation was we need to have an irrigation pond to store the 24 hour water right. This is served by -- I believe it's the McKinney Lateral that comes through and -- and there is a head gate right here and, then, there is a ditch that kind of traverses the property and goes -- and provides water to the south along the south side. So, my recommendation was -- we put a lined pond here and we store the 24 hour water right, so that we can meet our peak demand. Obviously, that also be aesthetically pleasing at the entrance. As far as our amenity, that we create a nice tot lot here where we could put playground equipment, a gazebo, and, then, we have a five foot micro path that kind of comes down here that connects everything together. This particular lot here is a common lot that's primarily designed for storm drainage and when we started working on this we, basically, ended up with approximately 74 lots. In talking with staff they said, you know, we are open to the fact that you want to step up from R-4 to R-8, but, obviously, we want to see, one, a superior concept, two, more amenities, three, a better distribution of your open space. So -- so, those were our goals and that's -- that's pretty much what Yuriy and I worked with throughout the last few months. Yuriy is kind of thinking that, you know, this is going to kind of appeal to, you know, the more, you know, empty nester type people, seniors, but what we found in some of our other communities they want playgrounds, because their grandkids come and visit. So, they like -- you know, like gazebos, they like pathways, but they still want playgrounds, which -- which I found that -- you know, I guess I never thought of it from that perspective, but I have had that comment made multiple times. What's before you now -- these lots range in size from 5,600 square feet all the way up to -- this particular lot here with the existing home, detached garage, is 34,000 square feet. But, really, the important thing is these average lot sizes are 7,152 square feet. So, we are trying to provide a variety of -- you know, they are 55 by 102 feet in depth and 55 by 150 feet in depth. So, a little bit of variety. The density that we are proposing -- our net density is 3.9 acres -- or unit -- dwelling units per acre. What was previously approved was 3.16. When we had our neighborhood meeting we did get turnout from the Turnberry residence. Obviously, we will be connecting to their stub street here. There is a bridge that will have to be constructed. There is a trust fund at ACHD for 50 percent of this vehicular bridge structure, but that was done in the '90s and so, obviously, costs have escalated over the last how many jillion years it seems like. So, you know, that was one thing that we had to take into consideration is the economic viability of this development and the 60 lots, you know, in looking at the cost for construction, it just was not going to be able to, you know, make economic sense and that's kind of the feedback that Yuriy received from other builders and developers that he consulted. Our total eligible open space, as Josh indicated, went up. We have 2.26 acres of open space that went up Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 4, 2018 – Page 75 of 273 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 20, 2018 Page 16 of 67 basically a half acre. The initial open space was 1.89, roughly ten percent. We are pushing 11.9, almost 12 percent open space. So, we did increase that and I think that's important, obviously, if you're increasing the number of units and the density that your open space and your amenities go up. On the irrigation, I did -- was contacted by Mr. Klauer, who lives to the south, and I wanted -- I told him that I would go on the record that we would make sure that the irrigation water that he is entitled to and is assessed for will be pipe to him, because he has not been receiving his water just due to the property, you know, overgrown ditches and so forth. So, we will work closely with him to make sure that that's rectified. As far as the utilities are concerned, the sewer is located right here, right between the two churches. We will extend that offsite sewer. The Public Works Department has indicated that capacity exists to service these 74 lots. One of their primary concerns was the sewer depth, because in the initial plan with the cul-de-sacs, the sewer was, basically, coming out of the ground right about in here. Where we eliminated that existing home, looped the street through, then, that allowed us to -- we have adequate cover clear down to here and we will connect this existing home right here to central sewer, central water and, then, we will stub the sewer to this parcel here. As far as this cul-de-sac -- or the stub streets are concerned, I did consult with this property owner. I initially had the stub street located further north. He asked that we move it south, which I did. I guess they are looking at the possibility of constructing a Montessori School on the property. The Fire Department made a comment about this common drive as far as the length cannot exceed 150 feet without a -- without a turnaround. Basically, the common drive will terminate at this lot right here. The only reason I show it coming down is because this is a sewer line that will sewer this property back into this project. We will extend an eight inch water line from Turnberry and, then, make a connection to the existing 12 inch water main that's in Cherry Lane. So, therefore, we will loop that water system and meet all fire flow requirements. As far as this pocket park, we have -- we have 14,211 square feet and that is -- that is kind of our active use pocket park here. To give you kind of a size of what this is, this is about 26,000 square feet. This is going to be passive. One of the comments in the previous Commission hearing was they didn't want to see kids playing right, you know, at the entrance along this arterial and this collector roadway entrance and so, obviously, we have moved all of the active amenities internally within the development. So, this is just basically passive, just to, you know, curb appeal. We have an island. We have landscaping along the east side and, then, we have landscaping along the existing home. So, I kind of went through, you know, the gazebo, the playground, we are retaining -- we are retraining as many of those existing spruce trees as we can. They are, obviously, a benefit to our project. I will wrap up. Lastly, this is the existing home. The staff is asking us to provide in the development agreement a 25 foot landscape buffer, which we can provide that. ACHD is allowing us to put your ten foot multi-use pathway within the right of way. We just want the Commission to be cognizant of the fact that the driveway does have to encroach into that 25 feet, because that existing garage is oriented to the south. We are creating an access internally within our -- at our collector roadway for access to the home and eliminating their direct lot access to Cherry Lane. Do you have any questions that I could answer? Perreault: Any questions? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 4, 2018 – Page 76 of 273 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 20, 2018 Page 17 of 67 McKay: Thank you. Perreault: Thank you. Cassinelli: Madam Chair, I do have a question for you. Perreault: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: The -- I had it and I lost it. Now I got it back. The pond -- since that's -- that's the irrigation storage, essentially, that's going to go -- is that going to go dry during the winter? McKay: The groundwater out here is -- we have been monitoring it and so there is some high ground water because this is the low point. So, we haven't decided -- we usually do when we go into design, whether that's going to be a wet pond and get into that groundwater, or whether we line them. If we get into the groundwater typically it enlarges the pond. We have to have that safety shelf and so it's all going to depend on -- if we have enough room to do that or whether we just line it. If it's lined, then, yes, in the winter it would go dry. In the irrigation season it would be full. It would be -- basically they have a -- you know, a float on them, so that it's allowing that water to go in. We have to aerate that pond, so we usually have a subsurface aerator or maybe a surface aerator that kind of like is a little fountain, so that it does serve as an amenity during those irrigation months. But, you're correct, in the winter if its lined, it is a dry pond. Cassinelli: Thank you. Perreault: Becky, can you show us on the landscape plan where the entrance is to the house there in the southeast corner? Is that going to come right in on the west side of the -- McKay: It's right there. Perreault: So, it -- when they are making a left are they going to -- it's not going to be an issue for them with this center island? McKay: No. As you can see the island terminates right here at the little pink tree. Perreault: There won't be a visual issue if there is trees in that island? McKay: No. Perreault: Okay. McKay: No. Because we have to -- we have to keep that, so -- that vision triangle, so they can safely pull out and, then, exit the subdivision. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 4, 2018 – Page 77 of 273 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 20, 2018 Page 18 of 67 Perreault: Okay. If there is no more questions for the applicant, we will now take testimony. Do we have anyone signed up? Way: Madam Chair, we have one person signed up who would like to testify, William McEwen. Perreault: Please come forward. State your name and address for the record. McEwen: Hi. My name is William McEwen. I'm at 5120 West Cherry Lane, which is this property right here. Okay. So, you can imagine that this project greatly affects my property and so I do have concerns. I would like to thank Becky, she's been very instrumental in -- in working with me as far as our needs in this project and -- and she's been great to work with. I do have some concerns, however. So, since you know where I live, one of the issues is that the sewer that comes through here -- she already mentioned that because they were able to reroute it they could actually get it to the front of their development. When I say front I mean the south -- the south end right here. The problem is is that the sewer line would be approximately three feet deep and if our property were to hook into that we may be looking at a grinder pump to even hook up into city water -- or to city sore and we are really not that anxious to hook into city sewer anyway. We just don't want to get in a position where we have to buy a grinder pump to do that for future development of our property, unless we can hook into the sewer back here. Can you guys see my mouse right here, where she is running a sewer line? Okay. That was -- that was one of our concerns. We have gone through a nine month study with the CDHC with groundwater out there. Currently it hasn't gotten above six feet, so there isn't a problem with us developing our own sewer system. Secondly, ACHD has already talked to us about vacating our driveway, as you know they do, and we would be in the same boat as the house next door to us on this project and since Becky's moved this -- moved this in here, as long as we have access to that we are in good shape. The fourth point I would like to make is that Cherry Lane, even -- as you can see is not developed past the intersection and there is no -- it's not on the master plan for ACHD to develop that other than a circle in the corner and so they are talking about putting retirees -- retirement people for retirement housing in there, which you guys know requires a lot less traffic in the subdivision. I think that's great, but if you're going to approve the plan -- and that's what they want to do, make sure it's part of the requirements of the neighborhood, is the concern that I have and the last -- the last comment that I have is that I know that there is irrigation pipes buried on the back side of my property, which is the south side of this property, and they start right about here and they go all the way across and I just want to make sure that everybody knows that there is an easement for that, so that I don't lose my irrigation. Other than that I don't have a problem with this project and Becky's been wonderful to work with. Thank you. Perreault: Thank you. No one else signed up to testify, would anybody else like to come forward and testify? Donahue: My name is Keri Donahue. I live up in -- off Tournament Drive in Turnberry Crossing, so the north parcel there. I live -- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 4, 2018 – Page 78 of 273 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 20, 2018 Page 19 of 67 Perreault: Please state your address for the record. Donahue: Oh, I'm sorry. 4999 West Tournament Drive, Meridian. Perreault: Thank you. Donahue: My concern, first and foremost, with a lot of my neighbors, is the safety due to traffic -- with the influx of traffic coming from this particular layout versus the last one with only 60 designated parcels. Unfortunately, a lot of the commerce near our area is more toward the northeast. The new developing parts of like Chinden and State Street, there is not a lot of shopping, other than an Albertsons that is on Cherry Lane, until you get clear into Meridian or closer to Eagle Road. So, we feel that there is going to be a large influx of actual traffic that will come into Turnberry Crossing through the connection of O'Connor right here and use our entrance and exit to Black Cat, since there is not going to be any -- any sort of main road access with this to Black Cat Road. So, with that, the initial concerns, children -- we have a lot of small children, families with small children. Our entrance becomes congested in the morning, especially due to bus stops, school kids with flow of cars in and out. So, when -- Becky mentioned the developers meeting. Some of these concerns were addressed -- or brought up. I won't say they were addressed, but, essentially, the reply that we got when asking about what are -- what is ACHD going to do to maintain or help -- whether it's stop signs or potential stop lights to help that flow of traffic through our subdivision, the response that I got was it won't be an issue, because there won't be that much extra traffic. So, we weren't comfortable with that answer by any means. Nothing has been proposed to alleviate that concern. I know that Becky has mentioned that they are planning to promote this as a retirement community of sorts, but unless that's an actual agreement that that is what it has to be, like a 55 and over community, there is -- there is no indication that we are not going to have some sort of major traffic issue, especially when properties to the west are developed and also connecting two places in Turnberry Crossing. That future planning is also going to create a mass amount of influx of traffic through -- to use our connection to Black Cat Road and so thank you for your time. Just wanted to state that. Thank you. Perreault: Thank you. Is there anyone else here to testify? Becky, would you like to come back forward? McKay: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. Becky McKay. Appreciate Mr. McEwen's comments. I try to make an effort to work with the -- with the adjoining property owners and -- and, obviously, try to mitigate what our impact is. As far as -- as far as the sewer is concerned -- Josh, can I get back to that landscape plan? So, as far as the sewer is concerned, Mr. McEwen is correct, when the sewer gets down to this location it has the minimum of three foot of cover. So, as far as sewering of his property, the city of Meridian Public Works has -- has required that we extend the sewer line to here to bring that sewer -- because we have more depth here than we do at this location. We will stub water here. We will stub water here. But the sewer will be stubbed at this location for him. He could do a grinder pump if he were to redevelop his property or he wanted to connect his home. I did have a conversation with the city engineer and Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 4, 2018 – Page 79 of 273 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 20, 2018 Page 20 of 67 talked to Warren about the existing house here, if we could not get a service line over could we do a grinder pump and, then, pressure into the line and he had indicated, yes, we could. But with our redesign we do not need to do that, based on our initial sewer inverts. As far as Mr. McEwen, you know, on the irrigation, we will coordinate with the adjoining property owners, like I -- like I told you I'm -- you know, I have had conversations -- multiple conversations with the property owner to the south. We will protect any existing irrigation facilities. I indicated that this is served by the McKinney -- it's the Stewart Lateral that serves everybody out here and that head gate is here. So, I worked with Settlers Irrigation District, Mack Myers, making sure that we are protecting or piping all of the irrigation and drainage water for the adjoining properties and, obviously, enhancing the irrigation system that we have out here now for this development. Ms. Donahue, she did attend my neighborhood meeting at my office. Her primary concern was, obviously, traffic and the -- the fact that, you know, our primary access is to Cherry Lane. You know, like I said, we are targeting this as 55 and older, but, you know, you can't limit who can live here. We can market it for 55 and older, but -- but we may get some empty nesters, we may get, you know, a single mom with a -- with a child -- who knows. We have to connect to this stub street. That is required by ACHD. If someone were to -- up in this northern section you are going to get some interconnectivity with the traffic, they may come up and, then, go out to Black Cat through Turnberry, but, likewise, you know, we may get some people that drop through us and come out to Cherry Lane. It's kind of, you know, a little bit of give and take. The interconnectivity is important. It's in the policy manual at ACHD. It's in your Comprehensive Plan, your ordinance. So, we really don't have any choice but to make that connection. If this were a straight connection and this really promoted cut-through traffic, I would be far more concerned, but with -- with the design we have we are, obviously, making the most convenient route for our residents to come down to Cherry Lane, the arterial here, and we will be widening Cherry Lane. ACHD is requiring that we dedicate 48 feet of right of way for the existing home. That's not part of the plat and for the plat. There is no compensation for that. We will be widening it 17 feet from centerline and, then, installing a ten foot sidewalk along the entire frontage, including the out parcel. So, we will be doing what we can to mitigate for our impact on the transportation system and, in addition, all of the impact fees that will be paid to ACHD to help, obviously, with future upgrades in this area for the existing traffic that we are creating. We are creating about 699 vehicle trips per day. The additional 14 lots that we are proposing is about 133 additional trips or approximately a 19 percent increase. So, it's pretty minimal. Capacity does exist. ACHD indicated everything is operating at a better -- a level of service better than E and that there is capacity on the network and they have recommended approval. Thank you. Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: Becky, just one more question. So, on the north side of the property where you have got to construct the bridge over to the other neighborhood up there -- McKay: Yes. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 4, 2018 – Page 80 of 273 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 20, 2018 Page 21 of 67 Holland: -- is there a slight incline in that that's going to naturally slow traffic as they go over that bridge or is it going to be a flat bridge over -- McKay: That's going to depend -- what we have to provide is two feet of freeboard over each waterway, so sometimes we will go with -- with a pipe or sometimes we will go ahead and do a concrete box structure, so where we are crossing two facilities under two different jurisdictions -- I don't want to speculate. Typically there is a little bit of a rise, because of that two free to free board and, then, we have to match in right here. I can't really come in steep, because I can't send drainage their way. I have to take the drainage back south onto our site. But -- but, typically, you know, we -- it will be -- usually the bridges are kind of a traffic calming measure, you know, there is -- there is walk -- there is sidewalk, railing, you know, you can decorate them, make them, you know, aesthetically pleasing. So, I -- yeah, I don't see the people just whipping through there, no. Holland: Thank you. Perreault: Thank you. Okay. At this time can I get a motion to close the public hearing for Item No. H-2018-0079. Cassinelli: So moved. Holland: Second. Perreault: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing. All those in favor say aye. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: I guess I will -- I will start. I remember -- I remember the first time I went through it and -- I don't remember everything. I do remember we spent a lot of time. I remember there was a lot going on with the pathways and whatnot. What struck my -- when I first looked at this what -- what kind of hit me -- Josh, do you have the future land use map you can pull up real quick? Beach: Not real quick, but I got -- Cassinelli: Okay. If you're -- what -- what struck me is -- I will look at it here and kind of talk to it. When you look north of the freeway with the future land use map there is an overwhelming majority in this area that is -- that's R-4 -- or, excuse me, R-8, that's medium density. Very little -- very little low density. So, I -- I mean it was -- we went through this, we approved it as R-4, I want to protect the low density that's -- that's in this area. Again, Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 4, 2018 – Page 81 of 273 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 20, 2018 Page 22 of 67 it's pretty limited, real heavy medium density, and there is a lot of places to do -- to do the R-8 in this area of Meridian and there is not much of the R-4 left. I -- I don't want to -- we approved it as R-4. We approved the project. I don't like to see that increase. I don't think there is any guarantee of -- of keeping it to R-55 unless you -- you know, unless you design the houses as such. But that's what we saw here is -- this is the same houses going on smaller lots, increasing the density. I mean I -- yes, I like, you know, more, amenities, slightly more open space. It's not a lot to -- talking a half an acre. But -- but what really -- what really hits me is the -- is there is very little -- very little low density R-4 in that area. Most of it's R-8. I don't want to see what little we have go to R-8. That's -- that's really where I -- where I stand on this and we -- and we approved it as R-4. It was -- it was going to work last year and, you know, why it doesn't work now I don't know, but -- but it was going to work then. Perreault: Any other, thoughts, comments? Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland I -- you know, I agree that it's -- it's tough when there is not a lot of R-4 possibilities left in the community as far as how we can develop some of it. At the same time I think the applicant did a pretty decent job of trying to make sure we still had an increase in open space, some better pathways going through it, trying to work with the -- the neighbors in putting together a good project. I don't see a lot of concerns in the way that this is laid out, except for the increase in density, because I agree with you, it's tough when there is not a lot of R-4 still available when you look at what's kind of around it and what's developing and what's selling really quickly in the market. There is -- there is a market for the R-8. So, I guess I'm kind of torn between both. I don't see any challenges with this development the way that it's laid out. I think they did a nice job developing the streetscape, putting in some open space, putting in some nice features and increasing some of those amenities. Yeah, those are my thoughts for now. Cassinelli: I guess can I answer that a little bit, in my opinion. The development is fine in somewhere where it's -- that's already zoned R-8. They are looking for -- they are looking for the step up, for the change in zoning, and, again, I just see -- when you look at that there is so little R-4 in that area and there is plenty of R-8. There is plenty of other places to put this development and we went through it and approved it at the R-4 -- I want to see us keep what R-4 is out there. There is just -- there is not much when you look at -- at that area of Meridian and, you know, I would just -- I would hate to lose it. There was a -- you know, there is other R-4s that have gone in and we just -- we just dealt with one it went through -- it went through Council this week. I don't know what -- I don't know what the outcome of that was, I didn't -- I didn't see, but that was an R-4 in the middle of R-8. So, it will work. You know, they had a builder team to put together an R-4 project that worked out there. I think they can make it work here and I -- that -- I just don't want to see us lose what little R-4 we have. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 4, 2018 – Page 82 of 273 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 20, 2018 Page 23 of 67 Perreault: Okay. So, I wanted to speak to -- I think she might have left, but I wanted to speak to the neighbor in Turnberry Crossing. An application that recently came before us only had one main access and we had a member of the fire department and the police department here chatting with us about safety and safety with public services and so when you don't -- when you only have one access, especially that doesn't have a light and you have a traffic jam there or an accident there, then -- then there -- there aren't other options for emergency vehicles to come into the development, so that's another reason why they need that connectivity to the north. So, I just wanted to -- to -- no. It's -- I'm sorry. It's a closed hearing, so we can't take anymore testimony. When I first looked at this application I was thinking along the lines of Commissioner Cassinelli and was concerned about that increase in density. I still have that concern, but I do think that it is laid out as well as it could be laid out for the shape of the lot that's there. I think that -- that the applicant has -- has thought through as much as they can think through in regard to what the staff has asked of them and what -- what the neighbors have asked of them. So, this is a tough one, because I can definitely see concerns on both sides. So, if there is nothing else to discuss regarding the specifics -- Cassinelli: There is one more opinion down there. Wilson: Yeah. Perreault: Commissioner Wilson. Wilson: And I was -- I appreciate everybody kind of weighing in. I was kind of curious. But, really, your stance kind of a little -- I mean I think it's really well thought out. I think, obviously, the applicant was very thoughtful in their presentation. I think the open space -- it's kind of interesting, you say it's only half an acre and it went to 15 to 20 percent increase. That's fairly significant in my book. So, I mean I think it's really well developed. There is an interconnectivity look at -- again, the Comprehensive Plan is -- I mean it's a guide, you know, I mean it's -- it's theory kind of running into kind of the reality of the way things are going to develop and so before us we have a pretty gosh darn good proposal that I think checks a lot of boxes, that isn't deviates -- doesn't deviate too far from what we approved in 2017 and I do remember you, Bill, asking a lot of questions about interconnectivity and -- and -- and, you know, open space and I think what we have here is -- it's a compromise piece, but overall I like it. I think it's good. Perreault: We had a lot of conversation about that pond up in that northwest corner and in the end I don't think anybody was very comfortable with that location, so to see that move down in the front I think is a really good compromise. Wilson: I mean I feel like we are kind of -- we're kind of nitpicking when we have something that's a lot better than what came in 2017, but now it's like, well, it's not R-4. Well, it's like, okay, I can see where you're coming from, but, again -- Cassinelli: I'd like to see -- I'd like to see the changes applied, but keep it R-4, the pond and that -- you know, I think better pathway through there, but still keep it at that. I have Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 4, 2018 – Page 83 of 273 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 20, 2018 Page 24 of 67 got a pretty strong opinion about when I look at the -- I look at the map here and I see the majority of that area -- overwhelming majority is -- is -- is R-8 there. Very little R-4. And I think, you know, when -- when you look 20 years down the road or something, to see this entire part of Meridian with thousands and thousands of rooftops, we are going to be -- you know, are we going to look back and say I wish we would have had a little bit more -- you know, less density in some areas than others. That's just what I see. Perreault: So, I don't have the specifics on this, but I do drive past this every single day and across the way you have got the golf course and you have got larger lots there. If you come down Black Cat you have got a fairly large -- two good size subdivisions with RV garages and whatnot just south of Cherry Lane and, then, the neighborhood in the southeast corner of that -- I'm thinking that's probably R-4 as well. It's pretty close if it's not, so -- is there any way to pull that up, Josh, and actually look at it? I know you were working on that. What's -- what's existing, not just what the comp plan has. Beach: So, just by way of explanation, the yellow is R-4. So, that is -- the bulk of the area is R-4 currently. R-8 is this kind of orange color. So, there is small pockets of R-8 spread throughout and this darker orange is R-15. So, the majority of the areas you can see on the map here is -- is currently zoned R-4. Perreault: Okay. Thank you. Are we at the point where we can make a motion? Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: You know, I still identify with -- with your comments and, you know, we want to make sure that we -- we take the Comprehensive Plan and we take the tools that are given to us as a city to evaluate and -- and really weigh where the future of this community is. Looking at this map, you know, there is -- there is a lot of R-4 there. There is a lot of density growing throughout the whole valley. I just -- I think that they have done the best that they can with -- with the piece that they have of trying to make it a really nice R-8 project and adding some of those additional amenities. So, with that I'm going to make a motion. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval of -- to City Council of file number H-2018-0079 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of September 20th, 2018, with no modifications. Wilson: Second. Perreault: It has been moved and seconded. All of those in favor say aye. All those opposed? Cassinelli: Nay. Perreault: It's my understanding of three votes makes the motion carry. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 4, 2018 – Page 84 of 273 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 20, 2018 Page 25 of 67 MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. THREE ABSENT. D. Public Hearing for Hill's Century Farm Wireless Communications Facility (H-2018-0087) by Horizon Tower/Verizon Wireless C/O Powder River Development Services, Inc, Located at the southeast corner of E. Amity Rd. and S. Eagle Rd 1. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a wireless communication facility in and R-8 zoning district Perreault: Okay. So, we are going to open the next public hearing just for the purpose of continuing for Hill Century Farm Wireless Communications Facility, H-2018-0087 by Horizon Tower Verizon Wireless. It has been requested by the applicant to continue to an undetermined date at this time. Can I get a motion? Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I move we -- sorry. I move we postpone the public hearing for Hills Century Farm Wireless Communications Facility, H-2018-0087 to a date in the future as determined by Planning staff and the applicant. Wilson: Second. Holland: Okay. It has been moved and seconded to continue to a date -- an undetermined date. All those in favor say aye. None opposed. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. E. Public Hearing for Mountain View High School Addition (H2018- 0089) by Hummel Architects, Located at 2000 S. Millennium Way 1. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a 25,204 square foot addition to the existing high school on 54.99 acres of land in the R-4 zoning district Perreault: Next we will open the public hearing for Mountain View High School Edition, H-2018-0089. Allen: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, the next application before you is a request for a conditional use permit. This site consists of 55 acres of land, zoned R-4, located at 2000 South Millennium Way. Adjacent land use and zoning. To the north are offices and multi-family residential uses, zoned L-O. To the south are single family Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 4, 2018 – Page 85 of 273 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 20, 2018 Page 26 of 67 residential uses and a city park, zoned R-4. To the east is vacant, undeveloped commercial land, multi-family residential and future single family residential, zoned C-G and R-15. And to the west is a church and single family residential uses, zoned R-8, R- 4 and R-R in Ada county. In 2001 approval was granted for the construction of the high school on this site. Subsequent modular classrooms have been approved since then. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is civic. A conditional use permit is requested for a 25,204 square foot addition to the existing high school. The addition is proposed within a landscaped common area located on the south side of the building adjacent to the cafeteria. The expansion area consists of a two story classroom wing, consisting of 22,600 square feet, which will provide an additional 16 classrooms with support facilities, reducing the need for portable classrooms and reducing the student count in existing classrooms. The remaining 2,600 square feet will be utilized to expand the existing cafeteria to better serve the growing student population. When the high school was originally constructed education institutions were allowed as a principal permitted use in the R-4 zoning district. Since that time the UDC has been amended and now requires conditional use approval. The proposed edition is subject to the specific use standards listed in the UDC for education institutions. The proposal complies with these standards. There are a total of 1,223 existing parking spaces on the site. Five hundred and fifty are required by the UDC based on the total square footage of the existing structure and the addition, which in 274,928 square feet. The area where the addition is proposed will not encroach over any of the existing parking spaces. Conceptual building elevations were submitted as shown for the proposed addition that are consistent with the existing high school facade and materials. Written testimony has been received from Jacob Rivard, Hummel Architects. He is in agreement with the staff report. Staff is recommending approval with the conditions in the report. Staff will stand for any questions. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Sonya, so they are not going to be losing any parking spaces; is that correct? Allen: Chairman, Commissioner Cassinelli, no, they will not be. Cassinelli: Thank you. Perreault: Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward. Please state your name and address for the record. Rivard: My name is Jacob Rivard with Hummel Architects, 2785 Bogus Basin Road, Boise, Idaho. 83702. Sonya did a great job going through everything. I don't -- I don't have anything to add to that, but if you have any questions I would be happy to answer them. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 4, 2018 – Page 86 of 273 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 20, 2018 Page 27 of 67 Perreault: I do have a question. How -- so, I'm assuming this is for the intent of increasing student population. Rivard: Correct. As the city has grown, of course, you know, the school's needs have increased as well and we need to add a little bit more population. So, yes, we are going to be increasing the school's population density a little bit. However, the big part of this actually has helped reduce the portable classrooms and bring the students from the outside -- from the west side of the school to inside and we will go from there and increasing safety as well. Perreault: What's the estimated increase in student population? Rivard: I believe it's currently at around 2,100 and that should only increase about a couple hundred, but that's -- they are thinking about for the future use. They are not thinking about the current. It all depends on who moves into the area. Perreault: Okay. So, this is not intended to be a large addition that increases the student population significantly. Rivard: No. This is mainly to help reduce overcrowding that is currently occurring at the moment and to help reduce the need for those portable classrooms that are on the west side. Perreault: Okay. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: So, will -- is the plan to remove some of the portables? Rivard: All the portables will be no longer in use. Cassinelli: Okay. Perreault: Any other questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you. Rivard: Thank you. Perreault: Do we have anyone in here to testify? Way: At this time, no. Perreault: Is there anyone in the audience that would like to testify? Okay. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 4, 2018 – Page 87 of 273 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 20, 2018 Page 28 of 67 Perreault: I move we close the public hearing for Mountain View High School, file H- 2018-0089. Holland: Second. Perreault: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for H-2018-0089. All those in favor. None opposed. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Wilson: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Wilson. Wilson: It seems pretty straightforward to me. I mean the fact of the matter is these schools -- I mean they -- class size has just increased, so this seems to me to be a reasonable shift away from portables. Gives Mountain View a little bit more capacity, but mostly just to account for an already over -- you know, a very populated high school. I'm supportive of it. Holland: Madam Chair, I tend to agree as well. I think adding the extra 16 classrooms and expanding the -- the cafeteria will help take kids out of portables and much rather see the kids in one building, because it's a lot easier to manage safety and help keep everybody in the same building. So, I don't see any concerns. Perreault: Okay. Cassinelli: Well, Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: There is a certain level of nostalgia with portable buildings. I don't know. But on that I guess I will go ahead and throw out a motion there. After considering all staff, applicant, public testimony I move to approve -- straight approval on a CUP; is that right? Okay. Approve file number H-2018-0089 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of September 20th, 2018. Wilson: Second. Perreault: It's been moved and seconded for approval of H-2018-0089. All those in favor. None opposed. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. F. Public Hearing for Verado West ( H-2018-0085) by DevCo Development LLC, Located at 3090 N. Locust Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 4, 2018 – Page 88 of 273 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 20, 2018 Page 29 of 67 Grove Rd. 1. Request: Modification to the Existing Development Agreement for Verado Subdivision to include the subject property in the agreement; 2. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 19.44 acres of land with an R-15 zoning district; and 3. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 132 building lots and 18 common lots on 17.35 acres of land in an R-15 zoning district Perreault: Next we will move on to the public hearing for Verado West, H-2018-0085 by DevCo Development. Allen: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. The next applications before you are a request for annexation and zoning and a preliminary plat. There is also a request for a development agreement modification, but that does not require Commission action, only City Council. This site consists of 17.35 acres of land, zoned R- 15, located at the southeast corner of North Locust Grove Road and East Ustick Road at 3090 North Locust Grove. Adjacent land use and zoning. To the north is East Ustick Road and single family residential properties, zoned R-4. To the west is North Locust Grove Road and single family residential properties, zoned R-8. To the south are also single family residential, zoned R-8. And to the east is rural residential parcels, zoned RUT in Ada county and future single family residential uses in the Verado East Subdivision, zoned R-15. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation for this property is medium density residential, which calls for three to eight units per acre. The applicant is proposing an amendment to the existing development agreement for the Verado Subdivision to include the subject property in the agreement. The first two phases of Verado exist to the east of this site. This application does not require Commission action, only City Council. Annexation and zoning of 19.44 acres of land with an R-15 zoning district is requested. The proposed gross density of the development is 7.6 units per acre, consistent with and at the high end of the density desired in the medium density residential future land use map designation. The applicant is requesting the R-15 district specifically for the three foot wide side yard setbacks and not for density purposes. A preliminary plat is proposed as shown that consists of 132 building lots and 18 common lots on 17.35 acres of land in the proposed R-15 district. The subdivision is proposed to develop in two phases, starting at the east end of the property. The minimum property size of their proposed building lots is 3,081 square feet, with an average lot size of 3,573 square feet. Access to the development is proposed from the east through Verado Subdivision and from the south through Chamberlain Estates Subdivision. No direct access is proposed via Ustick or Locust Grove Roads. All streets within the development are proposed to be public, although reduced street sections, 27 feet wide, are proposed for Laughridge Avenue, Ring Neck Street, Stormy Drive and Summerbrook Avenue, the loop road, which is basically -- if you can see my pointer here, this loop right around here. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 4, 2018 – Page 89 of 273 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 20, 2018 Page 30 of 67 This will only allow parking on one side of the street, on the inner side of the loop. The UDC requires a minimum of ten percent qualified open space and one site amenity is provided. The applicant is proposing ten percent or 1.73 acres of qualified open space, consisting of internal common area, a micro path and half of the street buffers along adjacent arterial streets. A 6,500 square foot dog park with a seating area and segment of the city's multi-use pathway system is proposed adjacent to the South Sough at the southeast corner of the development as amenities and that is this area right down in here. If you can see my pointer, the small dog park is right here and, then, the multi-use pathway runs here along the corner of the property. A mix of single family residential detached and attached homes, but mostly attached are proposed along the north and west boundaries of the site adjacent to Ustick and Locust Grove Roads, both arterial streets. Detached homes are proposed internal to the development. The attached homes will be single level and are designed to serve mature empty nesters. Detached homes are proposed to be two stories in height and range in size from 1,377 to 1,850 square feet. Those adjacent to the arterial streets will be single story in height. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for future homes in this development. Building materials consist of horizontal and vertical siding with stone and veneer accents. The attached units are required to comply with the design standards listed in the architectural standards manual. Staff does have some concerns on this application and has discussed it with the applicant. Along the south boundary of the site where the red arrows -- or the red lines are indicated, there is not an adequate transition in lot sizes to existing lots. Staff is recommending more comparable lot sizes are provided along this boundary. So, I also -- staff visited the site today of the first Verado development to the east of this site and just took some photos of the homes that have been constructed in that development. So, if you take a look at this bottom corner picture here -- this is the rear of some of the homes along the multi-use pathway in that development to the east. So, that is the -- basically the view from the existing homes in Chamberlain Estates of how the applicant's proposed. This one does have a common area through here, but the rest of these would be more similar to what they would be looking at. Secondly, during the project review meeting with city staff several concerns were raised with the number of narrow lots and the impact that it has to on-street parking, which is less due to the number of driveways in close proximity. As you can see here, this demonstrates that if you -- note the -- the parking pads here and just the tiny little landscape areas in between. It doesn't allow for any on-street parking next to these lots where the -- the detached homes are proposed. The ACHD staff report -- we just got the final report in today. They have requested that the city ensure adequate parking is provided on site as on-street parking is restricted. There is no on-street and that means off-street, basically. There is no on-site parking proposed in this development past experience has shown a lack of reduced -- lack of or reduced on- street parking has created problems with visitors parking in restricted areas that, then, block travel lanes needed for emergency access and, then, they also park in adjacent neighborhoods overflowing. So, that has been an issue for Fire Department that they have noted. The narrow lots also limit the variation in housing types and limits the homes being constructed on the lots from having varied setbacks and building setbacks within the development to articulate and break up the front wall planes of structures visible from interior streets. You can see here from the picture there is -- they are pretty alike in the -- in appearance from the street. All homes are constructed with the same setback with Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 4, 2018 – Page 90 of 273 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 20, 2018 Page 31 of 67 a garage dominated design that diminishes community character. The applicant is requesting that this development be combined with the previous phases to construct much of the same housing types. The Commission should determine if more variation in lot sizes is needed in this area to provide more housing diversity throughout the entire Verado development. Lastly, while the proposed open space meets the minimum standards, it's not ideal as it's all located at the east end of the subdivision at the entrance to the development. You can see here on the -- well, you can see here that it's located in these two areas. Staff is recommending it's relocated -- specifically this area right here is relocated further to the west to be more central and accessible to all residents. This could be achieved by switching the locations, the configuration of Blocks 3 and 4 or 5, which is these two blocks -- well, this is the block right here. Switching the configuration of this with one of these two blocks and losing two of the building lots, which would result in a through common area. So, for example, this could be removed and create more of a through common area here that would be more open and accessible to all residents within the development, rather than just those on the east end of the development. Further, due to the small lot sizes proposed in this development, staff is recommending a minimum of an additional 8,000 square feet or .18 of an acre and this is based on removal of those two lots right there, roughly. A common area is provided, along with an additional site amenity, such as a gazebo, covered picnic area with picnic tables, or sports courts or other comparable amenity. Staff has requested the applicant submit an updated plan prior to the Commission meeting showing the requested change. However, the applicant opted not to and is requesting approval of the open space and site amenities as proposed. Written testimony was received from Conger Management Group, the applicant. Staff is recommending approval with the conditions in Exhibit B of the staff report. Staff will stand for any questions. Perreault: Thank you. Any -- any questions for staff? Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: I got lots of questions tonight. Sonya, how come there is -- there is no access out to -- Locust Grove would be difficult, but Ustick. Was that such -- the development or was that ACHD? Allen: Chairman, Commissioner Cassinelli, our UDC restricts access to arterial streets, such as Ustick Road and Locust Grove Road -- Cassinelli: Uh-huh. Allen: -- and whereas access was already available from local streets, that's where the applicant proposed it. Cassinelli: Okay. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 4, 2018 – Page 91 of 273 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 20, 2018 Page 32 of 67 Allen: Staff is -- Cassinelli: And, then, another question I had. You kind of were touching on the -- the parking and looking at that. In the -- in the other phases -- I'm not seeing any mailboxes. Are there -- do they have the -- kind of the common mailbox locations? Because, obviously, putting a mailbox and between the houses, that really messes with -- with -- even if you could squeeze one car in there -- Allen: Yes. They have -- if you look in this picture right here in the earlier phases, Commissioner Cassinelli, there is a little common group mailbox thing there. Cassinelli: Okay. All right. Thank you. Perreault: Sonya -- oh. Were you finished? Cassinelli: Yeah. Perreault: Okay. Sonya, was there conversation with the applicant about putting in some single level in between the two stories to give some variety to the roof line and the -- you know, the backs of the houses looking so similar, which is a concern for staff. Is that a possibility? Allen: Chairman, I'm not sure. The applicant could answer that question. I know single level was proposed along the perimeter of the development adjacent to the arterial streets for sure -- Perreault: Okay. Allen: -- and I think there might have been a mix internal, but I'm not positive about that. Perreault: Okay. Oh, okay. Thank you. Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: Sonya, could you possibly read for us what the written comments were from -- from Conger Management Group? I couldn't seem to find that in the -- Allen: Yes. It was received and entered into the record -- do you have it accessible, Char? If you will give me just a moment I will find that here. Perreault: I'm sorry. Audience members, could we keep it just a little quiet, because we do have a lot of microphones on and they pick up. Okay. Thank you. The hearing is being recorded. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 4, 2018 – Page 92 of 273 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 20, 2018 Page 33 of 67 Allen: Would you like me to read it in its entirety, Chairman? Perreault: How long is it? Allen: It's not too long. Perreault: Okay. Allen: To Whom It May Concern. Conger Management Group would like to express its support of the Verado West neighborhood application. Verado West will be a great addition to the City of Meridian for the following reasons: Verado West will provide a quality housing product at a price that is well below the median home price for new construction in the Meridian area. Verado West will create jobs and support the construction industry in the area and Verado West will add to the City of Meridian's tax base on a property that has been designated as in-fill. The investment in municipal services and roadways to serve this property has already been made. The utility connection fees and roadway impact fees that this development will generate will help to pay for that infrastructure. Conger Management Group thanks you for your consideration of this matter. Should you have any further questions, please, contact -- Perreault: Okay. Thank you. Are there anymore questions for staff? Okay. Would the applicant, please, come forward. Conger: Let's see, Sonya, can you put mine up for me, please? Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, Jim Conger, 4824 West Fairview Avenue. Yeah. So, a little -- little shocked here. We are getting a few things at 6:00 o'clock that we hadn't seen in the staff report or heard anything out of staff, so I guess starting out, understanding a few things aesthetically, architecturally, late notice, we are doing our best to meet all of your code requirements as far as the City of Meridian goes, while bringing you an affordable, quality housing product to the city. Night in and night out we are here, you're here, we are seeing three and a half homes per acre over and over and over again and there is a place for that, I totally agree. Not everywhere do we want the cookie cutter, three and a half lots per acre. However, if you're interested in a fresh, innovative, quality housing product, well, that's what we are about and that's what this property is about at this location of Locust Grove and Ustick. We are not your typical R-4, R-8, three unit per acre subdivision specifically here. We thought we heard Meridian is interested in innovative product. I have been on lots of -- I'm on lots of code boards, I'm on every -- I'm on the comp plan board. We are the housing product between a fourplex apartment project and your three and a half lot per acre normal subdivision that you get in -- that you get in here night in, night out. We are that bridge between the two. Without us you get the fourplex project in certain corners, which is this is one of those corners that we are competing with fourplex buyers on this property in particular and it should be noted with all our innovations we meet and exceed code on everything. We aren't asking for a waiver, we are not asking for a favor, we are not asking for anything. We are asking to meet code, go through code, not get last minute items at 6:00 o'clock. Quick, moving -- moving on, just a -- I want to quickly run through your comp plan and your zoning codes, just to make sure everybody Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 4, 2018 – Page 93 of 273 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 20, 2018 Page 34 of 67 is on the same page. We had a question earlier and I just want to make sure we are all there. I will first talk -- take a moment to walk through your city's comp plan and, then, the zone. So, the comp plan identifies the land use and it actually regulates the range of densities allowed by the city. We are not asking for a step up to get the density in the project you have. We have been in front of you numerous times asking for steps up for good reasons to step up. This property already has a comp plan that supports the project that's in front of you today. There is no step up being asked for. The comp plan dictates the density. The zoning plan now, moving on, designates -- so, the R-15 we are asking for is the dimensional standards. It's your setbacks. It's your frontage. It's your lot size. R-15 is a terrible name. In fact, you will see us again October 15th or 17th or 18th, somewhere in there. We will be in front of you, as we have requested to the city to change the zoning names, so we no longer have to go to neighborhood meetings, we no longer have to come in front of you and City Council and talk about R-15 like it's 15 units to the acre, because it's got nothing to do with 15 units to the acre, so -- so, again, zoning code is all about the type and -- and -- and everything you already know, so I'm not going to bore you any further with -- with codes. But we are grateful to be in front of you tonight to present our vision for the Verado West Community. What you see tonight is -- is a result of nine months worth of work on this particular project with your city planning staff, nine months, and the various review agencies to include Fire Department, numerous meetings, Police Department, Public Works, irrigation district, numerous meetings, and Ada County Highway District, several meetings. Not -- not a big transportation issue here. As well as our own design team. It's been a collaborative process and we are darn proud of what we have got in front of you tonight. Our neighborhood -- our neighborhood is located, as we said, at the southeast corner of Ustick and Locust Grove. This is an ideal type of project, because the entire perimeter road is already installed. All the arterial is in. The sidewalks are in. The streets are in. We will be using the existing entrance of ours from Ustick that's in the green area. The highway district and your City of Meridian code requests minimal access to arterials. This is a location where we are doing -- and a continuation of Verado one, we are happy to go through our neighborhood, because we are proud of our neighborhood into that corner area and so we are satisfying the highway district and Meridian by not doing another entry to Ustick. We are also tying on to your water main and connecting it. We are tying onto the existing sewer that's already stubbed to this property in two locations. Every reason why this has a good comp plan designation, as well as a good continuation of our neighborhood. With the popularity of our Verado housing product in your city, that's -- that's definitely bustling, we have sold out phase one, we are starting our homes of phase two in October, which is in a couple weeks. The foundations before cold weather. And we are lucky enough and fortunate enough to work with the adjacent land owner in what we are now calling Verado West, to be able to buy that property, which allows us to bring and expand our existing Verado community, as you can see on the slide, from our green area, expanding into what we are calling Verado West. Verado is a continuation of our platform from other communities we have with this product and price point in Meridian. What we offer is a well thought through, high quality housing product. I work with one builder, Black Rock Homes. All the product, all the architecture, all the land planning and the neighborhood network is all thought through with the team that's going to the end result, which is to the end user. We offer a distinct variety of housing from your typical Meridian Subdivision. I continue to Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 4, 2018 – Page 94 of 273 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 20, 2018 Page 35 of 67 allude to that. We are close to goods in this location and services and that the people want and need. They can walk, bike, take a short commute to entertainment, shopping, work or food, whether a restaurant or grocery store. That is why the comp plan is so good right here. We are in the middle of everything. The efficient lot sizes to accommodate homes, as Sonya indicated, that range from 1,350 to 1,900 square feet with price -- price points of 240 to 280 thousand dollars. For those reasons we are able to compete against the apartment project. I continue to say that. That is very important. We are a perfect bridge between that three and a half lot per acre and the apartments as you get close to busy roads, like Ustick and Locust Grove, on a very busy corner, you cannot continue to put three units per acre and different type of product in that busy environment. Verado is set up in such a way that our HOA maintains all our homeowners yards. This does several things. It ensures that all the yards are well maintained all the time. It ensures all the grass clippings and up in our landscapers yard in a mulching environment, instead of in the dump. But, most importantly, allows our owners to spend their free time enjoying their family and doing whatever they do when they are not doing yard work, because I don't care for yard work either. It's very important to us that we don't sell to investors. This is a for sale for owner product. Our owners live in homes. We sell and that becomes very important to the fabric of our communities, as the neighbors take time to get to know and actually rely on one another. There is always a place for people who need and want to rent. It's just not in our owner-occupied communities. The Verado amenity package, which I will go into next, is as amazing as our housing product. The integrating the Verado West with our original Verado community allows the owners and our west owners to have full access to all the open space and amenities in the original Verado community and vice-versa, including the new, which in the new Verado West will be an active play park, small dog dog park. Staff keeps calling it a small dog park. It is a small dog dog park. It's specifically that. And, actually, is requested by all of our existing residents in the first Verado. I never thought I would build a dog park in my life. It is the number one item that came out of our interviews with all our existing homeowners, including -- so, included in Verado West will be the new small dog dog park, active play park, and the park shade structure that Sonya alluded to that she added. Verado at full build out will consist of over five acres of landscaped open space, two separate neighborhood parks that you can see that I put in the red highlight and -- and, for the record, we are 700 feet from the west boundary. Your code's block lengths for road stubs are 700 feet. So, if my park, which is 700 feet from the last house to the west, is too far for someone to walk, then, your code has a block length issue between streets. So, to even come up with -- and what we did is we have -- and we will go into the regional pathway and all the reasons why our park is where it's at. But it's centrally located -- basically we have a third, a third and a third is where the two parks are located. We have also built -- by the time this project is done 2,000 feet of your city's regional pathway, which is in the red line all the way along the Finch Lateral. That's no small feat. That is actually now almost ready to be partially used in a loop environment, because our stuff on our east boundary goes -- goes to nowhere. Next our amenity package. Our amenity package is off the charts. I mean we have fenced child safety around our tot lots. We don't -- this isn't our first neighborhood. We -- we -- with our tighter density and our efficient homesites and lots, we put in a better than normal amenity package. We have got the play structure. We have the climbing dome. We have the swing sets. We have the basketball court. We have a concrete track Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 4, 2018 – Page 95 of 273 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 20, 2018 Page 36 of 67 that's been specifically designed to go around that green area, that is for the kids on their trike and their big wheels and everything else. We see it. That isn't accidentally a border for the grass, it's purposefully put in place. We have seating benches. We have active open park space for soccer and throwing a ball, which is in our new park. We have a park shade structure that Sonya added. We have a small dog dog park to meet all our current residents' needs. We have numerous passive landscape end caps to provide visual happiness as you drive through the community. So, both projects combined is a total of 36 acres. With the list in front of you, we have well over seven different amenities. Code requires two. So, to hear us barely getting by with minimums is beyond comprehension. I -- it's actually irritating. We originally had a concern with city staff placing a condition to add the park shade structure and add one more amenity to this. We are dropping our concern and we are going to accept that condition. We actually think it's going to be a good addition over in that active ball area and soccer area. So, we are -- we have got no problem with that and we will add it to our already boisterous amenity and open space package. I would like to know -- this isn't the first time we are in front of you. Most or all of our projects exceed code minimums and this projects is no example. So, to say we meet code is basically not right. So, we do have five issues -- four issues -- five issues I will go through quickly. I'm running out of time, because I went on an original rant. Transition to the south boundary is our -- is our first one. On our entire boundary we have 22 lots to 13. We have a ratio of 1.7 to one. We believe that, you know, your staff is saying we are not comparable or like sized. Your core doesn't say you must be comparable or like sized on the boundary. We are the transition that ultimately has to get to the busy Ustick Road. We see our adjacent owner-occupied homes as being just the right location with transition towards the busy Ustick Road. You will hear tonight that we would like some single level versus two level. These are two story homes at this location. Homes next to us may be single level, can always be remodeled a two story, but they are going to be two -- two story homes. You make the lots bigger, they are still going to be a bigger two story home. So -- so, we are the right transition to get to the density needed to -- to be that product that competes. Planning will move to -- staff is wanting to pipe the Finch Lateral. Your staff is calling it the South Slough. Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District is actually the jurisdiction who is in charge of this. They're calling -- it's the Finch Lateral. It's a delivery ditch. So, we want to pipe it. Your staff is saying don't pipe it. We are requesting that you over -- override that. If you look at the Finch Lateral upstream, which is the picture on the right, if I leave it open I have got to put the chain link, because Nampa-Meridian won't let you not have chain link next to a delivery ditch. It's not a slough, it's a delivery ditch. But you look at our beautiful Movado project at Five Mile Creek where we built a regional pathway for the city, we didn't have to do the chain link, because that is a creek that needs preserved. So, we don't need to preserve the Finch Lateral, you won't get to see it or even get near it anyhow. Quickly, going into more open space. We have 10.2 percent on this phase. We have more than that combined at 12 percent. I just put clouds around everything that is our open space. Again, when you combine us all together we have got five acres of landscape space. We exceed code. We don't need more open space and we don't need our HOA to have to maintain more open space. We -- we have ample. Relocate the local park. This isn't a park, for crying out loud. This is -- as you can see in the bottom, this is a focal park -- focal point. When you drive in -- I don't want to put two homes there and Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 4, 2018 – Page 96 of 273 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 20, 2018 Page 37 of 67 put headlights in their window. This is a focal park. This isn't an active park. We have active -- but we have two active parks. We have a regional greenbelt. This is passive space, which is hard to understand for staff, but this is passive space and I think we are almost there. In closing, we have worked continuously with staff. We respectfully request the modification of those five items. Delete the condition 1-1-C, which is a lot transition. Delete the condition of the Finch Lateral. I think I have showed you plenty of reasons why that is going to be a better environment if it's piped. We have 10.2 percent open space. We have 12 and a half combined. We will exceed. Delete relocate the interior -- if you do nothing else for me at least don't make us move and put lots where I have got to put cars driving right by and putting lights in the front window. It makes no sense. And, then, the -- construct all arterial. This is actually a development agreement item, so, actually, the final item may not -- may not matter to P&Z. That is to do our phase two landscaping of Locust Grove when we do phase two. With that I will stand for any questions. Perreault: Thank you. Commissioners, are there any questions for the applicant? Cassinelli: I have a couple. Perreault: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Thank you for your passion. Conger: I love it. Cassinelli: I have -- you alluded to something a couple times, so I'm going to kind of ask a question. It may come off a little odd. How do you guarantee it's going to be a small dog dog park? Conger: Well, Madam Chair, Commissioner Cassinelli, you are absolutely right. I am not certain what small dog is, but if you have a 108 pound dog, you are going to be pretty limited in there. But you are correct, you could have a bigger dog and we are not going to kick them out. Cassinelli: Okay. Conger: But mostly small dogs. Cassinelli: You went through -- I just had to get that question answered. Conger: That's fair. Cassinelli: Because you covered it a couple times. The Finch Lateral, you -- you went through that pretty quickly. You want to do -- you want to do something similar to Five Mile Creek -- to what you did on the Five Mile Creek, what -- go over that again if you could. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 4, 2018 – Page 97 of 273 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 20, 2018 Page 38 of 67 Conger: Yes. No. Madam Chair, Commissioner Cassinelli, no, we are proposing to pipe. So, I want to pipe this corner and there is two reasons. I have been working with Nampa- Meridian Irrigation District for over nine months on this as well. You were coming up and leaving -- so, that red circle is coming up and, then, making a 90 degree turn and going off our property. So, there is a high likelihood -- if I were to leave this open I -- that corners -- once we start putting more homes and everything around it, then, the irrigation district doesn't like these 90 degree corners, because it's no longer a pasture where they can go fix them when they erode way. So, our plan is to pipe that irrigation ditch not a creek that needs preserved, and run it, basically, underneath and you can see the visual below, is the regional pathway and this ditch will be piped, you know, beside the regional pathway. That way we are able to have a fun environment, coming -- the regional pathway is going to come into our open park. Yes, it's private, but very enjoyable, wide open space and comfortable and, then, move through the property. So, we want to tile the ditch and it is the Finch Lateral. The city's identifying it as the South Slough that needs preserved, but we need to tile that ditch in that location. Cassinelli: Okay. Conger: Thank you. Cassinelli: And, then, one more question. You were talking about the -- you referenced owner occupied homes in there and this wasn't investment. Are you planning on putting something in the HOA that limits that? I don't even -- I don't even know legally what can be done with that. I'm looking to you, because -- because you probably know, but -- so, you stressed that point. What -- how are you planning on -- Conger: Well, Madam Chair -- Cassinelli: -- dealing with that one. Conger: -- Commissioner Cassinelli, that is a wonderful question and we are very passionate about that. Our legal firm, Givens Pursley, we have worked through in our previous developments and do have restrictions within the law of renting. Obviously, if it's a relative you can have rentals and, you know, our real estate contracts have a box that they physically have to check and initial that says they are not an investor. We also -- our sales professionals, when they interview every buyer -- but, of course, we have one or two always slip through. I would be lying if we -- if we didn't. In that case our CC&Rs also regulate no rental signs. So, that is in the CC&Rs and there are other restrictions within the law of no Airbnb and things of that nature. That gets a little -- a little finer scale of the law, but they are in our HOAs and we are passionate about it. Cassinelli: Okay. Conger: CC&Rs, not -- Cassinelli: Yeah. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 4, 2018 – Page 98 of 273 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 20, 2018 Page 39 of 67 Perreault: I think what Commissioner Cassinelli is asking is can you explicitly say you can't have more than a certain percentage of renters in an area. I think that's what -- what his question is. Cassinelli: Yeah. That -- yes. Perreault: Okay. Cassinelli: Can you address that? Can you -- are you -- do you have a number in the CC&Rs, then, of what can be -- or what cannot be owner occupied? Conger: Madam Chair, Commissioner Cassinelli, no, we don't have a percentage. We -- we have some pretty strict rules that makes it pretty difficult to rent homes. Cassinelli: So, you are going to eliminate as much as legally you can. Conger: That is correct. That is correct. Allen: Madam Chair? Excuse me. I would like to make a clarification on the record for the applicant. I did speak with him earlier about this, but I just wanted the Commission to be aware that the conceptual elevations submitted by the applicant do show overhanging eaves here and it's -- it's my understanding from the applicant that they will not be constructing eaves in all areas on all homes. So, I just would like that addressed and, then, also for you to be aware that the elevations included do not necessarily represent that. So, if you have one -- feelings one way or the other I would like it noted on the -- on the record, please. Perreault: Thank you, Sonya. While on that topic would you like to give us an idea which homes -- are the two stories going to have -- not have eaves? Can you speak to that, please? Conger: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, so I don't know -- you know, we went through this at length at our last project, which was this same product, which was called O'Berg and it was here with Mr. Yearsley and what we worked through and understood, you know, every -- you know, again, one builder Black Rock Homes -- every facet of the home has been to a design purpose through their architect and through -- through their sales team and the eaves are no different. What -- what ends up happening is there are eaves in the front of the house, they go back about 25 feet, but because of fire code those eaves are expensive. So, we are talking about money, which you're never supposed to talk about, it's approximately 2,200 dollars from -- so, we put eaves in the first 25 feet -- 20 feet of the home. Every home is a little bit different and, then, from that point backwards we do not. Our buyers -- we have actually taken buyers and walked them through fronts of homes and backs of homes. So, our elevations are strong from the front. We do not put eaves down and find that value. We are working desperately hard to get a product that gets under the medium price that fits in these areas where we compete with that nasty looking fourplex product and it takes every bit of working through Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 4, 2018 – Page 99 of 273 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 20, 2018 Page 40 of 67 meeting code and -- and -- and, then, dealing with the fire code and everything else to get a product that we can bring to market and give these Meridian buyers. We are talking about -- and I hear we don't have diversity in our neighborhood. I have 120 homes or 130 homes. I am in an area of a sea of three units per acre. We are the diversity of product. You're not at -- we have two home products in less than 30 acres and actually -- actually, we have four home products, because we had the homes in the back. So, we are the diversity of product. To be able to just draw a small little circle on a big map of Meridian and say we are not diverse is no way to look at planning or even regional planning or any type of planning. Perreault: So, would it be safe to say that the single levels that run along Ustick on the north side, the -- essentially duplexes, those will likely have the eaves, but the two stories won't? Conger: No. Madam Chair, the -- all the housing product does not have eaves past the 25 foot. Perreault: All of them. Conger: They are on this side. Perreault: On the sides. Conger: They do in the rear. No. We worked very hard -- I am not as passionate -- Black Rock -- my partner Black Rock Homes is as passionate. We do single level homes against our arterials, because we don't like driving down arterials and seeing those nasty two stories with the aluminum foil in the windows and everything that comes with those. So, we have gone out of the way to take care of our internal buyers. We have gone out of the way as a public benefit to try to make the arterial aesthetically pleasing and we have a lot of things to mesh together. To start picking a few flies out of the ointment is -- is awful difficult at the pulpit for sure. Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: One more question for you is about some of the parking concerns. Conger: Yes. Holland: That that loop is a little bit narrower than a traditional road would be. Could you explain a little bit on what the intention was with the small road and only parking on one side of it? Conger: Yes, Madam Chair, Commissioner Holland, I would love to, and I will start out with a clarification of staff -- is we are not requesting reduced widths. This is now a typical Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 4, 2018 – Page 100 of 273 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 20, 2018 Page 41 of 67 standard. There is a 27 foot standard and a 33 foot standard. So, these -- these aren't a waiver, these aren't this and they -- and it's not that for sure. So, we definitely have done 27 foot roadways in all our other neighborhoods. This one is a local street. So, typically, you have ACHD constantly working now -- and if you have met a handful of their commissioners -- to get their roads narrower for maintenance over the next hundred years, nobody is doing wide roads and getting to ACHD unless you have specific traffic counts that force you to. So, if I go in with wide roads I don't get through the commission at ACHD. Now, you will see my end caps in the -- in the center area, if I am smart enough to run this mouse. So, I have parking on all the end caps. So, I have no parking on the side of the homes, which there wasn't a lot of parking either way. So, I have -- I don't know where it went. I have -- either -- either way. That's -- that's why, I'm in yours, sorry about that. So, talking about those end caps. So, what -- what we have first and foremost is we have four parking -- four parking spots in every house. We have two garages and we have two parking outside of the garage, which is required by code. I'm not giving you anything extra. We know that. But the code is there because that's the amount of parking needed for a house. Why are we -- this isn't a fourplex, I'm not at 14 units per acre, I am seven. I mean what -- so, I have got the four spots and, then, we have parking along the side of our roads against that landscaped area, which again -- and then -- I don't know. We have been in our neighborhoods -- we have finished Solterra. We have finished Sovi. We are done with one phase of the Movado that's -- that's actually done forever and, then, we are moving across the creek that you saw earlier. We have gone and stayed in our neighborhoods after hours and watched functions. Sure, possibly a Superbowl party is going to be an issue, but I suspect that's an issue in -- in my own neighborhood. So, parking on one side of the street, having 27 foot wide streets is responsible and it's the way of the future and that's not asking for a reduction. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: I -- in looking at the -- at the map that's up here, I think what -- you know, when you look at it you see the parks, the green space are up front. I get what you're -- I get where you're at. I wouldn't want -- you know, if I was living up front there I wouldn't want headlights coming in that -- that access. When you look at it -- because when you look at it -- when you take the whole picture, it's -- it's a little different. There is still nothing on -- on the -- the west end over there by Locust Grove. Have you -- I'm just -- in looking at this and I'm just thinking -- I'm thinking out loud. You have got the end caps there. What if you were to eliminate maybe one of the end caps on each of those blocks and put a pathway -- stuck it down the middle. Put a pathway down the middle. Instead of clumping everything together, you're breaking it up a little bit. Conger: Oh. Cassinelli: It's the matter of -- I think what -- see, what -- I think what's going on is in seeing that green space it's all together up front. The end caps don't really -- because of the way they are don't really appear to be the green space. If they were in the middle and Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 4, 2018 – Page 101 of 273 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 20, 2018 Page 42 of 67 broke up some of those lots -- the one straight down the center from east to west from that park. Does that -- does that make sense. Conger: Boy, it's killing me. So, I will jump in here, Madam Chair and Commissioner Cassinelli. So, that block length is 240 feet. That block length is nothing. So, as far as breaking up homes -- or breaking it up for pedestrian, I mean block lengths are 700 feet or a thousand feet for pedestrian. So, we are at 240. We are not even 25 percent of your pedestrian length -- block length in the code. So, I'm not trying to be a minimalist here, but we don't need more places in the center. We need landscaping on -- on the ends to help shield once everything grows up. You're looking at photos of a brand new development and three years is different and six years it's much different, but those are better suited to have -- and I said little -- little pockets of happiness when you're driving by them is definitely what the land plan and planners are after, trying to break up a 240 foot length -- block length is -- is -- is not -- not -- not certainly anything. What -- and we aren't at the end. I guess I keep trying to -- to come back and make it even easier with -- with this one is -- is we have got the residents in the west that are coming -- not only to the park, but to the regional pathway and, again, the center one is not a park, it's a viewing pleasure. When I have had a real rough day at work and I'm coming home and I get to look at a couple things visually pleasing, instead of the front -- in somebody's window. So, I got the park in the third, I have got that third coming and, then, they are getting into the regional pathway. They are going across that regional pathway, my tot lot and everything and that amazing amenities that I put in phase one is at the other third point, I go all the way to the right side of your screen with my O'Berg, we picked up the five acres at the end and that one got approved a couple months ago. So, what we have is a -- is -- is we were able to finish this little in-fill area, bring them all into a regional pathway, two amazing park systems that we did centrally locate. I mean it is centrally located and it's 700 feet. Your employees to this building have to walk 510 feet from the farthest parking spot. That's almost more criminal to me than someone pulling into a park at 700 feet. I mean you walk further at Walmart than you will to get to this park. I mean it is logistically there for a reason and that's because it's the third part and it's part of the regional pathway coming out. We combined the two. Moving and trying to migrate that to the west doesn't give our residents any advantage. In fact, I think you're taking away from combining and making something super special than making a couple normal ho-hum things. Perreault: Mr. Conger, how -- how are we going to keep people from parking on the side of the street where -- where they are not supposed to? Obviously, it would make sense that they wouldn't, because there is driveways that are dividing it up such that they are not supposed to, but they might. So, is there -- other than it just being prohibitive because there is not enough space in between the driveway, is there another -- signage? Is there anything else that can be done to make it clear that parking is not permitted there? Conger: No. That's a wonderful question, Madam Chair. So -- so, the answer to that is, yes, it is restricted by signage and those signs are every 75 feet. So, we have signage and, then, why -- and the other luxury I have with -- with my builder partner is these homes aren't sold until they are -- until they are built. These aren't custom homes. So, nobody's out there buying a home site and -- and not understanding what they are buying into. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 4, 2018 – Page 102 of 273 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 20, 2018 Page 43 of 67 These homes are finished and usually five or six at a time down a row. They are sold. So, someone buying this house it's actually already built, the environments already there, they are seeing the no parking, they are seeing the parking and they fully understand it. Now, we are in this development. We have been in this development for two years to date. We will be in at another three and a half years. Our sales agents are on site, it's an onsite office. They educate. If someone is parking, then, we educate and half the time we educate our own subcontractors while we are temporarily building. But -- but we do that as well. Perreault: So, you mentioned that you don't think that the density on the south side in relationship to the south neighborhood is a concern. You said you had a 1.7 to one ratio, but the looks of it -- now, I know this -- this isn't to scale, but it looks a lot more dense than that and you have the two stories. Do you have anything additional to add in that regard? Conger: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, certainly. I can -- I can go into it even -- even further. So, we -- we take a lot of time in our original designs of what -- this isn't the first time we have been in front of anybody, whether it be Commission or Council, talking about transition to neighbors. So, if you look at the big homes on the corner, you can see in the bottom left and, then, in the middle and, then, the bottom right, those homes are built sideways. I actually get to look at their trailers. Their RVs and their trailers. We are not complaining that they don't have CC&Rs that prohibit it and the side of their building. So, those are immediately taken away, because I have got one home living up to their backyard. I have got the other home that's staring directly into their RVs. The other one is a little wider lot, it's got a storage shed, that lives to them. We have several homes that are the blue and the -- and the yellow are about two to one in that range. We have one that could be two and a quarter. If you took half a lot out and added another quarter of a lot in, about two and a quarter. So, as far as a transition, what, go ahead and remove one lot and, then, now I just build a wider two story home? I mean there is no gain. At least we have breaks between the homes and we are the transition. Again, I have the -- the task to get density to transition to major arterial and, then, still come back to the neighbor group. We have done this transition before. This is a healthy transition. Now, certainly neighbors would rather have the ranch. We know that. I respect that. Everybody would rather have the ranch, except -- except, you know, the guy buying the property, of course. So, we have worked hard to be a decent transition. I don't know where losing one lot makes the transition any less enjoyable for the neighbors. Perrault: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you. Conger: Okay. Thank you guys. Perreault: At this time we will now take public testimony. Way: Madam Chair, we have six people signed up for testimony. Perreault: Okay. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 4, 2018 – Page 103 of 273 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 20, 2018 Page 44 of 67 Way: The first person is Michael Simpson. Simpson: Thank you for listening to my testimony. Perreault: Please state your name and address for the record. Simpson: I'm Michael Simpson. 1918 East Kamay. I live on the house that the -- what is it, the Finch Lateral curves around and so I have a -- I had a few concerns here. One is is their plan to do the routing of the irrigation through there, because it -- the lateral goes underneath the road. One of my -- one of my concerns is that they make the piping too large that it -- whether it will do -- if it will push -- because, you know, you have a high density of houses out there, if -- you know, say it rains an inch of rain in say an hour, that water has got to go somewhere and if it all sort of comes out that pipe it will back up and it will flood my house. So, that -- that's a big concern I have there. Another thing is -- is the -- the no -- no entrance to the West -- Verado West Subdivision and -- and I guess I don't understand why they can't put an entrance -- especially maybe if they made the entrance way to -- way to the east or something, because I see that the Summerwind across the street has a -- has an entrance and so I guess that that's an ACHD issue. I guess there might not be any way of getting around it, though. I guess the concern to me is is, you know, traffic between about 3:00 o'clock and 7:00 o'clock, trying to get out from our Chamberlain Estates Subdivision, it's -- it's -- it's pretty much congested there. So, really, you only have one entrance into the subdivision and you're putting 132 homes, that's -- you know, if you think, okay, well, I got four people per household, that's -- that's 500 people that -- that, basically, you have that Verado entrance needs to serve and it's already congested. So, how are you -- you know, if you have to have emergency services how are you going to serve those people? I mean I'm very concerned about the safety of the community and how well these -- you know, these new subdivisions -- you know, I just -- I don't want to see anybody get hurt. I guess another issue I have is -- so, I would be -- the dog park -- the proposed dog park would be in back of my house and I noticed that they took the path right up to the edge of the -- the sides of the lateral, so -- or -- but, basically, the -- it looks like they got a path and, then, it would go on to what would be private property, because that -- you know, you have the sides of the lateral there, which I believe is owned by the Meridian-Nampa Irrigation District and so -- so -- especially if you have water coming out of, you know, one -- one pipe that's coming out of there and, then, it's going into another pipe, it may make that area really -- maybe -- maybe the water would go through there very rapidly, so I would definitely want to make sure that -- that there is kind of a fence, so that, basically, you know, small kids when they like go out of the park area and, then, go right down to the -- right -- right into the lateral. And another thing that I'm kind of concerned about is it just -- you know, them getting in there and playing in that -- that water or something like that. I just -- I think it needs to be fenced off and I don't think, you know, having a trail go to the end of there just would encourage people to kind of cut across out onto the street, trespass over that area, potentially disturb the neighbors. Perreault: Okay. I'm sorry, sir, we only can give everyone three minutes just for time sake. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 4, 2018 – Page 104 of 273 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 20, 2018 Page 45 of 67 Simpson: Okay. Thank you. Perreault: Thank you so much. Way: Next person we have Chris Catherman. Catherman: Good evening. Chris Catherman, 1838 East Kamay. The subdivision he is doing is a very beautiful one. There is a lot of concerns with all of us in Chamberlain Estates. Ours is -- I'm right there on Kamay and I'm going to have two and kind of a quarter homes -- two story homes behind us and we had talked to Jim before at the meeting and asked if, you know, for the folks on Kamay if they couldn't have the one story homes behind us. Our subdivision has been there for 20 plus years. We are well established. It would just be nice if we could be granted the one story homes on there and I know that's a couple of lots he would lose, but it -- it gives us a little bit of privacy and it would work really well for all of us there on Kamay on those seven houses they are going to have that butted up to us. So, I would appreciate some real serious consideration on your part to maybe amend the plan. So, thank you. Perreault: Thank you. Way: Madam Chair, Paul Nielson. Perreault: Okay. Nielson: Hi. I'm Paul Nielson. 1812 East Kamay Drive, Meridian. If you could put the map up showing the color coding of the homes and the lots. My lot borders -- or backs up to the -- the new development. It's the one that's had the different colors for the existing homeowners. From looking at that map my house would back up to about two and a half or more of these new homes and -- yes. Thank you. Mine is the -- does this mouse work on here? Mine is this property here. So, to me that looks like more than two and a half new lots. My concern is -- is looking out my back window and seeing a two story wall behind my home. In talking to Mr. Conger when he had a neighborhood meeting -- and he can correct me if I'm wrong -- my understanding is those homes would be 15 feet from my property line. So, I will look out my windows, look up and there will be a house or houses. Also from my understanding in that meeting the homes are six feet apart. That's how far six feet is. So, what I would really like to see is single level homes along there. It transitions from mostly single level homes in our neighborhood to there and, then, across the street in the development to the two story homes. I'm not opposed to the development. When I bought my home 20 years ago -- I am an original homeowner there. I knew at some point it would be developed. I'm surprised it lasted 20 years before it got developed, but, like I say, I'm just very concerned about looking out and seeing a wall of homes. Mr. Conger also stated that around the perimeter on Locust Grove and Ustick they put single level homes, because he says they don't want people driving down the streets looking up at a nasty two-story home with aluminum foil in their windows. Well, I appreciate that for the development. He has to think of the people will be buying the homes, but for the people that are already living next to the new development, how about Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 4, 2018 – Page 105 of 273 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 20, 2018 Page 46 of 67 a little consideration for us. So, now I will be someone who lived there for 20 years, have to look out at a nasty two story home with tin foil in it's windows, because -- also with them -- those -- those homes being two stories, if they plant a tree in their backyard it's going to take 20 years for it to provide shade to those windows and those windows are facing south. So, in the summer months they are going to get direct sunlight. I know, because my home faces south. I get it on the front side of my house. So, I know what it's going to do so. What I would like to see is them switch to single level homes along the border between Chamberlain Estates and their development, so it's not like we have to look out our back doors and see a wall, because that's what I see. Yeah, I'm not crazy about the density of it, but that's life, you know. Meridian is growing like a weed. That's not -- that's not going to stop. But, like I say, just looking at a wall is not good. I have considered planting hops to make my own -- thank you for your time. Perreault: Thank you so much. Way: Madam Chair, Chuck Catherman. C.Catherman: My name is Chuck Catherman. I live at 1838 East Kamay. Right next door to Paul who was just up here before me. I have the same concerns as Paul. Looking out our back windows, we look up -- straight up and we are going to see these houses, which you saw pictures of there and they are not that all appealing from the back and we have to look at that every day and they are looking right down into our backyards. Alls we are asking is the same thing that staff was asking, just put one story houses on that side of the street between us and their next street and just -- and I have to agree with the lady that was up here, too. She said we got two houses looking down into our backyard all the time and so those people driving down Ustick, you know, they will see it on their way to work and they are on their way home, they will see the one story houses and they will think, well, that's pretty cool, but we have to look at it all the time. So, that's our only concern. The rest of the subdivision is great. We like it. We just don't want to look at two story houses, three of them, behind our house. Thank you. Perreault: Thank you. Way: Madam Chair, Megan Izzo. I'm sure I butchered that. I'm sorry. Izzo: Hi. I'm Megan Izzo. I live at 1958 East Kamay, so just down a couple -- across from that park area. Perreault: If you would speak directly into the microphone. Izzo: Sorry. Of course. Across from that park area. And going -- all of those. I feel like I'm lucky, because I have that little bit of green space behind me, but the rest of these houses -- I mean we have been watching this development go up and they are so close together and they are going to be so close to us and I also have concerns about that -- the entrance and all of the cars coming through our neighborhood. I have a four year old Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 4, 2018 – Page 106 of 273 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 20, 2018 Page 47 of 67 and I'm just really worried about the amount of traffic with that high density coming through just those two spots. So, thank you. Way: And I have Will Dilmore. Dilmore: Hi. Will Dilmore. 5854 North Rosepoint Place in Boise. I'm actually the onsite real estate agent that was being talked about. I have 25 years of experience selling real estate in the valley here just in Boise. I have been working with this builder and development crew for going on about 18 years. I have been working these on-site communities that have been referenced here for the last four years. Solterra being one of them. That was a community very very similar to this. Same product. Same demographics. Immediately adjacent to Packard Estates to the south of where Verado is. Same two story product that backs up to the existing Packard Estate homes. Worked great. It's all built out. It's easily seen by everybody now. They can drive through there. Solterra was a great transition from Packard Estates to Fairview Boulevard, just like Verado is from Packard Estates to the north, as well as Chamberlain to Ustick. In regards to parking -- so, again, we have been at Solterra, sold that out. We have been at Sovi, sold that out. Been at Verado now for 12 months and have sold that portion. We are not having any issues. No homeowners complaints about parking. Again, you have got the two car stalls for the garage. Two cars for the driveway. There has literally been no issues for parking, emergency vehicle access in and out. I have heard a number of comments about the amount of traffic that Verado brings into and maybe through the surrounding communities. We actually take more traffic through Verado out to Ustick from Packard and Chamberlain than we put back to their traffic. We have been actually trying to figure out how to slow that traffic down from surrounding neighborhoods actually coming through Verado. So, it's -- it's nice to have multiple ingress-egresses, like the City of Meridian does, and so it -- you know, it disperses traffic. But we get actually more traffic through Verado than we actually put through those communities and that's just from daily experience being on site demographic wise this product -- we have got mid 20s all the way to 80 plus for demographics. Single level and two stories. We have the singles. We have got divorced parents. We have got the moms, the dads that are retired that want to be closer to family now. So, in terms of the demographics and what this product is offering has been awesome in terms of demand, Solterra was expected to be a 36 month project. Sold out in 24 months. Sovi was expected to be an 18 month project, sold out in less than 12 months. The first phase -- first two phases of Verado was expected to be 24, it's now 18 on that. So, for whatever it's worth. Perreault: Thank you. Way: Nobody else, Madam Chair. Perreault: Is there anybody else in the audience that would like to come forward and speak? Please come forward. State your name and address for the record. T.Simpson: Thekla Simpson. 1918 East Kamay Drive. I think this is an example of just because you can build this many houses in one area, doesn't mean you should, Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 4, 2018 – Page 107 of 273 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 20, 2018 Page 48 of 67 especially considering -- I have seen what this density looks like right next to me. I'm here to tell you there is absolutely no personality to these houses. When you can't even have eaves that go all the way back on a house to make it look decent, I have a real problem with it. We live in a community where we send Costco back to redesign itself, yet we are handed houses that look like this and I would just like to see way more personality, at least make them look unique or something, and, as I said, the density is ridiculous. You drive through there -- no space. None. If there was ever a fire I -- I actually trembled to think about how many houses would go up. So, that is where I stand. Just give these people the same consideration you did Costco. That's all I ask. Perreault: Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward. Conger: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, I can be fairly fast. Sonya, can I put my presentation back on, please. Thank you. So, I will quickly go through all estate lots, safe transition for last. I will quickly go through the Finch Lateral. I did need to say one more -- one more item on that. Inside that circle area I think I alluded to it -- it's a half acre of land. It will still count as my open space, because you have passive and active. We are trying to make it a more active park. I would still have a half active park if we don't ditch it, but, again, pipe -- I mean pipe it -- piping it certainly is going to avoid the upper right-hand corner of the chain link and no one getting to enjoy over a half acre of real estate and -- and a regional pathway that's -- that's -- it's really not that comfortable. The open space. I'm not going to go back into that. W e have got a tremendous amount of open space. We would sure appreciate you just capping it at 10.2 and modifying that condition. Relocate the interior open space. I don't think I can do a better job than I have already done. I would hope that we don't have to put homes in that intersection and put lights in the window. So, we would like to delete that condition on open space. The -- the -- allow us to -- to landscape Locust Grove with phase two is the last item. Again, I guess that's the development agreement and only required by City Council. So, coming back to lots and size transition, you know, this is very difficult for me, because of all our time -- and we do a lot of neighborhood meetings, you know, it was a small group at our neighborhood meeting, probably half of what's here. Super nice people. Super enjoyable neighborhood meeting. Talking to them before the hearing and talking to them now, I actually am conflicted, because I -- I really like them and they are a little bit different set of neighbors than we normally run across. Extremely considerate and -- and -- and -- and -- and methodical, but we don't, you know, single level restrict homes. That's not something the city typically does. That's not something we typically do. The homes that are across from us are single level today. I actually ten years ago had a single level house that I remodeled into two story. There is nothing to say those won't be a two story in two years from now. However, since I am the developer and we get to do whatever I want to do, if we were to be successful on everything else on this screen, we would limit ourselves to single level homes against our neighbors to the south. But that would mean let me pipe the Finch. I'm at 10.2 percent, instead of 11. I don't want to relocate that park. That's not good planning and -- and that's really the only four items we are talking about. And, then, we would impose, through the development agreement, to single level. I'm not trying to be pompous and ignorant. I think that would be a great trade off and these are super good neighbors I will have to admit and we don't get to say that every Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 4, 2018 – Page 108 of 273 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 20, 2018 Page 49 of 67 day. So, it's kind of fun to say that. So, with that I would love any further questions and -- and I would definitely do the unthinkable of restrictions to single level, which you don't see every day. Perreault: Commissioners, do you have any questions for the applicant? Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: Since the first round of questions last time was about the small dog dog park, I will start with that one again. Do you -- are there going to be any set hours on the -- the dog park, since there was a concern addressed about having the dog park in the backyard of some of those folks? Conger: Yes. Madam Chair, Commissioner Holland, actually, I just had a discussion with -- with Black Rock Homes and I meant to bring that up. They are the one -- the driver between the sales professional -- you heard from Will Dilmore and all the interviews and Black Rock. So, we will have time rules on it and it actually -- and they have seen it in another city, it actually has -- there is a restriction on the size of dog and it actually has a portal that will be -- that we will end up building in, because in a dog park you have that initial gate that, then, goes to the second gate, it will actually have a portal of some sort that I will end up having to build once I understand how to do it, that will restrict the size of that dog, so it will have times and it will have a size restriction. Holland: One follow-up question to that. Do you have any other comments about -- I'm not familiar enough about how drainage ditches work when you pipe them versus unpipe them. When -- if there is any flooding concerns, can you address that a little bit for us, too, of the comments that were made earlier about the worries of flooding? Conger: No. Madam Chair, Commissioner Holland, that is, yeah, good -- good follow up. So, our -- our piping plans, which have actually already been through the first round of reviews, which is the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District. So, again, first and foremost, this is the Finch Lateral, which is a delivery ditch, but all laterals over the last 40 years when developers were able to put some drainage in -- our storm drain does not go into this property. So, what we have done is we have taken a previous farm that used to drain when it rained all of its property into the drain ditch, to now that -- maybe the regional pathway could fight it -- if it got rained on would find a little bit of water in there, but the entire -- basically now 36 acres that used to go into that ditch will no longer go in that ditch. So, we have nothing but minimized it. But the engineers -- not only my engineer that stamps the plans, but the engineers -- and it's actually a separate consulting firm that Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District let's me pay for them to review the plans, assures that that doesn't occur. So, it's a zero issue. Holland: Thank you. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 4, 2018 – Page 109 of 273 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 20, 2018 Page 50 of 67 Perreault: Any other questions? Okay. Thank you. Conger: Exited. Thank you. Perreault: Can I get a motion to close the public hearing? Wilson: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Wilson. Wilson: I move to close the public hearing on H-2018-0085. Holland: Second. Cassinelli: Second. Perreault: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for Verado West, H-2018-0085. All those in favor. None opposed. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Perreault: Who would like to start? Cassinelli: I can start with one quick comment. I -- I am not opposed to piping the Finch drainage. I will just say that. I think that actually would make a better space there in that corner. So, that -- that's where I stand on that issue. That's all I wanted to say right now. Holland: Madam Chair, may I ask a question of staff? Perreault: Yes. Holland: On their request for a site specific condition Item 1.1.6 where they ask for the minimum of 10.2 percent, do we have a legal obligation that they have to be at the 11 percent with code? Allen: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Holland, no, the minimum code requirement is ten percent. Holland: Thank you. Allen: And I would like to just clarify on the issue of the South Slough. The Public Works Department did state that that is considered to be a natural waterway and as such it is required to be open and not be piped. There is no provision for a waiver of that requirement. Further, city code does -- in regard to fencing, city code states that fencing along all natural waterways, such as that, shall not prevent access to the waterway in Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 4, 2018 – Page 110 of 273 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 20, 2018 Page 51 of 67 limited circumstances and in the interest of public safety larger open water systems may require fencing as determined by City Council, director, and/or the Public Works director. Cassinelli: So, that has to be left open and fenced. Allen: Has to be left open. Yes. It is not necessarily as stated by the applicant, required to be fenced with a chain link fence. So, it is -- it is -- again, it states fencing along natural waterways shall not prevent access to the waterway, so -- in limited circumstances, if we are worried about public safety, we could require fencing, but it could be wrought iron or, you know, some other type of fencing like that. Wilson: Madam Chair? Perreault: Mr. Wilson. Wilson: I guess we are just going to kind of tick this off. I mean I think when -- when you're dealing with Kamay -- I mean I like the idea, I think single level -- I think that that's reasonable. For me that's kind of a minimum I think. I think we -- we heard from the residents. I think we have kind of gone through that, so that would be something I would -- if we were going to approve I want to see that. And also just -- I mean we don't have any choice, but I think I prefer not piping it. I mean, you know, it's the character of the community. I live in an area -- you know, some of these neighborhoods have these irrigation and natural running ditches. I think it's something unique to Idaho and -- and to Meridian and kind of our irrigated agriculture heritage and so I think that I like that there, whether it's fenced or not. I think it's up for discussion. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commission Cassinelli. Cassinelli: I definitely agree with Commissioner W ilson as far as the single level homes. It sounds like the developer was okay with that, if they got everything else. Something else that I don't know that that's going to happen with the ditch. One thing that I looked up, because I didn't -- I didn't hear it when we went through the report -- is ACHD -- their -- their -- their traffic studies are showing 1,246 trips per day through this. Is that -- is that accurate? Is that -- is that the -- the entire development or just Verado West; do you know, Sonya? Allen: Chairman -- Cassinelli: What I saw on the application was -- Allen: Commissioner, I don't have the report in front of me. Cassinelli: Okay. That's what I -- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 4, 2018 – Page 111 of 273 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 20, 2018 Page 52 of 67 Allen: I believe that report is just for this development. Cassinelli: Okay. Not -- not -- not in its entirety. That is a lot to funnel out through -- I mean you split that up, 600 out -- you know, going out to Locust Grove through the one neighborhood, another 600 going out to Ustick through the other, that's a -- that's a lot without having another access and so I guess the question would be -- that -- that's something I wanted to bring up. Allen: If I may -- Cassinelli: And asked about an access to Ustick, the subdivision -- and I don't know the name of it -- to the north has an access there. Obviously, you wouldn't want to have one directly opposite, but what is the limitation going out to Ustick? Can there not be another -- Allen: Chairman, Commissioner, just to go backwards on your question initially. The applicant did confirm that the ACHD report -- what -- that was for -- the traffic count was for the overall Verado development. So, the Verado to the east that's not part of this application -- he is stating that was included in that. I don't have it in front of me, but that's -- that's what -- Cassinelli: So, that number is all -- all three phases? Two, Three and West or whatever it is. Allen: Yeah. Perreault: That makes sense. I mean if you have 130 homes and there is two cars each, 260 cars, that would be four trips a day per car at 1,246, so -- Cassinelli: And I will just -- I will just say it was traffic findings for -- this development is estimated to generate 1,246 additional vehicle trips per day, 132 additional vehicle trips per hour in the p.m. peak. So, it -- I was just reading that part. Perreault: Is that the traffic study from the original Verado or -- Cassinelli: Uh-huh. It says -- on the ACHD report it says Verado -- it says MVP 18022. It's this file number, Verado West. Perreault: Okay. Cassinelli: It does not say the entire thing. So, they are -- they are showing 1,246 just for this. I don't -- it does seem high. Perreault: It does seem high. Cassinelli: Very high. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 4, 2018 – Page 112 of 273 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 20, 2018 Page 53 of 67 Perreault: Yeah. That seems very high. Cassinelli: I would like to get clarification on that I guess. Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, I would let you know that ACHD did reach out to staff and asked us about another access point to either Locust Grove or Ustick Road. I communicated back to Austin -- Austin Miller at ACHD and told him that the city ordinance did not justify -- prohibited access to those particular roadways. If you look at the traffic study that was presented, I don't think -- the applicant didn't have to submit a full traffic study, it was an abbreviated traffic study to analyze those two stub streets that are to this particular property. So, as they did that they had to analyze the existing approaches from Locust Grove and Ustick and see how that would disperse through the development. So, everything that's -- the way the roads are currently designed is below capacity based on what I'm hearing from the applicant. So, again, the abbreviated traffic study showed that having no access to those roads could still funnel the traffic through the surrounding developments and include the additional trips created by this particular development. So, don't -- don't get caught up on that too much. But staff was -- my recommendation or my response back to ACHD is that we did not support access to either one of those roadways as part of this development and that's something that we communicated to the applicant at the pre-application meeting as well. Perreault: And correct me if I'm wrong, but the development to the north in Summerfield was built in the '90s and Ustick was just a two lane road at that time. So, that's likely why that was not an arterial, which is why they allowed access off of it, so -- Cassinelli: Yeah. Parsons: And just for further clarification on that, too, is if another -- based on my communications with Austin at ACHD, where they wanted the approach to go did not meet offsets for ACHD's policy, so they would have to grant a waiver to allow one of those access points and I don't think that's a wise decision in this particular case. I think we -- we stand with the way it is now and have the ped connections out to those arterial roadways and let the local streets funnel out the traffic through the surrounding neighborhoods. Perreault: Okay. Commissioner Holland, do you have -- Holland: I can jump in, Madam Chair. You know, going through some of the positives and some of the challenges, I really appreciate that the applicant has added some amenities that may not be traditional in other neighborhoods. I hate doing yard work and I think it's always a nice feature when they cover some of the maintenance of yard work and I think that that was mentioned by the applicant, that that might be something as part of this -- this facility as one of the amenities. I appreciate the -- the large park that's in there and when you look at the list of conditions that the applicant requested I don't have a huge concern with leaving that park where it is on that first block on the right side for the suggestion that he made when you're driving into the neighborhood there is a lot of Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 4, 2018 – Page 113 of 273 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 20, 2018 Page 54 of 67 headlights coming in there. I think that does help deflect some of it. It's not really necessarily a park for hanging out as much as it is a park for kind of deflecting some of that extra traffic impact. So, I'm okay with that condition. There is a lot of things to look at here. I think looking at the challenges that all the neighbors have come forward and expressed, I would much rather see single level homes on that southern portion as it connects to that neighborhood nearby. I just think it's tough to put two story homes right in the backyard of people, especially when you have got more than one neighbor sharing your fence line. Just a few more comments to add, so -- Wilson: Can staff pull up those -- those conditions again? I know -- on the developer's presentation. And I think we have gotten through all of them, those comments, and I'm just making sure. Perreault: So, I have a question regarding the open space percentages. The applicant had said that there is a total open space percentage of 13.5. That's including the first two phases. We can't really consider those, because we don't know that the DA agreement is going to include the Verado West; is that right? That's the assumption that the DA agreement -- that is going to cover all three if we look at -- if we -- if we look at common area open space for all of them, can we do that? Is that a consideration we can make? Do you understand my question? Allen: I'm sorry, I didn't quite understand your question. Perreault: Okay. Allen: They are requesting to amend the development agreement to include it all in one agreement. Perreault: But that's City Council's decision and we don't know what their decision will be. Allen: Yes. It's their decision. The conditions of approval in this staff report are only for this development. Perreault: Okay. Cassinelli: Madam Chair, question for staff. Perreault: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Sonya, when you were looking at the condition to relocate the park, were you looking at it -- I brought this up in the -- in my statement to the applicant. Were you looking -- you're looking at it from the standpoint of this division -- this section only, the Verado West to where it's all on one side. Were you looking at it -- is that -- is that how you're seeing it or are you looking at it as the entire development? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 4, 2018 – Page 114 of 273 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 20, 2018 Page 55 of 67 Allen: Chairman, Commissioners, either way. There is -- there is nothing on the west end of the development area. So, you have got your -- you've got your area over here to the east. You have got this area. There is just nothing over in this area. Cassinelli: To be Devil's advocate on that, too, there is nothing on the -- on the -- the southeast either. Allen: It's certainly up to -- up to the Commission. Perreault: On that note, though, these lots look -- appear from the drawing to probably be larger and probably have larger backyards, whereas when you have the density, they just don't have that space within their own properties, so -- Holland: Madam Chair, one other comment is if you count the number of houses that you would have to walk -- not that that's a good scale of measurement, but in the south one it's about 11 houses to get from the west end of the development over to where the park is, if you're looking on that road. Perreault: Check them out from the -- the houses that backup to Locust Grove? Holland: Yeah. Perreault: Okay. Sonya, can you clarify for us the requirement to have all -- the arterial landscape buffer all completed in the first phase? Is that something we need to consider or is that just part of the DA agreement? Allen: Madam Chair, Commission, that's something that the Mayor and Council has typically liked with the first phase of development, but that's something that you can certainly make a recommendation on -- Perreault: Okay. Allen: -- if you disagree with the provision. Perreault: Okay. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Something I'm just seeing here that I guess it didn't -- didn't stand out to me. Sonya, on the perimeter of this -- both along Locust Grove and Orchard there is a -- there is a setback there, but there is not -- in the -- in the first phase further to the east and next to that other parcel. Do you see what I'm -- I'm looking at there? Allen: Are you looking at the -- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 4, 2018 – Page 115 of 273 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 20, 2018 Page 56 of 67 Cassinelli: What is -- Allen: -- this area here? Cassinelli: Yeah. Well, the -- I'm looking at all -- the perimeter of Verado West along Locust Grove and -- and Ustick. There is a landscape buffer, but, then, what's out beyond that? Allen: I'm not sure what you're referencing. This was kind of copy and pasted in here, so I'm not sure if that's what you're looking at, the difference between the two or -- Cassinelli: Oh, I see. Now, I'm -- yeah. When you said -- that's actually going -- it's kind of overlapping -- Allen: It is. Yeah. Cassinelli: It's -- it's sticking out into Ustick. Okay. All right. It looked like there was -- it looked like there was additional -- an additional buffer from that image. Allen: It looks a little better there I think. It looks a little more of the same. Cassinelli: Yeah. Allen: I believe it's the minimum -- I believe -- Cassinelli: Okay. Allen: -- it's the same buffer either way you look at it. Cassinelli: Okay. Yeah. Now -- now it -- that's a little -- a little more clear. Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Just want to -- there is a few things that concern me on this. I would like to get clarification from -- from ACHD. I don't -- and I don't know. I'm kind of leaning towards maybe we -- I hate -- I hate continuing things, because I hate having them come back, but I'm thinking that maybe continuing this to -- to see the single level going in on the backside for a better transition to include this Kamay Street there. I would like clarification from ACHD on the traffic count. Is that the entire Verado project or just -- or just this one? And maybe seeing an alternative plan to get some -- to get some of that open space moved to the -- moved to the western edge. Anybody else -- Wilson: I think I'm -- Madam Chair, I think like Commissioner Holland, I'm fine with the way it is. So, I'm open to recommending approval with the single family. I mean I think we have gotten to kind of a place where -- I mean I agree, I -- we had someone talk about I guess the Costco test. You know, really, I think we can be -- we can scrutinize these a Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 4, 2018 – Page 116 of 273 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 20, 2018 Page 57 of 67 little more carefully. I mean the demand is there, we are growing like gangbusters, we can scrutinize these and I really do think we have -- we have scrutinized these and we have really whittled down kind of where we are at and we have listened to the residents and, you know, I think the real sticking point was the single -- that -- those single level homes. I think there is some heartburn about the density and, obviously, you're alluding to the traffic, but I just don't see the -- the -- you know, the necessity for -- for, you know, getting that ACHD report. I think we have the information we have now and I don't think our decision is radically going to change, we are just going to have a little more information, because I think -- I think the ACHD report is going to come under what we are talking about and we are going to be -- we are going to approve it in two weeks or four weeks. So, I think we -- I think we have a decision and I'm -- I'm ready to -- to make a motion. Perreault: I am curious Commissioners thoughts on the three foot setbacks and the no eaves on the sides of the homes. You know, I -- we all came on the Commission at the same time, except for Greg and I don't know if you were here when the original Verado was approved, but -- but, you know, that was -- it's in front of us now. That was their decision. You know, we may decide differently and I think that's okay, that's why we are here, and so I'm just, you know, curious, it's -- I can understand how the thought would be, well, it was approved once, why would we not do it again. But, you know, the city is -- we are seeing -- Wilson: Higher scrutiny. Costco test. Perreault: So, does anybody have any specific thoughts to share on that? Cassinelli: I will weigh in on that I guess. I -- I don't like it, but I get what they are trying to do. They are trying to build a -- a project that -- that's priced in there. I think they could go a higher price and sell them in there, too, because you look around and, you know, it -- all around the area and in the -- in the neighboring subdivisions and the homes are -- you know, I think they can get it. I mean the -- the end of the day it comes down to, you know, can they sell the project and -- and make money on it. I mean that's -- that's -- that's what it's about. But I also get that they are trying to make a project that's a little bit more affordable. Everything is -- you know, as we know, I mean, you know, prices are going, you know, through the roof, they are going -- they are going nuts. So, I -- I do like the -- I'm never crazy about the density. I am not a high density guy. I'm not wild about it. But they are trying to make up -- I get that they are trying to make a project that's -- that's going to fit in that price point. I don't like the no eaves. I don't. But to get that to fit and to make kind of a price point I get it. I'm okay with it. I'm okay with the three foot setbacks to -- to put that in there. That's not -- you know, my biggest concern I guess is that -- is -- I read it, ACHD is saying 1,246 in this -- you know, for 132 homes. I don't know if that number is right, but I would like to get clarification on it and I definitely -- definitely want to see the single level if they are going with that lot count that -- if that lot count is going to stay the same with that transition. Anyway, that's my comments on the eaves. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 4, 2018 – Page 117 of 273 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 20, 2018 Page 58 of 67 Holland: Madam Chair, I think we all agree that the -- the biggest concern with some of the setbacks and having the three feet was with having the two story on that south side. If you make all those single story I have less of a concern of the three foot, because you have got at least a little more visual angle for some of those residents that are sharing that fence line. I can see both sides of it and it's tough, because I -- I like the look of eaves a lot better. I think it helps make the houses look a little more diverse. It helps to make them look a little more complete, but at the same time I also appreciate that the developer has worked to try and create a product that's not just a multi-family project. You know, when you're trying to figure out how to put some higher density in there and give them a diversity of product, it's not a huge area and they have a mix of single and two story instead of having some of those fourplexes or eightplexes in there. I guess I'm not set one way or another on it. I see both sides of it. I would push for eaves, but I don't think I would deny it not having the eaves. Wilson: I think if Bill is okay with eaves and setback, we better make a motion -- Cassinelli: But I'm not okay with the traffic count. Parsons: So, Commissioner Cassinelli, I found ACHD's staff report and you are correct, it does say that they anticipate this development generating 1,246 trips. So, I just wanted to provide that clarification. Cassinelli: I don't know if that's -- I don't -- I don't know if that's -- that's right or wrong. It seems really high. Wilson: It's remarkable, because everyone's critical of ACHD the other way and now they are like overcompensating it seems like. I mean I don't get the methodology there at all. Parsons: Well, they all -- they all use the same trip generation manual. So, hopefully, they are all working off the same page when they are analyzing these trips and traffic through these developments. Perreault: Who wants to make a motion? Wilson: I think -- I might need a little help. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number H-2018-0085 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of September 20th, 2018, with the following modification -- well, no. Let's see. I mean the single -- the single level, that's part of the condition. That's part of the condition -- let me look here. So, I guess -- Cassinelli: Plus lot size. Wilson: The lot size. Cassinelli: Not the house. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 4, 2018 – Page 118 of 273 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 20, 2018 Page 59 of 67 Wilson: Lot size transition. Cassinelli: We can condition it for single level? Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, yes, you can. Part of that development agreement you could add that as a provision to do that and lose lots. But I think for staff's clarification, we want to know -- when you say single level, do you mean more of attached product, like they show along the Ustick, Locust Grove buffer. I think that's what the applicant is understanding when you say single -- single story or single level. So, they will lose lots, essentially. Perreault: Single level attached. Parsons: Thank you. Wilson: That's 1-1-1C. Parsons: And I guess is that a -- is that something you want in the development agreement as well? Having a recommend provision -- Perreault: Having it attached or having it single level or both? Parsons: Both. That condition. Cassinelli: Wanted the single level, probably, right? You're making the motion. Perreault: Yeah. Wilson: Single level. In the development agreement. Parsons: Thank you. Wilson: I think it could be either. And I think we keep everything as is. Perreault: About keeping that lateral open. Wilson: Yeah. And the open space. Cassinelli: Oh, so it's -- there is not a -- didn't have a choice on that one. Wilson: And we already dealt with the lateral. We already dealt -- it's the only modification I see. And the park. Holland: Modification for the single lot, did we talk about -- Wilson: Have to keep it there. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 4, 2018 – Page 119 of 273 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 20, 2018 Page 60 of 67 Holland: And, then, the interior park. Wilson: Yes. And, then, to leave recommendation regarding interior park. Holland: We also have the arterial landscape buffer in the first phase. Wilson: I thought were going to leave that. Yeah. That's not us. Perreault: We can -- we can make a recommendation regarding the -- the landscape. We can make a recommendation to City Council, if somebody -- yeah. If you want to include that in your motion you can make -- Cassinelli: What about the relocating of the open space? Wilson: I already did that. Cassinelli: Oh, you did. Perreault: You're making -- to be clear, you're making a motion to delete that recommendation? Wilson: I am. Yeah. Holland: Could I just summarize your motion, make sure I understand it? Wilson: Yeah. Holland: You're making a motion to approve the -- the application to City Council with the condition that they strike item 1.1.1C for lot size transition and change it to say that they are required to be single level. Wilson: Yes. Holland: And that they strike the condition about relocating the interior open space, but everything else remains the same as the staff report? Wilson: Yes. Holland: I will second it. Perreault: It has been moved and seconded -- Verado West, H-2018-0085. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed? Perreault: Nay. Cassinelli: Nay. Because of ACHD. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 4, 2018 – Page 120 of 273 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 20, 2018 Page 61 of 67 Perreault: Motion is denied; right? MOTION FAILED: TWO AYES. TWO NAYS. THREE ABSENT. Cassinelli: Shall I -- Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: May I ask your concern? Perreault: My concern is relocating the interior open space. I would like to see that relocated. Holland: Madam Chair? Would you prefer to look at a continuance to consider the -- to see if we could get more information about parking or relocating the park or do you think there is going to be significant enough changes that we are going to be able to make a decision with the -- with that information in the future? Perreault: I really don't think we need a continuance. I think we can get this figured out this evening. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Wilson: I'm not going to -- or Madam Chair? I mean I'm not that hung up on -- I mean I don't know about you, I just thought it was a more streamlined option and I didn't know there was such adamant opposition to it. Perreault: Can I get clarification from staff? So, if this specific site specific condition item 1.1.6 requires 11 percent open space and we say that we are agreeing with the applicant that they only want 10.2, we need to show that as a modification to the conditions. Allen: Chairman, Commissioners, correct. Yes. Perreault: Okay. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Sonya, I have another -- I have a question regarding the -- the -- that lateral. Whose call is that that has to -- Allen: Oh, it's -- it's clearly depicted on our maps as the South Slough and the Public Works has confirmed that it is the South Slough. In our Comprehensive Plan it is a protected natural waterway. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 4, 2018 – Page 121 of 273 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 20, 2018 Page 62 of 67 Cassinelli: Okay. Is there any -- is there anybody that -- that can make that change? Allen: No. Cassinelli: Obviously we can't here, but is there somebody else that can make that change that they can go to? The answer is no? Perreault: Is the applicant permitted to apply for a comp plan amendment for that? Okay. Allen: No. Cassinelli: I tried to help you on that one. Perreault: I just wanted to be very clear. Wilson: I think -- I mean I think we have narrowed it down to one thing. I think someone can make a motion and since it was so painful for me to do it, I don't know, someone down there. Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: My only other concern, just thinking back, the comment that he made about headlights going into the neighborhood, is that not a concern for anyone, the way that that comes in? Perreault: So, for me it's not. I'm in real estate and I see this happen frequently and I think that the -- it's two lots and the individuals who are buying that lot know that that's going to be an element, so I -- to me it's the -- it's the enjoyment of the entire neighborhood using a common area versus two homeowners. So, that's -- that's my thought on it. Cassinelli: Sonya, on that note can you pull up the photos again of the -- of the houses? It looks like some of these, if they were -- if it were -- if it were a two story there it's going to be -- the headlights are going to be hitting the garage, for the most part when you look at that. They are not going to be going in the -- in the living room window and I think in every subdivision there is -- there is a street configuration somewhere where houses are getting it. I know in my neighborhood, you know, at the end of every -- at every corner there is a house -- Perreault: In every subdivision. So, to add to that, you know, these are -- with the three foot setbacks and the -- the large homes relative to the lot size, they really don't have a lot of usable space and so I think if you -- if -- if we weren't discussing so much density with detached single family homes -- well, even with attached, I -- you know, I maybe wouldn't -- wouldn't be stuck on that location. But I just think -- because you just don't have a lot of usable space on the -- on the lots themselves with -- I mean the small Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 4, 2018 – Page 122 of 273 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 20, 2018 Page 63 of 67 setbacks. I really think moving the green space to the west side is -- is important in this particular situation. I understand why you're asking, though, because we want to incentivize -- I get -- I don't know if that's the right word, but the applicant has stated that his preference would be to -- to get his -- the request he has made to the changes in the conditions in order to create the single level homes on the back, but -- Cassinelli: Madam Chair? I'm going to throw out a motion, see -- see what happens here. I'm going to -- I move to continue file number H-2018-0085 -- what's the 4th looking like? Wilson: Do you need a reason? Cassinelli: I will get there. I was looking at the date first -- Wilson: I'm serious. Cassinelli: -- before I went too far. Parsons: As far as hearing applications? Cassinelli: As far -- yeah. Parsons: Yeah. It's not terrible. Cassinelli: It's not terrible? Parsons: But I would caution that if you're going to go the continuance and you get approval on that motion, be very specific as to what you want to see them bring back and just discuss those items at that hearing, not the entire development again. So, if you want to continue this to look at relocation of open space, clarification on ACHD, whether or not they want access to Ustick, for example, if that's something you think you want to see is included as part of the development, that's certainly something you can do -- or piping of the ditch. I mean whatever it is, just be very specific as to what -- what item do you want to address at that next hearing. Cassinelli: Okay. Pogue: And, Commissioner, that the public hearing would be reopened, so that it could be continued for the purpose of hearing whatever the particular issue -- conditions are that you want addressed. Cassinelli: Can you repeat that? Pogue: Yeah. That we would just reopen the public hearing, because it's been closed. So, you're going to be continuing it for the purpose -- whatever you want them to work on and bring back differently. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 4, 2018 – Page 123 of 273 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 20, 2018 Page 64 of 67 Cassinelli: Do we do that after I make the motion? Pogue: You can or you can do it in the motion. You could do it afterwards. Cassinelli: To reopen it. Pogue: Yes. Cassinelli: To just get feedback from them. Pogue: Yeah. It has to be reopened in order for it to come back for the -- for the additional items. Is that correct? That's what I believe is the correct process. Go ahead with your motion. We will -- we will address that one. Cassinelli: We will address that one? Pogue: Yeah. Cassinelli: All right. I moved to continue file number H-2018-0085 to the hearing date October 4th for the following reasons: I want to -- I want the applicant to come back with a revision of moving the green space to the west and also showing single level homes along the -- heading out to the DA to have single level homes along the south side and I would also like to add in there that I want verification from ACHD on the traffic count. So, if we could go back to them and just ask that, so that City Council is clear when it goes to them. Anything else? That's my motion. Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, just for clarification on that, I know you're asking for clarification from ACHD. They have given us a staff report. They verified that number for you. They haven't required another access to any of the arterial roadways. They have concluded that this can function within their acceptable levels of service. I guess is your purpose for getting further clarification -- is that to support an access to a Ustick Road or -- I'm trying to -- I'm trying to understand what the concern is from the Commission on that particular item. Cassinelli: It seems like a really high number for 132 homes. Perreault: Well, that's not a bad thing. I mean is it -- I understand what you're saying, but if we don't realistically think that number is that high then -- then do we really need them to -- I mean do we really need them to comment on it? We are already sitting here thinking that's too high. So, the concern really is if it's too low. Cassinelli: Right. Parsons: Madam Chair, Members -- I can tell you that they had concerns that there wasn't another access out. There traffic engineers didn't ask them to analyze that a little bit more. But, again, my comments back to them were our code supports access from local Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 4, 2018 – Page 124 of 273 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 20, 2018 Page 65 of 67 roads and not burden the arterial roadways any further. So, it's just some -- I'm just sharing with you the conversation that I had with an ACHD staff member. I have never talked to their traffic engineers. Perreault: Okay. Can I ask as far as the single level homes, are you concerned that they will be different from what is on Ustick? Are you concerned the lot -- the lot sizes are going to be smaller or larger or -- Cassinelli: I just want to make sure that they are going to come back -- I guess I just want to make sure that that's going to be part of it, that they are going to come back and -- and with single family homes along the -- that southern border. Perreault: Okay. But do we need to physically see something that shows they are going to do that or -- are you -- are you looking for them to make adjustments to their visuals, so that we can see it, or are you just wanting confirmation? Cassinelli: I just want confirmation. I just want something -- I guess we don't need to see -- you know, we don't need to see renderings. I just -- that needs to be added into the agreement. I guess that it's going to be single family on the southern border, so that somehow, you know, as they are building they -- we don't get two stories in there. Allen: Madam Chair, excuse me. If that's the direction you're going and you just want to make sure that Council gets that, you can certainly make the recommendation that the applicant revise the plans and submit revised plans to the city ten days prior to the Council hearing. If you want to see it personally then -- Cassinelli: Well, I guess if -- the point of -- the biggest point of continuing it is to -- is to take a look at -- at moving that green -- moving the park and seeing that. Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Uh-huh. Cassinelli: But I'm just add -- I would add in the -- you know, that they make the change to the single level. Holland: Commissioner Cassinelli, I think if we asked them to come back with a revised plan of how that would -- the park would look, it's going to look fairly similar with this lot switched with another lot. One of those squares in the middle. I don't think they are going to come back with anything much different than that would be my assumption, so -- Perreault: I also agree that I would like to see it moved, but I am not -- I mean I don't want -- I would prefer not to see it moved to the set of homes directly to the west, but I'm not concerned if they -- you know, as long as it's in the western half where -- where they choose to put it I'm not really that concerned about. I mean I think it will -- I trust that -- that it will go in a location that will service everyone. It doesn't sound like they would put Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 4, 2018 – Page 125 of 273 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 20, 2018 Page 66 of 67 it on the south side, so -- and probably not on the west, because those lots of larger. My guess is, you know, if we make that request they are going to try to fit it into the two blocks of homes on the west side. Would that be satisfactory if it was roughly the same size and fit into one of those two blocks of homes? Cassinelli: Then I guess I could totally redo the motion and just get an approval without that. In that case, can you put back up that list of -- or Greg, do you want to try the motion again, Greg? Holland: Do you want to officially rescind your other motion? Cassinelli: Yes. I will rescind my motion to continue, since there was no second anyway. Holland: I would be happy to take a stab at making -- Cassinelli: Go for it. Holland: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number H-2018-0085 as presented in a staff report for the hearing date of September 20th, 2018, with the following modifications: That we would strike the Site Specific Condition Item 1.1.1C about lot size transition and make a note that we would ask the applicant to have a single level home on the southern border of the development and that we would -- before the applicant brings this forward to City Council that they would relocate the interior open space as requested by staff and reflect that in their visuals before the City Council meeting. Wilson: Second. That's a good -- that's a good motion. Perreault: You did not modify the requirement for the 11 percent open space? Is that something you intend to do? Holland: Can we have discussion before I put that in the motion? Perreault: I think so. What do you -- Holland: It was my understanding from other Commissioners that that was something that we didn't want to include in the motion originally, to reduce the minimum to the 10.2 percent. Perreault: To leave it at the 11? Okay. Cassinelli: That's a good question to staff on that. Why -- what was your thinking in going from 10.2 to 11? Allen: Chairman, Commissioners, the number that was calculated on was basically based on the removal of these two lots. It was an approximate area. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 4, 2018 – Page 126 of 273 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 20, 2018 Page 67 of 67 Perreault: Okay. Allen: It was just to create a more thorough -- through open space and a little larger, since the lots are so small. Perreault: So, staff wanted, essentially, four lots of open space versus two? Wilson: I think we are -- I seconded. I think we are good. Holland: Moved and seconded at this point. Perreault: It's been moved and seconded to approve file 2018-0089 with stated modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Cassinelli: Nay. Perreault: Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. THREE ABSENT. Perreault: Okay. Wilson: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Wilson. Wilson: I move that we end this evening's hearing. Holland: Second. Perreault: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for September 20th, 2018. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:26 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED C ISI A, JES ICA PERREAULT - ACTING CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: — &/I- C. JAY COVE:S'- CITY CLERK PQOapTEDA(j � o7 -1; r� z CAVI E '.IDIANs IDAHO �� SEAL �/ Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Meeting Date: September 20, 2018 Agenda Item Number: 3A Project/File Number: H-2018-0083 Item Title FFCL Fire Station No. 6 rte✓ APPROVED Meetina Notes I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 3.A . Presenter: Estimated Time f or P resentation: Title of I tem - F indings of F act, C onclusion of L aw for F ire Station No. 6 H-2018-0083 by M eridian F ire Department, L ocated at 1435 W. Overland Rd. AT TAC HM E NT S: Description Type Upload D ate F indings Findings/Orders 9/10/2018 E xhibit A E xhibit 9/10/2018 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 3 of 135 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2018-0083 Page 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER In the Matter of the Request for Conditional Use Permit to construct a 13,000 sq.ft. Public/Quasi Public Use for Fire Station No. 6, Located at 1435 W. Overland Rd. in the R-8 Zoning District, by the City of Meridian. Case No(s). H-2018-0083 For the Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: September 6, 2018 (Findings on September 20, 2018) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of September 6, 2018, incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of September 6, 2018, incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of September 6, 2018, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of September 6, 2018, incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the “Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975,” codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code (I.C. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has, by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted April 19, 2011, Resolution No. 11-784 and Maps. 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-5A. 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this decision, which shall be signed by the Chairman of the Commission and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 4 of 135 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2018-0083 Page 2 upon the applicant, the Planning Department, the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. 7. That this approval is subject to the conditions of approval in the attached staff report for the hearing date of September 6, 2018, incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the Planning & Zoning Commission’s authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11- 5A and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant’s request for CUP is hereby approved in accord with the conditions of approval in the staff report for the hearing date of September 6, 2018, attached as Exhibit A. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits Notice of Two (2) Year Conditional Use Permit Duration Please take notice that the conditional use permit, when granted, shall be valid for a maximum period of two (2) years unless otherwise approved by the City in accord with UDC 11-5B-6F.1. During this time, the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground. For conditional use permits that also require platting, the final plat must be signed by the City Engineer within this two (2) year period in accord with UDC 11-5B-6F.2. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11-5B-6.F.1, the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the use not to exceed one (1) two (2) year period. Additional time extensions up to two (2) years as determined and approved by the Commission may be granted. With all extensions, the Director or Commission may require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11. E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis 1. The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code 67-8003, a denial of a conditional use permit entitles the Owner to request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than twenty-eight (28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review may be filed. 2. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian. When applicable and pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521, any affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the final action of the governing board may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. F. Attached: Staff report for the hearing date of September 6, 2018 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 5 of 135 action of the Planning & Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the 20 day of 2018. COMMISSIONER RHONDA MCCARVEL, CHAIRMAN VOTED COMMISSIONER RYAN FITZGERALD, VICE CHAIRMAN VOTED COMMISSIONER STEVEN YEARSLEY VOTED ' COMMISSIONER GREGORY WILSON VOTED COMMISSIONER LISA HOLLAND VOTED_ COMMISSIONER WILLIAM CASSINELLI VOTED �! COMMISSIONER JESSICA PERREAULT VOTED �r Lp AUGUST l� I Attest: �o z (ct0i�A�t� L {ppHO r w :.Jay Co s, i y Clerk SVA., Copy served upon the Applicant, the Planning and Development Services divisions of the Community Development Department, the Public Works Department and the City Attorney. By: Dated: «� / City Clerk's Office -- — r CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2018-0083 Page 3 EXHIBIT A Fire Station No. 6 – CUP H-2018-0083 PAGE 1 STAFF REPORT Hearing Date: September 6, 2018 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Sonya Allen, Associate City Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: Fire Station No. 6 – CUP (H-2018-0083) I. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant, City of Meridian, has applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) for a fire station (quasi-public use) on 1.67 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district. See Section IX Analysis for more information. II. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposed CUP with the conditions listed in Exhibit B, based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in Exhibit C of the Staff Report. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission heard this item on September 6, 2018. At the public hearing, the Commission moved to approve the subject CUP request. a. Summary of Commission Public Hearing: i. In favor: Matthew Adams, The Land Group (Applicant Representative) ii. In opposition: None iii. Commenting: Matthew Adams iv. Written testimony: None v. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen vi. Other staff commenting on application: None b. Key Issues of Public Testimony: i. None c. Key Issues of Discussion by Commission: i. None d. Key Commission Changes to Staff Recommendation: i. None III. PROPOSED MOTION Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2018- 0083 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of September 6, 2018, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications.) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2018-0083 as presented during the hearing on September 6, 2018, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial and what the applicant could do to gain your approval with another application.) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2018-0083 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 7 of 135 EXHIBIT A Fire Station No. 6 – CUP H-2018-0083 PAGE 2 IV. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS A. Site Address/Location: The subject property is located at 1435 W. Overland Road., in the NW ¼ of Section 24, Township 3 North, Range 1 West. B. Owner: Meridian Rural Fire Protection District 33 E. Broadway Ave, Ste. 210 Meridian, ID 83687 C. Applicant: City of Meridian 33 E. Broadway Ave., Ste. 210 Meridian, ID 83642 D. Representative: Gunnar Gladics, Pivot North Architecture 1101 W. Grove Street Boise, ID 83702 E. Applicant's Statement/Justification: Please see applicant’s narrative for this information. V. PROCESS FACTS A. The subject application is for a conditional use permit. A public hearing is required before the Planning & Zoning Commission on this matter, consistent with Meridian City Code Title 11, Chapter 5. B. Newspaper notifications published on: August 17, 2018 C. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: August 10, 2018 D. Applicant posted notice on site by: August 16, 2018 E. Posted to Next Door: August 14, 2018 VI. LAND USE A. Existing Land Use(s) and Zoning: The subject property consists of vacant/undeveloped land, zoned R-8. B. Character of Surrounding Area and Adjacent Land Use and Zoning: North: W. Overland Rd. and a Recreational Vehicle Dealership, zoned I-L West: Vacant land owned by Jamco Investments, LLC., zoned RUT in Ada County South: Recently approved Star Point Apartments (aka Linder Road Apartments), zoned R-15 East: Single family residence Boise Party Barn, zoned R-8 C. History of Previous Actions: On June 5, 2018, this property received the following approval: Annexation and zoning (H-2018-0016) of 1.67 acres of land from the RUT zoning district in Ada County to the R-8 zoning district (Ordinance No. 18-1784). Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 8 of 135 EXHIBIT A Fire Station No. 6 – CUP H-2018-0083 PAGE 3 D. Utilities: 1. Public Works: a. Location of sewer: Sewer service was provided to this lot. b. Location of water: Water service was provided to this lot. c. Issues or concerns: None E. Physical Features: 1. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: There are no waterways that cross this site. 2. Hazards: Staff is not aware of any hazards that exist on this site. 3. Flood Plain: This site is not within a floodplain or floodway. VII. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designates this site as Medium-density Residential (MDR). MDR designated areas 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). The applicant proposes to develop this 1.67 acre site in two phases. The proposed first phase will include a 10,700 square-foot fire station. The second phase is proposed to include an addition of approximately 2,300 square-feet to include additional living quarters and apparatus bay. While single- family residential uses are typical in the R-8 zoning district, this zoning does allow for public or quasi-public uses with approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this property and apply to the proposed use (staff analysis in italics): “Continuously provide essential services and utilities to all residents.” (3.01.01H) The proposed fire station will provide essential fire services to the south of I-84. With the growth of the city on the south side of the freeway, another fire station is necessary to provide life-safety services to Meridian residents and businesses in the area. “Permit schools, churches, and other public and civic uses in rural areas, that are compatible with adjacent uses.” (3.05.02E) The fire station is proposed to be located in a rural area of the City near planned and recently approved subdivisions and apartment complexes; as such, staff is of the opinion it will be compatible with existing agricultural, residential and commercial uses. “Require neighborhood and community commercial areas to create a site design compatible with surrounding uses (e.g., landscaping, fencing, etc.).” (3.05.02A) Even though the fire station will be located on a parcel that is zoned R-8, it will operate much like a commercial business and could even be more impactful on the surrounding residences than a commercial business due to the 24 hour operational characteristics. The UDC does not require a landscape buffer to any abutting residential uses because this property is zoned R-8. However, the applicant is proposing to install approximately 100 feet of landscape buffer including trees and vegetative ground cover. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 9 of 135 EXHIBIT A Fire Station No. 6 – CUP H-2018-0083 PAGE 4 VIII. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE A. Purpose Statement of Zone: 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) 11-2A-2 lists the permitted, accessory, conditional, and prohibited uses in the R-8 zoning district. A fire station (public or quasi-public use) is listed as a conditional use in the R-8 district; compliance with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-30, Public or Quasi-Public Use, is required. C. Dimensional Standards: The dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-6 for the R-8 zoning district apply to development of this site. D. Landscaping: Street buffer landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-6 for the R-8 zoning district. E. Off-Street Parking: Off-street parking is required in accord with UDC Table 11-3C-6B for commercial uses. F. Structure and Site Design Standards: The proposed development must comply with the design standards in accord with UDC 11-3A-19 and the Architectural Standards Manual. IX. ANALYSIS A. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation: The applicant has submitted an application for a conditional use permit (CUP) for a 10,700 square foot fire station to include an apparatus bay, living quarters for staff and offices on 1.67 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district, as required by UDC Table 11-2A-2. The build-out of the final fire station is proposed to be completed in two phases. The proposed first phase will include a 10,700 square-foot fire station. The second phase is proposed to include an addition of approximately 2,300 square-feet to include additional living quarters and apparatus bay. NOTE: The staff report incorporates the total build-out for both phases so an amendment to the CUP is not required at a later date. Site/Landscape Plan: A phased site and floor plan is included in Exhibit A.2 to illustrate eventual proposed build-out. Site and landscape plans are included in Exhibit A.3, and A.4 that depict how the site is proposed to develop in the first phase with the 10,700 square foot structure, future phases, parking, drive-aisles, and access points from Overland Rd. The second phase has been outlined in both plans to indicate planned future expansion of additional apparatus bay and living quarters. Staff has reviewed the site plan and per UDC 11-3A-19B-4A the applicant shall be required to add a pedestrian walkway from the sidewalk along Overland to the main entrance of the building. Access: Access is proposed to this site via two driveways from Overland Rd. The eastern access point will serve the public and staff parking areas, the western access will serve emergency vehicle departure. City Council previously approved these access points in the June annexation. Parking: Off-street parking is required to be provided on the site in accord with UDC Table 11- 3C-6B. The number of spaces is typically determined by the district. However, in this case because the proposed use is more commercial than residential in nature, staff recommends the commercial standards apply to ensure adequate parking is provided for the use. Based on the square footage of the proposed building (i.e. 10,700 square feet), a minimum of 21 parking spaces are required to be provided based on one space per 500 square feet of gross floor Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 10 of 135 EXHIBIT A Fire Station No. 6 – CUP H-2018-0083 PAGE 5 area. A total of 20 spaces are proposed with the first phase of the site plan, staff recommends one space be added for the current phase in the site plan submitted for certificate of zoning compliance. Bicycle parking is also required to be provided on the site at a minimum of one space for every 25 vehicle spaces proposed or portion thereof as set forth in UDC 11-3C-6G in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. Based on 21 vehicle parking spaces, a minimum of 1 bicycle parking space is required. Two bicycle racks are depicted on the site plan near the entrance of the building. A detail of the rack should be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application to ensure compliance with the aforementioned standards and should have room for the minimum number of bicycle spaces. Landscaping: Landscaping is required to be installed on the site in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B. A 25-foot wide street buffer is required along Overland Rd., an arterial street, as set forth in UDC Table 11-2B-3, landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. The applicant is proposing to install an approximately 38-foot landscape buffer exceeding UDC requirements. However, the currently proposed “Prairie Spire Ash” appears to be classified as a Class II tree, trees installed within 10 feet of a power pole shall be Class I trees. Although not required to install a landscape buffer to adjoining residential uses, the applicant is proposing to install approximately 100 feet of landscape buffer including trees and vegetative ground cover along the south boundary abutting the Star Point Apartments. Parking lot landscaping is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C. The plan as submitted meet requirements. Trash Enclosure: A trash enclosure is depicted on the site plan in the eastern portion of the parking lot. A detail of the enclosure should be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. The applicant should coordinate with Republic Services on the design and location of the enclosure. Specific Use Standards: The proposed use is subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-30, Public or Quasi-Public Use, as follows: Public or quasi-public office: The use shall meet the standards for office use in accord with the district in which the use is located. Sidewalk: Although standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17 require a 5-foot detached sidewalk, staff is not recommending the existing seven-foot sidewalk along the frontage of this property on W. Overland Road be replaced. Hours of Operation: Hours of operation for the site shall be 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year to provide services to surrounding residences and commercial properties. Building Elevations: Conceptual building elevations were submitted with this application that demonstrate what the future building may look like (see Exhibit A.3). There are two options depicting potential phasing for an addition to the west side of the site in the future. The structure is one-story with two apparatus bays, firefighter work areas and living quarters, offices and public access. The phased addition is proposed to include an additional apparatus bay, battalion chief suite, and two additional sleep rooms. Building materials are proposed to consist of a mix of materials including CMU masonry walls, aluminum frame storefront windows and doors, and solid metal doors. The apparatus bay doors will consist of overhead sectional doors and glazing. The future structure is required to comply with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and the Architectural Standards Manual; staff recommends the commercial standards, rather than residential, apply to the proposed structure due to the type of use proposed and the Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 11 of 135 EXHIBIT A Fire Station No. 6 – CUP H-2018-0083 PAGE 6 commercial properties/uses to the north and west. Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) and Design Review (DES): The applicant is required to submit a CZC and DES application for final approval of the proposed use, site layout and building elevations from the Planning Division prior to submittal of a building permit application. The proposed site layout and structure is required to comply with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and the Architectural Standards Manual. Staff recommends approval of the proposed CUP with the conditions listed in Exhibit B. X. EXHIBITS A. Drawings 1. Vicinity Map 2. Phased Site and Floor Plan 3. Site Plan (dated: 7/19/18) 4. Landscape Plan (dated: 7/19/18) 5. Conceptual Building Elevations B. Conditions of Approval 1. Planning Department 2. Public Works Department 3. Fire Department 4. Police Department 5. Republic Services 6. Parks Department 7. Ada County Highway District 8. Nampa Meridian Irrigation District 9. Idaho Transportation Department C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 12 of 135 EXHIBIT A Fire Station No. 6 – CUP H-2018-0083 PAGE 7 Exhibit A.1: Vicinity/Zoning Map Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 13 of 135 EXHIBIT A Fire Station No. 6 – CUP H-2018-0083 PAGE 8 Exhibit A.2: Phased Site and Floor Plan Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 14 of 135 EXHIBIT A Fire Station No. 6 – CUP H-2018-0083 PAGE 9 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 15 of 135 EXHIBIT A Fire Station No. 6 – CUP H-2018-0083 PAGE 10 Exhibit A.3: Site Plan (dated: 7/19/18) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 16 of 135 EXHIBIT A Fire Station No. 6 – CUP H-2018-0083 PAGE 11 Exhibit A.4: Landscape Plan (dated: 7/19/18) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 17 of 135 EXHIBIT A Fire Station No. 6 – CUP H-2018-0083 PAGE 12 Exhibit A.5: Conceptual Building Elevations Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 18 of 135 EXHIBIT A Fire Station No. 6 – CUP H-2018-0083 PAGE 13 B. Conditions of Approval 1. PLANNING DIVISION 1.1 Development of the site shall substantially comply with the site/landscape plan and building elevations included in Exhibit A, and the conditions of approval listed herein. 1.2 The applicant shall comply with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-30, Public or Quasi-Public Use. 1.3 The site and landscape plans, dated 7/19/18, included in Exhibit A shall be revised as follows (as applicable): a. Depict street buffer landscaping in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C within the 25-foot wide buffer required along Overland Rd. Revise tree type to include Class I tree near power pole along Overland Rd. b. Add one additional parking space to site in accord with UDC Table 11-3C-6B with submittal of CZC application. c. Provide a bike rack detail with CZC application. 1.4 The applicant is required to submit a Certificate of Zoning Compliance application for approval of the proposed use and site layout from the Planning Division prior to submittal of a building permit application. 1.5 The applicant shall submit a Design Review application concurrent with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application for approval of the site layout and building elevations. The proposed site layout and structures are required to comply with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and the Architectural Standards Manual. The future structure shall comply with the commercial standards, rather than the residential standards, due to the type of use and the commercial nature of this area to the south and east of this site. 1.7 Staff’s failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or terms of the approved conditional use does not relieve the applicant of responsibility for compliance. 1.8 The Applicant shall have a maximum of two (2) years to commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval listed above. If the use has not begun within two (2) years of approval, a new conditional use permit must be obtained prior to operation or a time extension must be requested in accord with UDC 11-5B-6F. 1.9 The applicant shall complete all required improvements prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. It is unlawful to use or occupy any building or structure until the Building Official has issued a Certificate of Occupancy. 1.10 The fire station shall be permitted to operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year to ensure services are available to residents and businesses. 1.11 The staff report incorporates the total build-out for both phases so an amendment to the CUP is not required at a later date. 2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2.1 Site Specific Conditions of Approval 2.1.1 Sanitary sewer and water mains/services are currently available on the subject site. The applicant shall be responsible for the abandonment, per Meridian City standards, of any existing mainlines or services that are not utilized. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 19 of 135 EXHIBIT A Fire Station No. 6 – CUP H-2018-0083 PAGE 14 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 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. 2.2.3 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. 2.2.4 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. 2.2.5 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. 2.2.6 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.2.7 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. 2.2.8 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. 2.2.9 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. 2.2.10 At the completion of the project, the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings for any new public water and/or sanitary sewer mainlines, 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. 2.2.11 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 public 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. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 20 of 135 EXHIBIT A Fire Station No. 6 – CUP H-2018-0083 PAGE 15 3. FIRE DEPARTMENT Project Overview: 1. Service Delivery Travel time from nearest fire station (level of service expectation = 5 minutes) This development is 0:00 minutes from the nearest fire station. If approved, the Fire Department can meet the response time requirements. 2. Resource reliability Current reliability of closest fire station (expectation should be 85% or greater) This development will be a new fire station. There is no reliability data at this time. 3. Risk Identification Risk Factor (1=residential, 2=residential with hazards, 3=commercial, 4=commercial with hazards, 5=industrial) This proposed commercial development has a risk factor of 4, in which curren t resources would be adequate to supply service to this propose project. 4. Resources available Water Supply (list expectations) Water supply for this proposed development requires 1500 gallons per minute for two hours. (Approximate – see appendix B of the 2015 International Fire Code) 5. Accessibility Roadway Access, traffic This project meets all required road widths and turnarounds. 6. Specialty needs a. Aerial device needed for development (more than 30’ in height)? i. If yes, is one available within a 10 minute travel time This proposed development will not require an aerial device. The closest truck company is 6 minutes travel time (in perfect conditions) to the proposed development, and therefore the Fire Department can meet this need in the required timeframe if a truck company is required. b. Other specialty needs (water rescue, hazmat, and technical rescue)? i. If yes, is one available within a 5 minute travel time? In the event of a hazmat event, there will need to be mutual aid required for the development. This will require additional time delays as they are not available in the city. 7. Other Comments Project specific comments are listed below. ***All IFC code sections per 2015 IFC or as noted*** RESOURCE AVAILABILITY - Fire Flow and Water Supply: 1. Fire Flow: 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. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 21 of 135 EXHIBIT A Fire Station No. 6 – CUP H-2018-0083 PAGE 16 2. Water Supply: 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. 3. Water Supply: Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department or their designee 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 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. Water Supply: 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. Over 100 apartment units without an approved sprinkler system or over 200 apartment units with an approved sprinkler system will require a secondary access per International Fire Code Section D104.3. 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. ACCESSIBILITY - Fire Department Roadways, Access and Addressing: 5. Roadways: 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. 6. Roadways: All common driveways shall be straight or have a turning radius of 28’ inside and 48’ outside and have a clear driving surface of 20’ in width capable of supporting an imposed weight of 80,000 GVW, per International Fire Code Section 503.2. 7. Roadways: 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. 8. Access: Fire lanes, streets, and structures (including the canopy height of mature trees) shall have a vertical clearance of 13’6 as set forth in International Fire Code Section 503.2.1. 9. Access: 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. 10. Access: Provide a Fire Department Key box entry system for the complex prior to occupancy as set forth in International Fire Code Section 506. 11. Access: The Fire Department will require Fire Department locking Connection caps on all FDC inlets. IFC 102.9. Caps can be ordered at www.knoxbox.com. 12. Access: As set forth in International Fire Code Section 504.1, multi-family and Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 22 of 135 EXHIBIT A Fire Station No. 6 – CUP H-2018-0083 PAGE 17 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. SPECIALTY NEEDS/OTHER COMMENTS: 13. Other Comments: Ensure that all yet undeveloped parcels are maintained free of combustible vegetation as set forth in International Fire Code Section 304.1.2. 4. POLICE DEPARTMENT 4.1 The Police Department has no concerns with this application. 5. REPUBLIC SERVICES 5.1 Coordinate with Republic Services on the location and design of the trash enclosure. 6. PARKS DEPARTMENT 6.1 A seven-foot wide sidewalk and bike lane already exist at this location. No pathways requirement. 7. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT 7.1 Site Specific Conditions of Approval 7.1.1 Repair or replace any damaged or deficient facilities, including curb, gutter and sidewalk on Overland Road abutting the site. 7.1.2 Install standard warning signs, flashers and signals for the fire station on Overland Road. All costs associated with these improvements shall be borne by the applicant. The applicant shall submit plans to ACHD for review and approval. 7.1.3 Construct a 51-foot wide curb return type driveway from the site onto Overland Road located 393-feet east of Linder Road. 7.1.4 Construct a 25-foot wide curb return type driveway from the site onto Overland Road located 508-feet east of Linder Road. 7.1.5 Close the existing 26-foot wide driveway from the site onto Overland Road located approximately 451-feet east of Linder Road with vertical curb, gutter, and 7-foot wide sidewalk. 7.1.6 Other than the access specifically approved with this application, direct access lot is prohibited to Overland Road. 7.1.7 Payment of impact fees is due prior to issuance of a building permit. 7.1.8 Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval. 8. NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT Nampa Meridian Irrigation District did not provide comment on this application. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 23 of 135 EXHIBIT A Fire Station No. 6 – CUP H-2018-0083 PAGE 18 9. IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT (ITD) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 24 of 135 EXHIBIT A Fire Station No. 6 – CUP H-2018-0083 PAGE 19 10. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (DEQ) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 25 of 135 EXHIBIT A Fire Station No. 6 – CUP H-2018-0083 PAGE 20 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 26 of 135 EXHIBIT A Fire Station No. 6 – CUP H-2018-0083 PAGE 21 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 27 of 135 EXHIBIT A Fire Station No. 6 – CUP H-2018-0083 PAGE 22 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 28 of 135 EXHIBIT A Fire Station No. 6 – CUP H-2018-0083 PAGE 23 C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code 1. Conditional Use Permit (UDC 11-5B-6E) The Commission shall base its determination on the Conditional Use Permit request upon the following: a. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. The Commission finds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and the dimensional & development regulations of the R-8 district as required by the UDC (see Analysis Section IX for more information). b. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in accord with the requirements of this Title. The Commission finds that the proposed use is consistent and harmonious with the UDC and Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designation of R-8 for this site if designed in accord with the conditions listed in Exhibit B. c. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. The Commission finds that the proposed use will provide a necessary service to surrounding residences and commercial uses and should be compatible with other existing and future uses in the general area and with the existing and intended character of the area. d. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. The Commission finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the proposed use will not adversely affect other property in the area. e. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools, parks, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, and sewer. The Commission finds that sanitary sewer, domestic water, refuse disposal, and irrigation were provided to this property with development of the subdivision; services will be extended to the proposed building by the developer. The Commission finds that the proposed use will be served adequately by all of the public facilities and services listed above. f. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. If approved, the applicant will be financing any improvements required for development. The Commission finds there will not be excessive additional requirements at public cost and that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the community’s economic welfare. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 29 of 135 EXHIBIT A Fire Station No. 6 – CUP H-2018-0083 PAGE 16 g. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. The Commission finds the proposed use will not involve excessive traffic, noise, or odors that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare. h. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. The Commission finds that the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural, scenic or historic feature of major importance in this area. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 30 of 135 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2018 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2018 Items #4B: Healthy Balance Pharmacy - Zoning & Aerial Maps Site Plan Landscape Plan Architectural Elevations Items #4C: Burlingame Subdivision - Zoning & Aerial Maps Previous Plat Current Preliminary Plat Landscape Plan Landscape Plan Items #4E: Mountain View High School Addition Zoning & Aerial Maps Site/Landscape Plan Conceptual Building Elevations Items #4F: Verado West Zoning/Aerial Map Preliminary Plat/Landscape Plan Overall Open Space Proposed Open Space Photos taken of homes in Verado Subdivision No room for on-street parking Rear of homes Item #4F: Verado West — MDA, AZ, PP (H-2018.0085) Application(s): ➢ Development Agreement Modification (doesn't require Commission action, only City Council) ➢ Annexation & Zoning ➢ Preliminary Plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 17.35 acres of land, zoned R-15, located at the SEC of N. Locust Grove Rd. & E. Ustick Rd. at 3090 N. Locust Grove Rd. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: North: E. Ustick Rd. & SFR, zoned R-4 West: SFR, zoned R-8 South: SFR, zoned R-8 East: Rural residential, zoned RUT in Ada County; and future SFR, zoned R-15 History: None Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MDR (3-8 unitsfacre) Summary of Request: The applicant is proposing an amendment to the existing DA for Verado Subdivision to include the subject property in the agreement; the first 2 phases of Verado exist to the east of this site. This application does not require Commission action, only City Council. Annexation & zoning of 19.44 acres of land with an R-15 zoning district is requested. The proposed gross density of the development is 7.6 units/acre consistent with but at the high end of the density desired in the MDR FLUM designation. The applicant is requesting the R-15 district specifically for the 3' wide side yard setbacks. A preliminary plat is proposed consisting of 132 building lots & 18 common lots on 17.35 acres of land in the proposed R-15 district. The subdivision is proposed to develop in 2 phases starting at the east end of the property. The minimum property size of the proposed building lots is 3,081 s.f. with an average lot size of 3,573 s.f. Access to the development is proposed from the east through Verado Subdivision & from the south through Chamberlain Estates Sub.; no access is proposed via Ustick or Locust Grove Rds. All streets within the development are proposed to be public although reduced street sections (i.e. 27') are proposed for Laugh Ridge Ave., Ringneck St., Stormy Dr. and Summerbrook Ave., the "loop" road — this will only allow parking on one side of these streets, on the inner side of the loop. The UDC requires a minimum of 10% qualified open space and one site amenity is provided. The applicant proposes 10% (or 1.73 acres) qualified open space consisting of internal common area, a micro -path, and half the street buffers along adjacent arterial streets. A 6,500 s.f. dog park with a seating area and a segment of the City's multi -use pathway system is proposed adjacent to the South Slough at the SEC of the development as amenities. A mix of single-family detached & attached homes, but mostly attached, are proposed along the north & west boundaries of the site adjacent to Ustick & Locust Grove Roads, both arterial streets; detached homes are proposed internal to the development. The attached homes will be single -level and are designed to serve mature "empty nesters." The detached homes are proposed to be 2 - stories in height & range in size from 1,377 to 1,850 square feet; those adjacent to arterial streets will be a single story in height. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for future homes in this development; building materials consist of horizontal & vertical siding with stone/brick veneer accents — the attached units are required to comply with the design standards listed in the ASM. Staff concerns: • Along the southern boundary of this site, there is not an adequate transition in lot sizes to existing lots (i.e. there are 3 lots, or portions thereof, to every single lot) — staff recommends more comparable lot sizes are provided along this boundary. • During the project review meeting with City staff, several concerns were raised with the number of narrow lots and the impacts that it has to on -street parking (lessened due to the number of driveways in close proximity). ACHD has requested that the City ensure adequate parking is provided on-site as on -street parking is restricted. NO on-site (i.e. off-street) parking is proposed. Past experience has shown that lack of or reduced on -street parking has created problems with visitors parking in restricted areas that then block travel lanes needed for emergency access and in adjacent neighborhoods. • Narrow lots limit the variation in housing types and limits the homes being constructed on the lots from having varied step backs in building setbacks within the development to articulate and break up the front wall planes of structures visible from interior streets (all homes are constructed at the same setback with a garage dominated design that diminishes community (aouenLg1wo aol (s)uoseaa of oids ajels pinogs noA) :(s)uoseaa 5uiMopoj aqj aoj (aaay alep Ouueaq panupoo }iasui)10 91ep 6uueau aq1 o15g00-860Z-H aagwnN ali,j enuijuoo of anow eousnupoo (leivap aoj suoseaa oyioads a]ejs p1nogs noA) :suoseai buiMopoj aqj aoj `gGOZ `OZ aagwajdaS uo buiaeaq aqj Ouianp pa}uosaid se `5800 -8 60Z -H aagwnN acid jo punoo Aj!O ay} 01 le[uap puawwooaa o} anow I `AuowiIsa} oiIgnd pue jueogdde `gels pe buiaappoo aauv ]Blue(] (suoijipuoo of suogeoy!pow posodoid Aue ppy) :suoijeoilipow buiMopoj aqj qj!m `gl,OZ `OZ aagwajdaS jo ajep buiaeaq ayj aoj podaa }}ejs au} ui paluesaid se `5800-860Z -H aagwnN all j jo pounoo Aji3 au} o} lenoidde puawwooaa 01 anow I `howilsal oilgnd pue :lueogdde `}jejs pe buiaapisuoo aa4V Jenoiddy :suoijow aIgissod :saIoN 8 Iiq!gx3 ui suoiIipuoo qj!M lenoaddy :uoi}1apuowwoo9N djB}S dnoaE) }uawabeueW aa6uoo AOLUpsal ua}jiaM -posodoid se sal !mve ajis � aoeds uado oql jo lenoadde bugsonbaa s pue of 4ou paldo peoydde oqj `aanaMoq `oBuego palsonboi aqj 6uiMogs 6uueaq uoissivatuoO eqj o4 aoud ueld palepdn ue I!wgns jueoijdde oqj palsenboipejo •(Apowe olpieftoo aagjo ao) spnoo spods jo solgej oiuoid qpm eaae oiuoid paranoologoze6 e se Bons 1 }!uauae alis leugyppe ue glint buole popinord si eaae wwwoo p (we ue jo qt'o ao) Ts /+000`8 leuoijippe ue jo wnwiuiw e sp owwom pap `juawdolanap sigj ui posodoid sozis job pews aqj q anp `jegpn f -eaae uouauaoo ,gOnojgl„ e q 5Qg1nsaa sjol fiuiplinq oM} buisol pue g ao p pue 0 sNoo18 jo (uogeanA1juoo -a•i) suoijeool aqj 6uigops �iq panaigoe oq p1noo sigl sluepisai ye of a�g�ssaooe pue leipoo wow oq of Isam aqj of aagpni paieoolaa SY spuawwwai pts `juawdolanap oqj of ooueajuo aqj le uo.p ipgns oqj jo pue Iseo oqj le p04eo0l Ile s,4i se /eapi jou sj! `sprepue4s wnwiuiw oq4 spoor aoeds uado posodoid aqj ol!gM 'juawdolanap opeaaA aaipo oqj Inogbnoagl A#saanip 6uisnoq aaow apinoid of eaae sigj Qi popaau s sozis job Qi uogeuen aaowj! ouuaaajap pinogs uoissimwoo aql -sedlq 5uisnoq owes oqj jo gonna pnilsuoo of sosegd snoinaid eqj gjiM you woo eq 4uawdolanap sigj jegj 6uijsonbaa si jueogdde oql -(aajoeaego Changes to Agenda: • Item #4A: EEG Office Building - CUP (H-2018.0081) — Applicant requests continuance to October 4th in order to redesign the building to comply with design standards. • Item #4D: Hill's Century Farm Wireless Communications — CUP (H-2018-0087) — Applicant requests continuance without a date certain in order to submit an application for an amendment to the existing DA and a subdivision plat. Item #413: Healthy Balance Pharmacy (H-2018.0086) Application(s): ➢ Conditional Use Permit Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 0.772 acres of land, zoned C -G, located at 2424 E. Gala Court, Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: North: Overland Road and vacant commercial property zoned C -G 2. East: Drive-through coffee shop, zoned C -G 3. South: Multi -tenant office building, zoned C -G 4. West: Multi -tenant office building, zoned L-0 History: In 2006, the subject property, a.k.a. Kenai Subdivision was granted Annexation and Zoning (AZ -06-021) approval by City Council with R-15, and C -G zoning districts. A Development Agreement (DA) was approved with the annexation (Instrument No. 106141056). A preliminary plat (PP -06-019) was approved concurrently with annexation of the property with 64 single family detached residential lots, 24 alley loaded/attached single family residential lots, 9 multi -family residential lots, 25 common lots, and 32 commercial lots on 77.66 acres. Also in 2006, the property received final plat approval for Gramercy Subdivision N0. 1 (FP 06-048) consisting of 50 residential building lots, 32 commercial building lots, 1 city park lot and 21 common lots on 62.01 acres of land. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MU -R Summary of Request: Conditional Use Permit (CUP): The applicant is proposing to construct a 4,364 square foot two-story pharmacy with associated drive-through. Per the recorded plat direct lot access to Overland Road was not granted to this parcel however; there is a reciprocal cross access in place for this parcel to access Gala Street to the south, Wells Ave. to the east and use the right -in only access from Overland Road. Staffs analysis of the proposed development includes the internal site/landscape improvements and the site circulation of the drive-through and adjacent properties. Cross Access: The applicant will need to provide staff with evidence of a cross -access easement with the property to the south in order for a certificate of zoning compliance to be approved. Please provide the information with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. Specific Use Standards: The UDC requires a conditional use permit if the drive-through establishment is within 300 feet of an existing drive-through use and is subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-11, Drive -Through Establishment. Staff has reviewed these standards and found the site plan to be in compliance with these standards. Parking: The applicant is showing several parking stalls that could be impacted by the drive-through lane. Customers that park in stalls 1-8 may have a difficult time accessing or back ng out of these stalls if there are vehicles waiting in the drive-through lane. Staff is of the opinion that these stalls should be marked as employee parking in order to reduce the possibility of conflict in the drive through lane. Site Plan: Staff has reviewed the submitted site plan and requires the necessary revisions prior to the submission of the certificate of zoning compliance (CZC) application. 1) Per UDC 11-3C-5, the applicant shall provide curbing or wheel stops on the south side of the parking aisle containing stalls 8-17 to prevent vehicles from entering the drive aisle. 2) Per UDC 11-3B-5 and 11-3B-8, a 5 -foot wide landscape buffer (measured inside of curb to inside of curb) is required on the south side of the parking aisle containing stalls 8-17. The buffer is being required to clearly demark the new parking area from the shared 25 -foot drive aisle with the adjacent property to the south. Although the buffer does impact the site design as submitted, staff believes that the applicant has sufficient area to accommodate the buffer and the 25 -foot wide drive aisle without significantly modifying the layout. (aouenuijuoo aoj (s)uoseaa oipods ajejs p1noys noA) :(s)uoseaa bu!nnollol aqj aol (away alep bu!aeaq penuiluoo psu!) jo alep buiaeaq aq1 04 9800-9 W -H aagwnN al! j anupoo o} avow I aouenupoo (leiuop aoj suoseei oijpods ajels pinoys noA) :suosew bu!Mollol aqj aoj `g(,OZ 'OZ aagwaldaS uo bu!aeaq aq} bulanp paluasaid se '9900 -960Z -H aagwnN Gl! j Auap 01 anow I `Auow!1sal o!lgnd pue ;ueo!Idde `}}els Ile bu!aap!suoo aa}}y Ieluaa (sugq!puoo of suoijeoy!poua posodoid Aue pp y) :suo!leo!J!pow bu!nnol!oj aqj ql!M `g I OZ `OZ aagwaldeS jo a}ep buueaq aqj aol pdai }}els eql u! paluasaad se `9800-9 LOZ-H aagwnN al!J anoidde o>, anow I `how!lsaj o!lgnd pue lueogdde `j}els Ile bu!aap!suoo aa4V Ienoaddy :suo!}ow alq!ssod - - : saIoN -eaae leaauab aqj ulgl!M pue juowdolanap aqj ulgl!M sasn jo Aja BA aqJ 01 ppe ll!M sasn bu!punoaans aqj gj!nn Ilom sj!j asn aql 'suo!j!puoo QM Ienoaddy :uo!JepuauawooaN JIBIS auoN :Ruow11s81 ua}}!aM -IenueW spiepuelS leanjoa}!goay aq} ui pau!eluoo sau!lap d aq pue UNC -1, I, OCTA u1 paIs!l spaepuels ub!sop aqj ql!M Aldwoo Isnw 4ueo!ldde aql -sl!waad bu!ppq jo aouenssi o} aoud pap!wgns aq of paa!nbaa s! uo!leogdde Sia pue OZO d :(S30) Ma!naN ub!saQ pue (OZo) eouelldwoo bu!uoZ jo a}eo!l!}aao wijl le}aw gl!nn auols pue alaaouoo `000nis eq of jeadde sle!aa}ew bu!ppq aqj 'suo!>.enala popwgns aqj jo aAll. oddns s! }}ejs `leaauab ul -bu!pl!nq aqj JO suo!Jenala aldwes pappgns seq jueogdde aql :suo!}ena13 bu!pl!n8 'anoge pa}ou se sabuego popuawwoow pue buldeospuel jol bu!laed leuaajui aqj pozAleue Aluo seq }els uo!leo!idde s!qj ;o sasodand ao j oan eqj jo s}uawaarnbai eqj slaaw pue jeld Ieu� agJ 10 lenoadde aq} ql!M pajonaisuoo seen peo�I puelaanp of jueoelpe aa}}nq adeospuel ap!M #ooj-5Z aql '8E-6 6 ocin ql!M eouegdwoo aoj ueld adeospuel popwgns aqj paMa!naa seq 4ejS :buldeospue j •sjuawaarnbaa OaN eqj spaeoxa go!gM 'pasodoad aae she's bu!�aed 9Z jo lejol y -91!s aqj uo pap!noid eq o} paa!nbaa aae sooeds 6uilied alo!yan 610 wnw!u!w a `-j-s V9E`v Alajew!xoidde `bu!ppq eqj jo (-I-s) abelooj aienbs Ileaano agJ uo pase8 :bu!iIaed 'ueld ap polip ns aqj uo pajo!dap se AeM-auo poduls aq pinogs eaae gbnoagj-anup aql (£ Item #4C: Burlingame Subdivision (H-2018.0079) Application(s): ➢ Rezone ➢ Preliminary Plat ➢ Development Agreement Modification Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 18.994 acres of land, zoned R-4, located near the northeast corner of W. Cherry Lane and N. Black Cat Road. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: North: Single-family residential (Turnberry Crossing), zoned R-4 South: Single-family residential property, zoned RUT in Ada County East: Two Church buildings, zoned L-0 and a single-family residence and daycare zoned RUT in Ada County. West: Single-family residences, zoned RUT in Ada County History: -In 2017 a development agreement modification (Instrument No. 2018-014051) was approved that replaced the previously approved concept plan and allowed for up to 60 single family residential lots. Concurrently a preliminary plat was approved that allowed up to 60 single-family lots (H-2017-0055). Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: LDR Summary of Request: REZONE (RZ): The applicant has applied to rezone the property from the R-4 zone to the R-8 zone. The rezone is desired by the applicant to align with his vison to market the property to retirees and empty nesters. The applicant believes that with the rezone to R-8 and the reduced dimensional standards, the project will now be much easier to market to their target demographic. The R-8 zoning district is an allowable zoning designation within the LDR Comprehensive Plan designation and the proposed density is appropriate if a "step up" is approved by Council. Development Agreement Modification (MDA): Development of this property is currently governed by the development agreement (DA) approved for the Burlingame Subdivision (Instrument No. 2018-014051). Because the applicant's vision for the property does not match what was approved and required with the previous development agreement, the applicant has applied to modify the existing development agreement to update the development plan and building elevations. The previous approved plan included 60 single-family residential lots and 7 common lots with an R-4 designation, which had a density of 4.43 d.u.lacre, and contained 1.89 acres of open space. The previous iteration did not require a step up in density per the Comprehensive Plan because the density was in line with the requirements of the Low Density Residential designation. The new plan consists of 74 residential lots and 14 common lots, has 2.26 acres of open space and has a density of 4.98 which will require approval of a "step up" in density. The new DA should include the proposed development plan and any changes required and building elevations included as attached exhibits. 5136 W. Cherry Lane: With a recent property boundary adjustment one of the existing homes (5136 W. Cherry Lane) was split off and excluded from the proposed preliminary plat and rezone boundary. However, this home is still part of the recorded development agreement, Staff has reviewed the recorded development agreement and finds that even though it is not part of the plat as required in the recorded development agreement, that this home should be required to hook-up to City services; close the existing access to Cherry Lane; extend a 10 -foot multi -use pathway along the frontage, provide a 25 foot landscape buffer in accord with UDC 11-313-7 and take from the proposed W. Montgomery Way and shall abandon direct access to Cherry Lane prior to the City Engineer's signature on the first final plat. Preliminary Plat (PP): A preliminary plat is proposed consisting of 74 building lots and 14 common lots on 18.99 acres of land in the proposed R-8 zoning district. The plat is proposed to develop in 3 phases as shown in Exhibit A.2. The average lot size is 7,152 square spaepuels aafl ql!m pa000e ui luawdolanap aql gbnoagl slaaals leoo! aql 6uole s1lemap!s pagoelle app loot -9 6u!sodoad osle si lueo!ldde aq j 'L 6-dE-6 6 aafl ql!m pa000e ui luawdolanap to asegd algeo!!dde au} ql!m aueq kaaga •M to abeluoal aa!lua ay} 6uo!e palonalsuoo aq llegs �lemap!s pagoelap y :sAE!Mied pue s�jemap!S -sluawaambaa apoo al aad punoae-uanl e ap!noad ao Aemanup uowwoo aql to gIbual eql oonpaa !legs lueo!Idde aq j -Aemanup uowwoo e aol laal 056 to gl6ual wnw!xew aql spaaoxa E ro18 'Cl, lo -I legl punol aueq pue geld oql uo palo!dap sAemanup uowwoo aql to suo!suaw!p aql pama!naa seq j4elS 'a£-ag-11 aafl ui palsg spaepuels aql ql!m /Idwoo p!nogs sAeman!ap uowwoo py 'E po18 'Cl, lo] pue 9 Polo `OZ lo -I geld aql uo pasodoad SAeman!ap uowwoo (Z) oml 6u!sodoad si lueogdde aq j :sAeman!aa uowwoO •uo!sinlpgnS iGaaquan j oq} woal pew 841 }o uo!suaIxa ay} 41!m 6u!ssoao ue!a}sopod/aIolgan a aoJ q}oq aano o6ppq a ap!noad of sesodoid }ueo!ldde aq.L •soploedeo o6ael a!agl o} anp uado u!ewaa o} leaalelpS paol}eS pue Ieuea siapaS aql molle of I!ounoa woaj aan!em a slsonbai jueo!ldde aq j -sa!l!I!oel AI!oedeo aOael aol luawaambaa s!ql an!em Aew I!ounoa Al!a aq j -coeds uado aeau!l ao ([-b'6-[ I, can u, pou!lop se) Apowe aalem e se uado 4a1 ssa!un pad!d aq of su!eap pue s!eueo `sleaalel `segol!p uo!le6!aa! Ile saa!nbaa (9-VC-11)can aqj -luawasea lo!als!a uogeb!aal saalp@S app loot -09 e u!gl!m ag glo8 -/uepunoq glaou aql uo kpadoad aql ssoao Ieuea saalllas pue leaalelgnS paolleS aql glob :sAu/vua}e/N 'u -8E -66 oan ql!m Aldwoo pue sluawaa!nbaa lo!als!a uolle6!aal s,aa!llaS aql to Ile ql!m AIdwoo I!egs lueo!Idde aq j 'aopuaoo eql buole Al!!!q!s!n u!elu!ew pue eaae aql oo!lod ueo sluap!saa aanlnl eql os AIuo 6u!oual uo!s!n uado loot -g ao p!Ios !lel loot -V of paloulsaa aq pinogs slol algepllnq aql to spaeA aew aql buole 6u!oual aql sana!Iaq Ilels `aanamoq lol uowwoo e ui bu!aq me s!gl of algeuowe s! Mels luawaambaa s!ql to asneoa8 'AIg!oel uo!le61aa1 a!agl of ssaooe aueq Aagl os uado u!ewaa of eaae s!ql speau lo!als!a u01le6!aa! ,scalps legl pau!waalap sem I! lueo!Idde aql ql!m s!gl 6u!ssnos!p ul -Aj!I!q!s!n to Noel aql of anp aop!aaoo alesun ue aq pinoo eaae sq legl pos!ea aaam suaaouoo `sluawlaedaa Al!a aaglo ql!m bu!loaw ma!naa loafoad aql 6u!ana •loafoad eql to �Gepunoq Ise@ aql to uo!ljod e pue glaou aql 6uole sluawasea MOP'] 6u1Is!xa ale aaagj :lu8wase3 uo!le6!aal 'Z4 -8E-6I, oar pUe 9-vc-6I• can u, glaol las spaepuels aql ql!m pa000e ui pedeospuel pue glp!m ui loot -q aq lsnw sgledoao!w pasodoad aq j -walsAs lemgled Ieuaalui ue to lied se luawdolanap aql UIRM sgledoao!w Ieaanas lonalsuoo of 6u!sodoad osle si lueogdde aq j 'Z 11, aafl pue 9 -'dc -1,6 aafl u, q}aol las spaepuels aql ql!m pa000e ui padeospuel pue paned aq lsnw sAemgled glob Asea aql of sa!laadoad aql of builoauuoo ul lelluesso s! auej AGaaga 'M 9E 651e peleool kpadoad aql ssoaoe Aemgled asn-lllnw loot -O 6 a legl uo!u!do aql to si l}elS we -1 Ajaaga 'M 9E I,5 10 a6eluoal Eq buole � Iemapis loot 9 e paambaa Aluo Alaadoad aql col da bu!ls!xe aq j -sa!laadoad goango oql to Aiepunoq Isom aql le Aemgled aql bulggnls `Aaepunoq lsea aql to uopod uaaglaou aql buole Aemgled asn-!llnw loot-O[e pualxa of sesodoad osle lueo!ldde eq j •Ieuea saaplaS aql of luaoefpe Aadoad aql to ap!s you aql buole Aemgled leuo!6aa loot -O I, aql to uo!loas aagloue pue `aue-1 AGaaga aql to ap!s glaou aql 6uole alts s!ql uo Aemgled leuo!6aa e slo!dap ueld aalseW sAemgled aqj :shmWcl •aue j AGaaga 'M 9E 65 to a6eluoal aql ssoaoe aapq adeospuel loot gZ e panoadde I!ounoa `Alaadoad aql uo ya bulls!xe aql aad aL-8E-6I, aafl ui pols!I spaepuels aql ql!m pa000e u1 pap!noad aq pinogs saallnq hails aql u!gl!m bu!deospuel -spaepuelS Ieuo!suawla aapun anoge possnos!p se 9 -VZ- I, I, sa!gej aafl ul glaol las se pap!noad aq of paa!nbw s.i bu!deospuel aallnq hails :Gu!deospue j Meld aql of sebuego lueog!u6ls Aue paalnbw lou seq Ilels aHa`d 'loafoad s!gl col AI!a aql of � oeq suo!l!puoo pue sluawwoo pall!wgns seq aHay 'walsAs hails pasodoad agl to an!laoddns Alleaauab s! gelS •Al!n!loauuooaalui aanlnl col (-aa goa!8 al!gM -M) fuepunoq Isea eql 6uole aaglo aql pue (AeM el!uo8 'N) AGepunoq Isam aql buole ouo 'pasodoad awe slaaals gnls omj 'pou eql woal alts aql olui anuany aauuoa,o pualxe pue `(AeM AJ9wo6luOA •N) aue j Aaaaga of ssaooe hails o!lgnd mou e lonalsuoo of bu!sodoad Si lueo!ldde aql 'luawdolanap s!ql ao,J '9 po18 `E lo -I uo paleool si pue luawdolanap aql to lied se ulewaa 11!m `luawdo!anap aql to aauaoo Isamglaou aql aeau paleool awoq aaglo Eq pue luawdolanap aql gl!m panowaa aq Il!m awoq Isowuaalsea aqj 'E-vc-66 aafl ql!m pa000e ui slawls o!Ignd Ieuaalu1 e!n luawdolanap s!ql ulgl!m s6u!Ilamp eql to Ile of ssaooe ap!noad of pue luawasee ssaooe bu!Is!xa s!gl aleoen of paambaa si lueo!ldde aq j -kepunoq Isea aql buole sallaadoad goango bu!ls!xe (Z) oml aql ssoaoe peOd lea rel8 woal/ol luawasea ssaooe alenud op!m loot -5Z e woal ssaooe ue aneq sawoq asagl to glob •saouap!saa bu!Is!xe (Z) oml ql!m padolanap Alluaaano s! Alaadoad loafgns aq j :s}aaajs/ssaooy 'jE-09-6I, aafl ui pals!I spaepuels gl6ual joo!q aql pUe 9 -VZ -I, I, a!gej Dan ui pals!I loulslp bu!uoz g-�j aglto spaepuels !euo!suaw!p aql gl!mAldwoo of paarnbaa ace uols!n!pgns pasodoad aql ui slot eqj :spaepuels leuo!suawla spaepuels aafl gl!m pa000e u! -I-s 009`5 to az!s lol wnw!u!w e ql!m (-I-s) laal Landscaping, Open Space and Amenities: Previous: The previous proposal was for 1.89 acres (10%) of open space for the development. Theapplicant also proposed two section of a multi -use pathway as their one (1) required amenity for the subdivision. Current: The applicant is currently proposing 2.26 acres (11.9°/x) of open space for the development. The applicant is also proposing two section of a multi -use pathway as their one (1) required amenity for the subdivision. The applicant is also proposing a children's play structure, a gazebo and internal pathways as well as two sections of the City's multi -use pathway as additional amenities for the development. Building Elevations: The applicant has submitted some conceptual sample building elevations for future homes in this development, included in Exhibit AA Building materials appear to consist of a mix of board and batten and horizontal lap siding and stone accents and stucco. Because none of the homes will front on any collector or arterial streets, staff is not requiring additional architectural features for the homes. However, the proposed elevations should be incorporated into the amended development agreement to ensure future homes are constructed as proposed by the applicant. Written Testimony: Jeannette O'Brion — Overcrowded schools, congested roads Staff Recommendation: Approval with conditions. The proposed project is comparable to the subdivision to the north and will contribute to the variety of homes available in the area. The applicant has improved the overall design of the subdivision and included additional amenities than were proposed with the previous iteration of the project. 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- 2018-0079, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of September 20, 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-2018- 0079, as presented during the hearing on September 20, 2018, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2018-0079 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) (oouengquoo aoj (s)uoseaa oilioeds alels pinogs noA) :(s)uoseaa bu!mollol aql jol (away alep buueaq panu!luoo laasu!) to alep bu!aeaq ayl 016900-8 1, OZ -H aagwnN OU anuiluoo o} anoua I aouenulluoo (leivap aoj suoseei oilioods alels pinogs ncA) :suosew bu!mollol ay} aol `8402 `OZ aagwaldes uo 6upeaq eql buunp paluasaid se `6900-9I,M-H aagwnN al! j Auap o} anoua I 'Auoua!lsal o!lgnd pue lueoildde `llels Ile bu!aap!suoo wally leluaa (suogipuoo of suogeo!poLu pasodoad Aue ppy) :Suo!leo!l!pow bu!mollol eql ql!m `81,02 `OZ aaquaaldaS to olep buueaq oql aol laodai llels aql ui poluasaid se `6900 -860Z -H aagwnN al! j anoidde o} anoua I `houa!lsol o!Ignd pue lueo!ldde `llels Ile bu!aap!suoo wally Ienoiddy :suol}oIN alglssod :sa}oN lenoaddy milepuemw000N lle}S (liodai llels/m luaweeibe u!) sloal!goay lowwnH `paen!�{ gooey Aouallsal ual}laM 'ape6el Ioogos qb!q bu!ls!xa aql ql!m lualsisuoo awe legl suoll!ppe posodoid aql aol pall!wgns aaam Suo!lenala bu!pl!nq lenldoouoo •sooeds bu!�aed 6WIS!xa aql 10 Aue JOAO goeoaoue lou II!m pasodoad S! WOW ayl aaagm eaae ayl TI's ROE -a•!) uo!l!ppe ainlonils bu!ls!xe ayl to abelool aaenbs lelol aql uo poseq OC]n aqj Aq paalnbaa awe 099 'al!s aql uo sooeds bu!�aed bu!ls!xe EZZ` 6 to lelol e awe aaagl -spiepuels asegl ql!m sa!ldwoo lesodoid agl'suo!lnl!lsuI uo!leonp3 aol I, ui pals!l spiepuels asn oy!oads eql of loafgns si uo!l!ppe pasodoid oql 'lenoidde asn leuoll!puoo saalnbaa mou pue popuawe uaaq seq 04f1 oql `owli legl aou!s 'lo!als!p V-�j eql ui asn pell!uaaad oldlou!ad e se pamolle aaam suo!lnlilsu! uolleonpa `palonalsuoo Alleu!6!ao sem loogos gblq aql uagM •uo!lelndod luapnls bu!moib aql anus aallaq of eualaleo bu!ls!xe aql puedxa of pazllgn aq 11!m -l-s 009`Z bu!u!ewai aql -swooisselo bu!lslxe ui lunoo luapnls aql bu!onpaa pue swooisselo algelaod aol paeu aql bu!onpaa sa!l!I!oel laoddns ql!m swooisselo g 6 Jeuo!l!ppe ue ap!noid II!m golgm 'l's 009`ZZ 10 bullslSuOo bulm wooisselo AJOIS-Z e to slS!suoo eaae uolsuedxa aql -epalaleo aql of luaoefpe bu!plmq aql to ap!s glnos aql uo paleool eaae uowwoo pedeospuel e u!gl!m pasodoad Si uo!l!ppe aql •loogos qb!q bu!ls!xe aql of uo!l!ppe -l-s VOZ`5Z e aol palsonbai sl df10 y :lsonbaN jo fuEwwnS 01n10 :uol}eu6lsea mij ueld anlsuagaadwoo -uagl aouis panoidde ueaq aneq swooisselo aelnpow luanbasgns'al!s sigl uo Ioogos qb!q aql to uo!lonalsuoo aql aol palueab sem lenoidde ` [OOZ ul :fdolslH Alunoo epy u! �N pUe V-�j `8-2i pauoz `2IjS `goang0 :lsaM *Q 0-o pauoz `le!luap!saa 2jjS aanlnl pue �IjA `puel le!oaawwoo padolanapunAueoeA :lse3 V-�j pauoz `�aed Al!o e �R 2i,IS :glnoS 0--I pauoz `�I,JW'8 sao!ll0 :glaoN :buluoz R asn puei }uaoefpd .Aem wn!uuall!W 'S OOOZ le paleool `v-�j pauoz `puel l0 saaoe 66-V9 to sls1suo0 al!s s!ql :MIMI pue `6uluoz 6ullslxa `Apedoid to ozlS l!uaaad asN leuo!l!puo0 :(s)uoijeollddy (6800-8 1,0Z -H) loog0S g6IH MIA ule}unoW :3V# Wall Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Meeting Date: September 20, 2018 Agenda Item Number: 4A Project/File Number: H-2018-0081 Item Title EEG Office Building CUP Cn4� nutcf 4-0 Meetina Notes I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 4.A . Presenter: Estimated Time f or P resentation: Title of I tem - Public Hearing Continued from S eptember 6, 2018 for E E G O ffice Building (H- 2018-0081) by Chad Slichter, L ocated at 551 S W 5th Ave. C lic k Here for Applic ation Materials C lic k Here to S ign Up to Tes tify at Hearing Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 31 of 135 City of Meridian - Public Hearing Sign In Form Tools Details and Signatures For Public Hearing Hearing Date: 9/20/2018 Hearing Type: PZ Item Number: 4-A Project Name: EEG Office Building Project No.: H-2018-0081 Active: ❑d There are no signatures posted for this meeting type yet. Go Back To List Export To Excel © 2018 - City of Meridian, Idaho Page 1 of 1 http://internalapps/SIGNINFORMTOOLS/SignInFormDetails?id=56 9/21/2018 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Meeting Date: September 20, 2018 Agenda Item Number: 413 Project/File Number: H-2018-0086 Item Title Healthy Balance Pharmacy CUP �✓ APPROdE Meetina Notes I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 4.B . Presenter: Estimated Time f or P resentation: Title of I tem - Public Hearing for Healthy Balance Pharmacy (H-2018-0086) by D aniel A. Schwalbe Inc., L ocated at 2424 E . G ala Ct. C lic k Here for Applic ation Materials C lic k Here to S ign Up to Tes tify at Hearing AT TAC HM E NT S: Description Type Upload D ate S taff Report S taff Report 9/14/2018 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 32 of 135 City of Meridian - Public Hearing Sign In Form Tools Details and Signatures For Public Hearing Hearing Date: 9/20/2018 Hearing Type: PZ Item Number: 4-B Project Name: Health Balance Pharmacy Project No.: H-2018-0086 Active: ❑d Page 1 of 1 Go Back To List Export To Excel © 2018 - City of Meridian, Idaho http://internalapps/SIGNINFORMTOOLS/SignInFormDetails?id=62 9/21/2018 I WishSign Signature City- In Address For Against Neutral To Name State -Zip Date/Time Testify Travis Nampa 9/20/2018 Trlhiggins@aim.com X Higgins ID 83686 5:38:40 PM Go Back To List Export To Excel © 2018 - City of Meridian, Idaho http://internalapps/SIGNINFORMTOOLS/SignInFormDetails?id=62 9/21/2018 CA -4 '67 ii y 'Awn" i. =!a` 91 Healthy Balance Pharmacy Drive-through – H-2018-0086 PAGE 1 STAFF REPORT HEARING DATE: September 20, 2018 TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Josh Beach, Associate City Planner 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: Healthy Balance Pharmacy CUP – H-2018-0086 I. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant, Daniel A. Schwalbe, has applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) for a drive- through pharmacy within 300 feet of an existing drive-through establishment. See Section VII, VIII & IX for more information. II. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposed CUP application with the conditions of approval in Exhibit B based on 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 approve File Number H-2018- 0086 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of September 20, 2018, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications.) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2018-0086 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of September 20, 2018, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial.) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2018-0086 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 2424 E. Gala Ct., in the NW ¼ of the NE ¼ of Section 20, Township 3 North, Range 1 East. B. Applicant/Representative: Daniel A. Schwalbe, Daniel A. Schwalbe, Inc. 11422 E. 4th Ave. Spokane, WA 99206 C. Owner: Tyler C. Higgins 1024 Big Creek Circle Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 33 of 135 Healthy Balance Pharmacy Drive-through – H-2018-0086 PAGE 2 Nampa, ID 83686 D. Applicant's Statement/Justification: Please see applicant’s narrative for this information. V. PROCESS FACTS A. The subject application is for a conditional use permit. A public hearing is required before the Planning and Zoning Commission on this matter, consistent with Meridian City Code Title 11, Chapter 5. B. Newspaper notifications published on: August 31, 2018 C. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: August 24, 2018 D. Applicant posted notice on site by: September 4, 2018 VI. LAND USE A. Existing Land Use(s): The property is vacant commercial property, zoned C-G. B. Character of Surrounding Area and Adjacent Land Use and Zoning: 1. North: Overland Road and vacant commercial property zoned C-G 2. East: Drive-through coffee shop, zoned C-G 3. South: Multi-tenant office building, zoned C-G 4. West: Multi-tenant office building, zoned L-O C. History of Previous Actions: In 2006, the subject property, a.k.a. Kenai Subdivision was granted Annexation and Zoning (AZ-06- 021) approval by City Council with R-15, and C-G zoning districts. A Development Agreement (DA) was approved with the annexation (Instrument No. 106141056). A preliminary plat (PP-06-019) was approved concurrently with annexation of the property with 64 single family detached residential lots, 24 alley loaded/attached single family residential lots, 9 multi-family residential lots, 25 common lots, and 32 commercial lots on 77.66 acres. Also in 2006, the property received final plat approval for Gramercy Subdivision N0. 1 (FP 06-048) consisting of 50 residential building lots, 32 commercial building lots, 1 city park lot and 21 common lots on 62.01 acres of land. D. Utilities: 1. Public Works: a. Location of sewer: A sanitary sewer main intended to provide service to the subject property currently exists in the driveway near the southeast corner of the property. b. Location of water: Water mains intended to provide service to the subject property currently exists in the driveway near the southeast corner of the subject site. c. Issues or concerns: None E. Physical Features: 1. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: No major facilities exist on this property. 2. Hazards: NA 3. Flood Plain: This property is not within the flood plain. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 34 of 135 Healthy Balance Pharmacy Drive-through – H-2018-0086 PAGE 3 VII. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS This property is designated “Mixed Use Regional” on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. The purpose of this designation is to provide a mix of employment, retail, and residential dwellings and public uses near major arterial intersections. The intent is to integrate a variety of uses together, including residential, and to avoid 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. A pharmacy is considered a community service use, therefore staff is of the opinion; the site is developing in the context of a mixed-use development consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The area is developed with a variety of medical and professional office buildings. The addition of a pharmacy to the area will complement the existing uses in the area. Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this property and apply to the proposed use (staff analysis in italics): 1. “Require landscape street buffers for new development along all entryway corridors.” (2.01.02E) A 25-foot wide landscape buffer exists adjacent to Overland Road in accord with UDC 11-3B-7C. 2. “Require all new and reconstructed parking lots to provide landscaping in internal islands and along streets.” (2.01.04B) All parking lot landscaping must comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C. 3. “Permit new development only where urban services can be reasonably provided at the time of final approval and development is contiguous to the City.” (3.01.01F) City services are readily available to serve the proposed commercial development. 4. “Plan for a variety of commercial and retail opportunities within the Area of City Impact.” (3.05.01J) Staff believes the pharmacy and associated drive-through will complement the existing residential and medical offices developed in the area. Based on the above analysis, staff is supportive of the proposed development as it is generally consistent with the comprehensive plan. VIII. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE (UDC) A. Purpose Statement of Zone(s): COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS (C-G) - The purpose of the Commercial Districts is to provide for the retail and service needs of the community in accord with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. Six Districts are designated which differ in the size and scale of commercial structures accommodated in the district, the scale and mix of allowed commercial uses, and the location of the district in proximity to streets and highways. B. Schedule of Use: 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, or listed as a prohibited use is prohibited. C. Dimensional Standards: Development of the site shall comply with the dimensional standards Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 35 of 135 Healthy Balance Pharmacy Drive-through – H-2018-0086 PAGE 4 listed in UDC 11-2B-3 for the C-G zoning district. D. Landscaping: Parking lot landscaping: All parking lot landscaping must comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C. E. Off-Street Parking: Off-street parking is required in accord with UDC 11-3C-6B for the proposed commercial development. F. Structure and Site Design Standards: The proposed development must comply with the design standards in accord with UDC 11-3A-19 and the Architectural Standards Manual (ASM). IX. ANALYSIS A. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation: Conditional Use Permit (CUP): The applicant is proposing to construct a 4,364 square foot two- story pharmacy with associated drive-through. Per the recorded plat direct lot access to Overland Road was not granted to this parcel however; there is a reciprocal cross access in place for this parcel to access Gala Street to the south, Wells Ave. to the east and use the tight-in only access from Overland Road. Staff’s analysis of the proposed development includes the internal site/landscape improvements and the site circulation of the drive-through and adjacent properties. Cross Access: The applicant will need to provide staff with evidence of a cross-access easement with the property to the south in order for a certificate of zoning compliance to be approved. Please provide the information with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. Specific Use Standards: The UDC requires a conditional use permit if the drive-through establishment is within 300 feet of an existing drive-through use and is subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-11, Drive-Through Establishment. Staff has reviewed these standards and found the site plan to be in compliance with these standards. Parking: The applicant is showing several parking stalls that could be impacted by the drive- through lane. Customers that park in stalls 1-8 may have a difficult time accessing or back ing out of these stalls if there are vehicles waiting in the drive-through lane. Staff is of the opinion that these stalls should be marked as employee parking in order to reduce the possibility of conflict in the drive through lane. Site Plan: Staff has reviewed the submitted site plan and requires the necessary revisions prior to the submission of the certificate of zoning compliance (CZC) application. 1) Per UDC 11-3C-5, the applicant shall provide curbing or wheel stops on the south side of the parking aisle containing stalls 8-17 to prevent vehicles from entering the drive aisle. 2) Per UDC 11-3B-5 and 11-3B-8, a 5-foot wide landscape buffer (measured inside of curb to inside of curb) is required on the south side of the parking aisle containing stalls 8-17. The buffer is being required to clearly demark the new parking area from the shared 25-foot drive aisle with the adjacent property to the south. Although the buffer does impact the site design as submitted, staff believes that the applicant has sufficient area to accommodate the buffer and the 25-foot wide drive aisle without significantly modifying the layout. 3) The drive-through area should be striped one-way as depicted on the submitted site plan. Parking: Based on the overall square footage (s.f.) of the building, approximately 4,364 s.f., a minimum of 9 vehicle parking spaces are required to be provided on the site. A total of 25 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 36 of 135 Healthy Balance Pharmacy Drive-through – H-2018-0086 PAGE 5 parking stalls are proposed, which exceeds the UDC requirements. Landscaping: Staff has reviewed the submitted landscape plan for compliance with UDC 11-3B. The 25-foot wide landscape buffer adjacent to Overland Road was constructed with the approval of the final plat and meets the requirements of the UDC. For purposes of this application staff has only analyzed the internal parking lot landscaping and recommended changes as noted above. Building Elevations: The applicant has submitted sample elevations of the building. In general, staff is supportive of the submitted elevations. The building materials appear to be stucco, concrete and stone with metal trim. Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) and Design Review (DES): A CZC and DES application is required to be submitted prior to issuance of building permits. The applicant must comply with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and the guidelines contained in the Architectural Standards Manual. Summary: In summary, staff finds the proposed project complies with the applicable policies of the Comprehensive plan and is conditioned to comply with the applicable development standards in the UDC. Based on the aforementioned analysis, staff recommends approval of the subj ect application. X. EXHIBITS A. Drawings/Other 1. Vicinity Map 2. Proposed CUP Site Plan (dated: August 2, 2018) 3. Proposed Landscape Plan (dated: June 21, 2018 4. Proposed Building Elevation (dated: August 2, 2018) B. Conditions of Approval C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 37 of 135 Healthy Balance Pharmacy Drive-through – H-2018-0086 PAGE 6 Exhibit A.1: Vicinity Map Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 38 of 135 Healthy Balance Pharmacy Drive-through – H-2018-0086 PAGE 7 Exhibit A.2: Proposed CUP Site Plan (dated: August 2, 2018) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 39 of 135 Healthy Balance Pharmacy Drive-through – H-2018-0086 PAGE 8 Exhibit A.3: Proposed Landscape Plan (dated: June 21, 2018) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 40 of 135 Healthy Balance Pharmacy Drive-through – H-2018-0086 PAGE 9 Exhibit A.4: Proposed Building Elevations (dated: August 2, 2018) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 41 of 135 Healthy Balance Pharmacy Drive-through – H-2018-0086 PAGE 10 B. Conditions of Approval 1. PLANNING DIVISION Conditional Use Permit 1. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of previous approvals (AZ-06-021, Instrument No. 106141056, PP-06-019). 2. The applicant shall comply with the Specific Use Standards for drive-through establishments. a. Parking stalls 1-8 be shall be labeled and designated as employee parking stalls only. 3. The site plan is approved, with the conditions listed herein. The applicant shall revise the site plan as follows: b. Per UDC 11-3C-5, the applicant shall provide curbing or wheel stops on the south side of the parking aisle containing stalls 8-17 to prevent vehicles from overhanging in the required landscape buffer required in condition 3b. c. The drive-through area shall be striped one-way as depicted on the submitted site plan. d. Parking stall dimensions shall comply with the standards set forth in UDC Table 11-3C- 5. 4. The landscape plan is approved, with the conditions listed herein. The applicant shall revise the landscape plan as follows: a. Per UDC 11-3B-5 and 11-3B-8, a 5-foot landscape buffer (measured inside of curb to inside of curb) is required on the south side of the parking aisle containing stalls 8-17. 5. Development of this site shall substantially comply with the site plan, landscape plan and building elevations included in Exhibit A and the conditions of approval in this report. 6. The applicant is required to submit a Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) and Administrative Design Review (DES) application to the Planning Division for approval of the proposed use and final site layout and building designs prior to submittal of a building permit application. 7. The proposed site layout and structures are required to comply with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and the guidelines contained in the Architectural Standards Manual (ASM). 8. Staff’s failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or terms of the approved conditional use does not relieve the applicant of responsibility for compliance. 9. The applicant shall have a maximum of two (2) years to commence the drive-through use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval listed above. If the use has not begun within two (2) years of approval, a new conditional use permit must be obtained prior to operation or a time extension must be requested in accord with UDC 11-5B-6F. 10. The applicant shall complete all required improvements prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. It is unlawful to use or occupy any building or structure until the Building Official has issued a Certificate of Occupancy. 11. The applicant shall comply with the outdoor lighting standards shown in UDC 11-3A-11. 12. All signage for the property is subject to the standards set forth in UDC 11-3D. 13. With the certificate of zoning application, the applicant shall provide a copy of the recorded cross access agreement with the property owner to the south (parcel #R2399370010). Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 42 of 135 Healthy Balance Pharmacy Drive-through – H-2018-0086 PAGE 11 2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2.1 Site Specific Conditions of Approval 2.1.1 The applicant shall comply with all conditions of approval associated with the approved Knighthill Center preliminary plat (file #PP-13-031). 3. POLICE DEPARTMENT 3.1 The Police Department has no comments related to this application. 4. FIRE DEPARTMENT 4.1 The Fire Department has no comments related to this application. 5. REPUBLIC SERVICES 5.1 Republic Services has no comments related to this application. 6. PARKS DEPARTMENT 6.1 The Parks Department has no comments related to this application. 7. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT (COMMENTS FORTHCOMING) 7.1 Pay a traffic impact fee. A traffic impact fee may be assessed by ACHD and will be due prior to the issuance of a building permit by the lead agency. 7.2 Comply with all ACHD Policies and ACHD Standard Conditions of Approval for any improvements or work in the right-of-way. 7.3 Obtain a permit for any work in the right-of-way prior to the construction, repair, or installation of any roadway improvements (curb, gutter, sidewalk, pavement widening, driveways, culverts, etc.). Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 43 of 135 Healthy Balance Pharmacy Drive-through – H-2018-0086 PAGE 12 C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code 1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS: In consideration of a conditional use permit, the decision-making body shall make the following findings: a. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. Staff finds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the proposed pharmacy and drive-through use and development regulations of the C-G district (see Analysis Section VII, VIII & IX for more information). b. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in accord with the requirements of this Title. Staff finds that the proposed use is consistent and harmonious with the UDC and Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designation of MU-R for this site. c. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. Staff finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the proposed use of the property should be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing and intended character of the area. d. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Staff finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the proposed use will not adversely affect other properties in the area. e. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools, parks, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, and sewer. Staff finds that the proposed use will be served adequately by all of the public facilities and services as applicable. f. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. If approved, the applicant will be financing any improvements required for development. Staff finds there will not be excessive additional requirements at public cost and that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the community’s economic welfare. g. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. Staff finds the proposed use will generate additional traffic in the area but should not involve activities that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare of the area. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 44 of 135 Healthy Balance Pharmacy Drive-through – H-2018-0086 PAGE 13 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 there should not be any health, safety or environmental problems associated with the proposed use. Further, staff finds that the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural, scenic or historic feature of major importance. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 45 of 135 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Meeting Date: September 20, 2018 Agenda Item Number: 4C Project/File Number: H-2018-0079 Item Title Burlingame Subdivision RZ, PP, MDA Meetina Notes I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 4.C. Presenter: Estimated Time f or P resentation: Title of I tem - Public Hearing for B urlingame S ubdivision (H-2018-0079) by Yuriy M ukha, L ocated at NW C orner of West Cherry L ane and N B lack C at Road C lic k Here for Applic ation Materials C lic k Here to S ign Up to Tes tify at Hearing AT TAC HM E NT S: Description Type Upload D ate S taff Report S taff Report 9/14/2018 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 46 of 135 City of Meridian - Public Hearing Sign In Form Tools Details and Signatures For Public Hearing Hearing Date: 9/20/2018 Hearing Type: PZ Item Number: 4-C Project Name: Burlingame Subdivision Project No.: H-2018-0079 Active: ❑d Page 1 of 1 Signature Name Address City -State- Zip For Against Neutral I Wish To Testify Sign In Date/Time Wayne & 5030 W Meridian, ID 9/20/2018 Carol X Tournament Dr 83646 5:45:54 PM Croteau William 5210 W Cherry Meridian 9/20/2018 X X McEwen Lane idaho 83642 6:04:18 PM Go Back To List I Export To Excel © 2018 - City of Meridian, Idaho http://internalapps/SIGNINFORMTOOLS/SignInFormDetails?id=63 9/21/2018 Burlingame Subdivision – RZ, MDA, PP H-2018-0079 PAGE 1 STAFF REPORT HEARING DATE: September 20, 2018 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Joshua Beach, Associate City Planner 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: Burlingame Subdivision – RZ, MDA, PP (H-2018-0079) I. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANTS’ REQUEST The applicant, Yuriy Mukha, has submitted an application to modify the existing development agreement (MDA) to include a new conceptual development plan for the site, to allow for additional residential lots in a proposed R-8 zone; a rezone of 18.994 acres from R-4 to R-8 and a preliminary plat (PP) consisting of 74 building lots and 14 common area lots on 18.994 acres of land in a proposed R-8 zoning district. See Section VIII, Analysis, for more information. II. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposed MDA, RZ and PP applications based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in Exhibit D of the Staff Report. III. PROPOSED MOTION Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval of File Number H-2018-0079, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of September 20, 2018, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications.) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial of File Number H- 2018-0079, as presented during the hearing on September 20, 2018, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial.) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2018-0079 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) IV. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS A. Site Address/Location: The subject property is located near the northeast corner of W. Cherry Lane and N. Black Cat Road in the SW ¼ of Section 4, Township 3N., Range 1W. B. Applicant: Yuriy Mukha 5504 N. Senita Hills Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 47 of 135 Burlingame Subdivision – RZ, MDA, PP H-2018-0079 PAGE 2 C. Owner: Yuriy Mukha 5504 N. Senita Hills Avenue Meridian, ID 83646 D. Representative: Becky McKay Engineering Solutions, LLP 1029 N. Rosario Street, Suite 100 Meridian, ID 83642 E. Applicant's Statement/Justification: Please see applicant’s narrative for this information. V. PROCESS FACTS A. The subject applications are for a modification to the development agreement, rezone and a preliminary plat. A public hearing is required before the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council on the rezone and preliminary plat; a public hearing is only required before the City Council on the development agreement modification, consistent with Meridian City Code Title 11, Chapter 5. B. Newspaper notifications published on: August 31, 2018 C. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: August 24, 2018 D. Applicant posted notice on site by: September 10, 2018 VI. LAND USE A. Existing Land Use(s): There are currently two existing single-family homes on the subject property. The one the west side of the property will remain as part of the proposed subdivision and will be located on Lot 3, Block 5 and the home on the east side of the property will be removed as part of the application. The property is currently zoned R-4 with a request to be rezoned to R-8. B. Character of Surrounding Area and Adjacent Land Use and Zoning: North: Single-family residential (Turnberry Crossing), zoned R-4 South: Single-family residential property, zoned RUT in Ada County East: Two Church buildings, zoned L-O and a single-family residence and daycare zoned RUT in Ada County. West: Single-family residences, zoned RUT in Ada County C. History of Previous Actions: In 2017 a development agreement modification (Instrument No. 2018 -014051) was approved that replaced the previously approved concept plan and allowed for up to 60 single family residential lots. Concurrently a preliminary plat was approved that allowed up to 60 single-family lots (H-2017- 0055). D. Utilities: a) Location of sewer: This development is proposed to sewer to the existing mainline in N. Black Cat Road. b) Location of water: The development shall be required to connect to the existing mainline stub in N. O’Conner Avenue to the north, and to the existing mainline in W. Cherry Lane. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 48 of 135 Burlingame Subdivision – RZ, MDA, PP H-2018-0079 PAGE 3 c) Issues or concerns: A portion of this development is master planned to sewer westerly to the undeveloped McDermott service area. The developer will need to prove that adequate depth and cover can be provided over the sewer mains in the southwestern side of the development. In addition, a sewer stub shall be provided to service 5136 W. Cherry Lane. Sufficient capacity is available in the sewer trunk line in N. Black Cat Road for this development. E. Physical Features: 1. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: The Stafford Sublateral and Settlers Canal run along the northern boundary of this property. There appears to be other irrigation ditches that traverse through this site on the east boundary All open irrigation ditches, laterals and canals, should be tiled when this property develops. 2. Hazards: No hazards have been identified on this site. 3. Flood Plain: This property does not lie within the Floodplain Overlay District. VII. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS The subject property is designated Low Density Residential (LDR) on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) contained in the Comprehensive Plan. Low density residential areas are anticipated to contain up to three dwellings per acre. The applicant proposes to develop the site with 74 single-family residential homes, 14 more than what is allowed under the current development agreement, at a gross density of 3.90 dwelling units per acre (d.u./acre) and a net density of 4.98 d.u./acre which is slightly above the anticipated density of the LDR designation. Because the applicant desires to increase the number of lots, the gross density of the project has slightly increased from the previous approval. Therefore, the applicant requests a “step-up” in density as allowed by the Comprehensive Plan but the request is subject to the approval of the City Council. If the Council grants the “step-up” in density from LDR to MDR, the proposed project is consistent with the LDR FLUM designation. Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this property and apply to the proposed use (staff analysis in italics): “Require appropriate landscaping and buffers along transportation corridor (setback, vegetation, low walls, berms, etc.).” (3.06.02F) A 25-foot wide street buffer is required along W, Cherry Lane, designated as an arterial street, landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C Landscape Buffers along Streets. 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. The proposed residential development will provide another housing option in this portion of the City adjacent to existing low-medium density residential uses. Staff is unaware of how “affordable” homes in this development will be. Require street connections between subdivisions at regular intervals to enhance connectivity and better traffic flow. (3.03.03C) The submitted preliminary plat proposes to extend the one stub street currently provided to this property from the north (O’Conner Avenue). The applicant is also proposing to stub one street to the west and one to the east in order to provide for greater connectivity in the area once those parcels are redeveloped. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 49 of 135 Burlingame Subdivision – RZ, MDA, PP H-2018-0079 PAGE 4 “Permit new development only where urban services can be reasonably provided at t he time of final approval and development is contiguous to the City.” (3.01.01F) City services are available to be extended by the developer to the proposed lots with development in accord with UDC 11-3A-21.The existing home that is to remain will also be required to connect to City services. The home located at 5136 W. Chery Lane must connect per the recorded DA. “Protect existing residential properties from incompatible land use development on adjacent parcels.” (3.06.01F) The applicant is proposing a residential development. Staff finds that the existing single-family residential properties to the north, south, east and west, as well as the churches to the east, are compatible with the proposed development. “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) The applicant is proposing to construct five-foot wide sidewalks adjacent to all of the proposed streets, which connect to adjacent properties. The pathways master plan shows a 10-foot multi-use pathway along the irrigation facilities that run along the north boundary of the site. The applicant has proposed to route the multi-use pathway through existing irrigation easements consistent with the Master Pathways Plan. “Limit canal tiling and piping of ditches, creeks, and drains where public safety issues are not of concern. (5.01.01D) The applicant has asked Council to keep the irrigation facilities as open. The UDC requires that any open irrigation facilities be tiled or landscaped as a water amenity or linear open space. The applicant will need to landscape the irrigation facilities in accord with the requirements of the UDC. “Require usable open space to be incorporated into new residential subdivision plats.” (3.07.02A) Previous: The previous proposal was for 1.89 acres (10%) of open space for the development. The applicant also proposed two section of a multi-use pathway as their one (1) required amenity for the subdivision. Current: The applicant is currently proposing 2.26 acres (11.9%) of open space for the development. The applicant is also proposing two section of a multi-use pathway as their one (1) required amenity for the subdivision. The applicant is also proposing a children’s play structure, a gazebo and internal pathways as well as two sections of the City’s multi-use pathway as additional amenities for the development. The current proposal offers almost .5 of an acre of addition open space compared to the previous version of the plat and offers much more in the way of amenities to include a gazebo, a play structure, multi-use pathways and internal micropaths that will connect the entire subdivision for pedestrians. In accord with the above-stated policies and goals, Staff feels the proposed development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the LDR FLUM designation if Council approves a “step up” in density for this development. 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 allowable density of dwelling units per acre and corresponding housing types that can be accommodated within the density range. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 50 of 135 Burlingame Subdivision – RZ, MDA, PP H-2018-0079 PAGE 5 B. Schedule of Use: Unified Development Code (UDC) Table 11-2A-2 lists the principal permitted (P), accessory (A), conditional (C), and prohibited (-) uses in the R-8 zoning district. Any use not explicitly listed, or listed as a prohibited use is prohibited. The proposed use of the property for single-family detached dwellings is a principal permitted use in the proposed R-8 zoning district. C. Dimensional Standards: Development of the site should be consistent with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-6 for the R-8 zoning district. D. Common Open Space and Site Amenities: Open space and site amenities for the development shall be developed in accord with the standards set forth in UDC 11-3G. E. Off-Street Parking: Off-street parking is required in accord with UDC Table 11-3C-6 for single-family dwellings. F. Subdivision Design and Improvement Standards: The subdivision must comply with the subdivision design standards outlined in UDC 11-6C-3. IX. ANALYSIS A. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation: REZONE (RZ): The applicant has applied to rezone the prop erty from the R-4 zoneto the R-8 zone. The rezone is desired by the applicant to align with his vison to market the property to retirees and empty nesters. The applicant believes that with the rezone to R-8 and the reduced dimensional standards, the project will now be much easier to market to their target demographic. The R-8 zoning district is an allowable zoning designation within the LDR Comprehensive Plan designation and the proposed density is appropriate if a “step up” is approved by Council. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT MODIFICATION (MDA): Development of this property is currently governed by the development agreement (DA) approved for the Burlingame Subdivision (Instrument No. 2018-014051). Because the applicant’s vision for the property does not match what was approved and required with the previous development agreement, the applicant has applied to modify the existing development agreement to update the development plan and building elevations. The previous approved plan included 60 single-family residential lots and 7 common lots with an R-4 designation, which had a density of 4.43 d.u./acre, and contained 1.89 acres of open space. The previous iteration did not require a step up in density per the Comprehensive Plan because the density was in line with the requirements of the Low Density Residential designation. The new plan consists of 74 residential lots and 14 common lots, has 2.26 acres of open space and has a density of 4.98 which will require approval of a “step up” in density. The new DA should include the proposed development plan and any changes required and building elevations included as attached exhibits. See Exhibit A.5 for Staff’s recommended DA provisions. 5136 W. Cherry Lane: With a recent property boundary adjustment one of the existing homes (5136 W. Cherry Lane) was split off and excluded f rom the proposed preliminary plat and rezone boundary. However, this home is still part of the recorded development agreement. Staff has reviewed the r ecorded development agreement and finds that even though it is not part of the plat as required in the recorded development agreement, that this home should be required to hook-up to City services; close the existing access to Cherry Lane; extend a 10-foot multi-use pathway along the frontage, provide a 25 foot landscape buffer in accord with UDC 11 -3B-7 and take from the proposed W. Montgomery Way and shall abandon direct access to Cherry Lane prior to the City Engineer’s signature on the first final plat. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 51 of 135 Burlingame Subdivision – RZ, MDA, PP H-2018-0079 PAGE 6 PRELIMINARY PLAT (PP): A preliminary plat is proposed consisting of 74 building lots and 14 common lots on 18.99 acres of land in the proposed R-8 zoning district. The plat is proposed to develop in 3 phases as shown in Exhibit A.2 . The average lot size is 7,152 square feet (s.f.) with a minimum lot size of 5,600 s.f. in accord with UDC standards. Dimensional Standards: The lots in the proposed subdivision are required to comply with the dimensional standards of the R-8 zoning district listed in UDC Table 11-2A-5 and the block length standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3F. Access/streets: The subject property is currently developed with two (2) existing residences. Both of these homes have an access from a 25-foot wide private access easement to/from Black Cat Road across the two (2) existing church properties along the east boundary. The applicant is required to vacate this existing access easement and to provide access to all of the dwellings within this development via internal public streets in accord with UDC 11-3A-3. The easternmost home will be removed with the development and the other home, located near the northwest corner of the development, will remain as part of the development and is located on Lot 3, Block 5. For this development, the applicant is proposing to construct a new public street access to Cherry Lane (N. Montgomery Way), and extend O’Conner Avenue into the site from the north. Two stub streets are proposed; one along the west boundary (N. Bonita Way) and the other along the east boundary (W. White Birch Dr.) for future interconnectivity. Staff is generally supportive of the proposed street system. ACHD has submitted comments and conditions back to the City for this project. ACHD staff has not required any significant changes to the plat. Fencing: Staff has reviewed the proposed fencing for the subdivision and found it to be in compliance with UDC 11-3A-7. Temporary fencing shall be installed during construction and a detailed fencing plan should be submitted with the final plat. Landscaping: Street buffer landscaping is required to be provided as set forth in UDC Tables 11-2A-5 as discussed above under Dimensional Standards. Landscaping within the street buffers should be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. Per the existing DA on the property, Council approved a 25 foot landscape buffer across the frontage of 5136 W. Cherry Lane. Pathways: The Pathways Master Plan depicts a regional pathway on this site along the north side of the Cherry Lane, and another section of the 10-foot regional pathway along the north side of the property adjacent to the Settlers Canal. The applicant also proposes to extend a10-foot multi-use pathway along the northern portion of the east boundary, stubbing the pathway at the west boundary of the church properties. The existing DA for the property only required a 5 foot sidewalk along the frontage of 5136 W. Cherry Lane. Staff is of the opinion that a 10-foot multi-use pathway across the property located at 5136 W. Cherry Lane is essential in connecting to the properties to the east. Both pathways must be paved and landscaped in accord with the standards set forth in UDC 11-3A-8 and UDC 11-3B-12. The applicant is also proposing to construct several micropaths within the development as part of an internal pathway system. The proposed micropaths must be 5-foot in width and landscaped in accord with the standards set forth in UDC 11-3A-8 and UDC 11-3B-12. Irrigation Easement: There are existing irrigation easements along the north and a portion of the east boundary of the project. During the project review meeting with other City Departments, concerns were raised that this area could be an unsafe corridor due to the lack of visibility. In discussing this with the applicant it was determined that Settlers’ Irrigation District needs this area to remain open so they have access to their irrigation facility. Because of this requirement staff is amenable to this area being in a Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 52 of 135 Burlingame Subdivision – RZ, MDA, PP H-2018-0079 PAGE 7 common lot however, staff believes the fencing along the rear yards of the buildable lots should be restricted to 4-foot tall solid or 6-foot open vision fencing only so the future residents can police the area and maintain visibility along the corridor. The applicant shall comply with all of the Settler’s Irrigation District requirements and comply with UDC 11- 3B-12. Waterways: Both the Safford Sublateral and Settlers Canal cross the property on the north boundary. Both lie within a 60-foot wide Settlers Irrigation District easement. The UDC (11-3A-6) requires all irrigation ditches, laterals, canals and drains to be piped unless left open as a water amenity (as defined in UDC 11-1A-1) or linear open space. The City Council may waive this requirement for large capacity facilities. The applicant requests a waiver from Council to allow the Settlers Canal and Safford Sublateral to remain open due to their large capacities. The applicant proposes to provide a bridge over both for a vehicle/pedestrian crossing with the extension of the road from the Turnberry Subdivision. Common Driveways: The applicant is proposing two (2) common driveways proposed on the plat. Lot 20, Block 5 and Lot 13, Block 3. All common driveways should comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3D. Staff has reviewed the dimensions of the common driveways depicted on the plat and have found that Lot 13, Block 3 exceeds the maximum length of 150 feet for a common driveway. The applicant shall reduce the length of the common driveway or provide a turn-around per fire code requirements. A perpetual ingress/egress easement is required to be filed with the Ada County Recorder, which shall include a requirement for maintenance of a paved surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment. For any plats using a common driveway, the setbacks, building envelope, and orientation of the lots and structures are required to be shown on the preliminary plat and/or as an exhibit with the final plat application. Existing Trees: The applicant is responsible to mitigate all existing healthy trees 4-inch caliper or greater that are removed from the site with equal replacement of the total calipers lost on site up to an amount of 100% replacement in accord with UDC 11-3B-10. The applicant will need to contact the City Arborist if any trees are to be removed. The existing trees that are to remain should be protected during construction on the site. Sidewalks and parkways: A detached sidewalk shall be constructed along the entire frontage of W. Cherry Lane with the applicable phase of development in accord with UDC 11-3A-17. The applicant is also proposing 5-foot wide attached sidewalks along the local streets through the development in accord with UDC standards Landscaping, Open Space and Amenities: Previous: The previous proposal was for 1.89 acres (10%) of open space for the development. The applicant also proposed two section of a multi-use pathway as their one (1) required amenity for the subdivision. Current: The applicant is currently proposing 2.26 acres (11.9%) of open space for the development. The applicant is also proposing two section of a multi-use pathway as their one (1) required amenity for the subdivision. The applicant is also proposing a children’s play structure, a gazebo and internal pathways as well as two sections of the City’s multi-use pathway as additional amenities for the development. Utilities: Street lighting is required to be installed within 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. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 53 of 135 Burlingame Subdivision – RZ, MDA, PP H-2018-0079 PAGE 8 Pressurized Irrigation: An underground pressurized irrigation system is required to be provided for the development in accord with UDC 11-3A-15 as proposed. 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. Building Elevations: The applicant has submitted some conceptual sample building elevations for future homes in this development, included in Exhibit A.4 Building materials appear to consist of a mix of board and batten and horizontal lap siding and stone accents and stucco. Because none of the homes will front on any collector or arterial streets, staff is not requiring additional architectural features for the homes. However, the proposed elevations should be incorporated into the amended development agreement to ensure future homes are constructed as proposed by the applicant. Staff recommends approval of the subject applications with the conditions listed in Exhibit B per the Findings in Exhibit D. IX. EXHIBITS A. Drawings/Other 1. Vicinity/Zoning Map 2. Previous Preliminary Plat (dated: 04/07/2017) 3. Proposed Preliminary Plat (dated: 07/11/2018) 4. Previous Landscape Plan (dated: 03/20/2017) 5. Proposed Landscape Plan (dated: 07/24/2018) 6. Building Elevations 7. Development Agreement Provisions for Burlingame Subdivision B. Agency & Department Comments/Conditions C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code D. Rezone Legal Description and Exhibit Map Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 54 of 135 Burlingame Subdivision – RZ, MDA, PP H-2018-0079 PAGE 9 Exhibit A.1: Vicinity/Zoning Maps Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 55 of 135 Burlingame Subdivision – RZ, MDA, PP H-2018-0079 PAGE 10 Exhibit A.2: Previous Preliminary Plat (dated: 04/07/2017) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 56 of 135 Burlingame Subdivision – RZ, MDA, PP H-2018-0079 PAGE 11 Exhibit A.3: Proposed Preliminary Plat (dated: 07/11/2018) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 57 of 135 Burlingame Subdivision – RZ, MDA, PP H-2018-0079 PAGE 12 Exhibit A.4: Previous Landscape Plan (dated: 03/20/2017) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 58 of 135 Burlingame Subdivision – RZ, MDA, PP H-2018-0079 PAGE 13 Exhibit A.5 Proposed Landscape Plan (dated: 07/24/2018) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 59 of 135 Burlingame Subdivision – RZ, MDA, PP H-2018-0079 PAGE 14 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 60 of 135 Burlingame Subdivision – RZ, MDA, PP H-2018-0079 PAGE 15 Exhibit A.6: Building Elevations Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 61 of 135 Burlingame Subdivision – RZ, MDA, PP H-2018-0079 PAGE 16 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 62 of 135 Burlingame Subdivision – RZ, MDA, PP H-2018-0079 PAGE 17 Exhibit A.6: Development Agreement Provisions for Burlingame Subdivision 1. That all future uses shall not involve uses, activities, 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. 2. That all future development of the subject property shall be constructed in accordance with City of Meridian ordinances in effect at the time of development. 3. That the applicant will be responsible for all costs associated with the sewer and water service extension. 4. That any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be removed from their domestic service, per City Ordinance Section 5-7-517, when services are available from the City of Meridian. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. 5. That the following shall be the only allowed uses on this property: single-family detached homes and allowed accessory uses in the R-4 and R-8 zones. 6. That a maximum of 60 74 single-family building lots shall be platted on this property. 7. That prior to issuance of any building permit, the subject property be subdivided in accordance with the City of Meridian Unified Development Code. 8. That one public street access, and no driveways, will be allowed to Cherry Lane. Existing driveway(s) to Black Cat Road and Cherry Lane may be utilized until the internal streets within the plat are constructed and approved by the Transportation Authority (ACHD). At such time, direct lot access to Cherry Lane and Black Cat Road shall be prohibited. 9. That the applicant shall be responsible for the payment of assessments and the actual physical hook- up of the existing houses to the municipal services. The hook-ups shall be completed prior to Certificates of Occupancy for each phase for which that house lies in Lot 2, Block 4 Lot 3 Block 5 shall be hooked to municipal services prior to Certificates of Occupancy of the phase that connects to W. Cherry Lane. 10. Staff has reviewed the recorded development agreement and finds that even though it is not part of the subdivision plat, this parcel is included in the existing recorded development agreement, and is required to comply with the following: 1. Hook-up immediately to City services 2. Close the existing access to Cherry Lane 3. Extend a 10-foot multi-use pathway along the frontage 4. Provide a 25 foot landscape buffer in accord with UDC 11-3B-7 5. Shall be required to take access the proposed W. Montgomery Way and shall abandon direct access to Cherry Lane prior to the City Engineer’s signature on the first final plat. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 63 of 135 Burlingame Subdivision – RZ, MDA, PP H-2018-0079 PAGE 18 B. Agency & Department Comments/Conditions 1. PLANNING DIVISION 1.1 Development Agreement 1.1.1 The existing development agreement, recorded as Instrument #106151230 shall be amended to include a new concept plan, landscape plan, new building elevations and to modify certain provisions of the existing development agreement as noted in Exhibit A.5. A final plat application shall not be submitted until the DA is signed and approved by City Council. The new Development Agreement (DA) shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six (6) months of the City Council granting the modification/new agreement. The DA shall, at minimum, incorporate the provisions in Exhibit A.5. 1.2 Preliminary Plat - Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1.1 The preliminary plat included in Exhibit A.2, dated 07/11/2018, shall be revised as follows : a. The applicant shall connect the existing home (Lot 3, Block 5) to city utilities prior to signature on the final plat that the specific home lies within. b. All common driveways should comply with the standards listed in UDC 11 -6C-3D. Staff has reviewed the dimensions of the common driveways depicted on the plat and have found that Lot 13, Block 3 exceeds the maximum length of 150 feet for a common driveway. The applicant shall reduce the length of the common driveway or provide a turn-around per fire code requirements. c. A perpetual ingress/egress easement is required to be filed with the Ada County Recorder, which shall include a requirement for maintenance of a paved surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment. For any plats using a common driveway, the setbacks, building envelope, and orientation of the lots and structures are required to be shown on the preliminary plat and/or as an exhibit with the final plat application. d. The property located at 5136 W. Cherry Lane shall access the proposed N. Montgomery Way and shall abandon direct access to Cherry Lane prior to the City Engineer’s signature on the first final plat. 1.1.2 The landscape plan included in Exhibit A.3, dated 07/24/2018, shall be revised as follows: a. Landscaping is required along the multi-use pathway that is required to cross through the plat. This landscaping shall be installed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C. b. If the applicant is counting Lot 22, Block 3 and Lot 31, Block 5 as qualified open space, the areas shall be landscaped in accord with UDC 11-3G-3. The applicant also has the option of requesting a waiver from City Council to leave them open. c. The applicant has requested to leave the irrigation canals open and shall landscape the canal in accord with UDC 11-3B-12. d. Ant storm drainage facilities shall comply with the cond itions as set forth in UDC 11-3B-11. e. The fencing proposed along the eastern boundary of Lots 23-28 of Block 3 shall be either a 4-foot solid fence or 6-foot open vision fence in order to police the area and to maintain visibility in the area. f. The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to include a 25 foot landscape easement across the frontage 5136 W. Cherry Lane. g. The two proposed multi-use pathways shall be landscaped in accord with UDC 11-3B-12. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 64 of 135 Burlingame Subdivision – RZ, MDA, PP H-2018-0079 PAGE 19 h. Construct all amenities as proposed. 1.1.3 The developer shall construct all proposed fencing and/or any fencing required by the UDC, consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-7 and 11-3A-6B. 1.2 General Conditions of Approval 1.2.1 Comply with all bulk, use, and development standards of the R-8 zoning district listed in UDC Table 11- 2A-6. 1.2.2 Comply with all provisions of 11-3A-3 with regard to access to streets. 1.2.3 Comply with the provisions for irrigation ditches, laterals, canals and/or drainage courses, as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6. 1.2.4 Provide a pressurized irrigation system consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11 -3A-15, UDC 11-3B-6 and MCC 9-1-28. 1.2.5 Comply with the sidewalk standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-17. 1.2.6 Install all utilities consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-21 and 11-3B-5J. 1.2.7 Construct all off-street parking areas consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3C-6 for non- residential uses. 1.2.8 Construct the required landscape buffers consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3B-7C. 1.2.9 Construct storm water integration facilities that meet the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3B-11C. 1.2.10 Comply with all subdivision design and improvement standards as set forth in UDC 11-6C-3, including but not limited to cul-de-sacs, alleys, driveways, common driveways, easements, blocks, street buffers, and mailbox placement. 1.2.11 Protect any existing trees on the subject property that are greater than four-inch caliper and/or mitigate for the loss of such trees as set forth in UDC 11-3B-10. 1.2.12 Comply with all provisions of UDC 11-3A-3 with regard to maintaining the clear vision triangle. 1.3 Ongoing Conditions of Approval 1.3.1 The applicant and/or assigns shall have the continuing obligation to provide irrigation that meets the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3B-6 and to install and maintain all landscaping as set forth in UDC 11- 3B-5, UDC 11-3B-13 and UDC 11-3B-14. 1.3.2 All common open space and site amenities shall be maintained by an owner's association as set forth in UDC 11-3G-3F1. 1.3.3 The project is subject to all current City of Meridian ordinances and previous conditions of approval associated with this site. 1.3.4 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. 1.3.5 The applicant shall have an ongoing obligation to maintain all pathways. 1.3.6 The applicant has a continuing obligation to comply with the outdoor lighting provisions as set forth in UDC 11-3A-11. 1.3.7 The applicant and/or property owner shall have an ongoing obligation to maintain all landscaping and constructed features within the clear vision triangle consistent with the standards in UDC 11-3A-3. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 65 of 135 Burlingame Subdivision – RZ, MDA, PP H-2018-0079 PAGE 20 1.4 Process Conditions of Approval 1.4.1 No signs are approved with this application. Prior to installing any signs on the property, the applicant shall submit a sign permit application consistent with the standards in UDC Chapter 3 Article D and receive approval for such signs. 1.4.2 The applicant shall complete all improvements related to public life, safety, and health as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. A surety agreement may be accepted for other improvements in accord with UDC 11 - 5C-3C. 1.4.3 The final plat, and any phase thereof, shall substantially comply with the approved preliminary plat as set forth in UDC 11-6B-3C2. 1.4.4 The applicant shall obtain approval for all successive phases of the preliminary plat within two years of the signature of the City Engineer on the previous final plat as set forth in UDC 11-6B-7B (if applicable). 1.4.5 The preliminary plat approval shall be null and void if the applicant fails to either 1) obtain the City Engineer signature on a final plat within two years; or, 2) gain approval of a time extension as set forth in UDC 11-6B-7. 1.4.6 Upon installation of the landscaping and prior to inspection by Planning Division staff, the applicant shall provide a written certificate of completion as set forth in UDC 11-3B-14A. 2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2.1 Site Specific Conditions of Approval 2.1.1 This development is proposed to sewer to the existing mainline in N. Black Cat Road , even though there is a portion that is master planned to sewer westerly to the undeveloped McDermott service area. The developer will need to prove that adequate depth and cover can be provided over the sewer mains in the southwestern side of the development without adding excessive fill. Sufficient capacity is available in the sewer trunk line in N Black Cat Road for this development, and Public Works is agreeable to the design concept. 2.1.2 A sewer stub shall be provided to service 5136 W. Cherry Lane, and the developer shall be required to physically install the grinder pump system, pay the assessment fees and connect the home to this service. 2.1.3 The development shall be required to connect to the existing water mainline stub in N. O’Conner Avenue to the north, and to the existing mainline in W. Cherry Lane. 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 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 66 of 135 Burlingame Subdivision – RZ, MDA, PP H-2018-0079 PAGE 21 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 signature of the final plat by the City Engineer. 2.2.4 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water (MCC 9-2-28C1). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 2.2.5 All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. 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 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 11-1-4B. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 67 of 135 Burlingame Subdivision – RZ, MDA, PP H-2018-0079 PAGE 22 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 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 Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting (http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272). All street lights shall be installed at developer’s expense. Final design shall be submitted as part of the development plan set for approval, which must include the location of any existing street lights. The contractor’s work and materials shall conform to the ISPWC and the City of Meridian Supplemental Specifications to the ISPWC. Contact the City of Meridian Transportation and Utility Coordinator at 898-5500 for information on the locations of existing street lighting. 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 public 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 The Police Department has no comments on this application. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 68 of 135 Burlingame Subdivision – RZ, MDA, PP H-2018-0079 PAGE 23 4. FIRE DEPARTMENT Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 69 of 135 Burlingame Subdivision – RZ, MDA, PP H-2018-0079 PAGE 24 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 70 of 135 Burlingame Subdivision – RZ, MDA, PP H-2018-0079 PAGE 25 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 71 of 135 Burlingame Subdivision – RZ, MDA, PP H-2018-0079 PAGE 26 5. REPUBLIC SERVICES 5.1 Republic Services did not submit comments on this application. 6. PARKS DEPARTMENT 6.1 Developer shall construct a 10 foot multi-use pathway as per the Meridian Pathways Master Plan connecting Black Cat Road to the west boundary. A pedestrian pathway easement shall be recorded for the required pathway. Coordinate with Kimberly Warren, Meridian Pathway Project Manager for details. 6.2 Coordinate with Elroy Huff, City Arborist for tree mitigation requirements on the development property. 7. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT 7.1 Site Specific Conditions of Approval (DRAFT) 7.1.1 Construct curb ramps, runs and blended transitions to be equal to the width of the shared use path crossing O’Conner Avenue, not including any flared sides if utilized. 7.1.2 Improve Cherry Lane to a minimum of 17-feet of pavement from centerline plus a 3-foot wide gravel shoulder abutting the site. 7.1.3 Dedicate a minimum of 48-feet of right-of-way from the section line on Cherry Lane. As Cherry Lane is not included in the CIP, no compensation will be provided. 7.1.4 Construct a minimum of 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk along Cherry Lane abutting the site located a minimum of 41-feet from the centerline of Cherry Lane. 7.1.5 Construct Montgomery Way 120-feet north of Cherry Lane (measured from centerline) with two 21-foot wide travel lanes, vertical curb, gutter, a 9-foot wide island and 5-foot wide concrete sidewalks within 65-feet of right-of -way. 7.1.6 Construct all other internal streets as 33-foot street sections, with rolled curb, gutter and 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk within 47-feet of right-of-way. 7.1.7 Maintain a minimum sight distance of 150-feet for vehicles on Filoli Way approaching the Montgomery Way intersection. 7.1.8 Maintain a minimum sight distance of 280-feet for vehicles on Filoli Way entering Montgomery Way / Milliron Street. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 72 of 135 Burlingame Subdivision – RZ, MDA, PP H-2018-0079 PAGE 27 7.1.9 Construct Montgomery Way to intersect Cherry Lane approximately 1,190 -feet west of Black Cat Road (measured centerline-to-centerline).Install “NO PARKING” signs on one side of the street on Filoli Court and Bellevue Court. 7.1.10 Construct White Birch Drive to intersect Montgomery Way 330-feet north of Cherry Lane (measured centerline-to-centerline). 7.1.11 Extend O’Connor Avenue south into the site. 7.1.12 Construct two stub streets, one extending west stubbing to 5200 W. Cherry Lane and one extending east stubbing to 5120 W. Cherry Lane. Install a sign at the terminus of both stub streets stating that, "THIS ROAD WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE.” 7.1.13 Construct a temporary turnaround with a minimum 45-foot radius at the terminus of the stub street to 5120 W. Cherry Lane, as the stub street exceeds 150-feet in length. Grant a temporary turnaround easement to the District for those portions of the cul-de-sac which extend beyond the dedicated street right-of-way. In the instance where a temporary easement extends onto a buildable lot, the entire lot shall be encumbered by the easement and identified on the plat as a non-buildable lot until the street is extended. 7.1.14 Submit the bridge plans for the crossing of the Safford Sublateral (O’Conner Avenue) for review and approval prior to the pre-construction meeting and final plat approval. 7.1.15 Cherry Lane is classified as a principal arterials roadway. Other than the access specifically approved with this application, direct lot access is prohibited to this roadway and should be noted on the final plat. 7.1.16 Submit civil plans to ACHD Development Services for review and approval. The impact fee assessment will not be released until the civil plans are approved by ACHD. 7.1.17 Payment of impact fees is due prior to issuance of a building permit. 7.1.18 Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval. 7.2 Standard Conditions of Approval (DRAFT) 7.2.1 All proposed irrigation facilities shall be located outside of the ACHD right-of-way (including all easements). Any existing irrigation facilities shall be relocated outside of the ACHD right-of-way (including all easements). 7.2.2 Private Utilities including sewer or water systems are prohibited from being located within the ACHD right-of-way. 7.2.3 In accordance with District policy, 7203.3, the applicant may be required to update any existing non- compliant pedestrian improvements abutting the site to meet current Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. The applicant’s engineer should provide documentation of ADA compliance to District Development Review staff for review. 7.2.4 Replace any existing damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk and any that may be damaged during the construction of the proposed development. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file number) for details. 7.2.5 A license agreement and compliance with the District’s Tree Planter policy is required for all landscaping proposed within ACHD right-of-way or easement areas. 7.2.6 All utility relocation costs associated with improving street frontages abutting the site shall be borne by the developer. 7.2.7 It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right-of-way. The applicant at no cost to ACHD shall repair existing utilities damaged by the applicant. The applicant shall be required to call DIGLINE (1-811-342-1585) at least two full business days prior to breaking ground within ACHD right-of -way. The applicant shall contact ACHD Traffic Operations 387-6190 in the Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 73 of 135 Burlingame Subdivision – RZ, MDA, PP H-2018-0079 PAGE 28 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 approved in writing by the District. Contact the District’s Utility Coordinator at 387-6258 (with file numbers) for details. 7.2.9 All design and construction shall be in accordance with the ACHD Policy Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services procedures and all applicable ACHD Standards unless specifically waived herein. An engineer registered in the State of Idaho shall prepare and certify all improvement plans. 7.2.10 Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable requirements of ACHD prior to District approval for occupancy. 7.2.11 No change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they are in writing and signed by the applicant or the applicant’s authorized representative and an authorized representative of ACHD. The burden shall be upon the applicant to obtain written confirmation of any change from ACHD. 7.2.12 If the site plan or use should change in the future, ACHD Planning Review will review the site plan and may require additional improvements to the transportation system at that time. Any change in the planned use of the property which is the subject of this application, shall require the applicant to comply with ACHD Policy and Standard Conditions of Approval in place at that time unless a waiver/variance of the requirements or other legal relief is granted by the ACHD Commission. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 74 of 135 Burlingame Subdivision – RZ, MDA, PP H-2018-0079 PAGE 29 C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code 1. 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 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 information 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 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 unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that exist on this site. 2. Rezone Findings: 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: a. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; The applicant is proposing to rezone the subject property from R-4 to the R-8 zoning district. This property is currently designated Low Density Residential on the Future Land Use Map. Staff finds the amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 75 of 135 Plan if the City Council approves the “step-up”. (see section VII above). 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-8 zoning district is consistent with the purpose statement for the 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 map amendment will not be detrimental t o the public health, safety, or welfare. City utilities already exist to this site. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council consider any oral or written testimony that may be provided when determining this finding. 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). This finding is not applicable as the request is for a rezone. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 76 of 135 BURLINGAME SUBDIVISION MERIDIAN P&Z COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 20, 2018 PUBLIC HEARING BURLINGAME SUBDIVISION – VICINITY MAP BURLINGAME SUBDIVISION – AERIAL MAP BURLINGAME SUBDIVISION PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PRELIMINARY PLAT BURLINGAME SUBDIVISION LANDSCAPE PLAN BURLINGAME SUBDIVISION – AMENITIES A total of 2.26 acres (11.9 percent) of qualified open space Multi-use pathways on north, south and east boundaries Gazebo Playground Equipment Retainage of existing spruce trees Interconnecting pedestrian pathways Pond BURLINGAME SUBDIVISION LANDSCAPE PLAN BURLINGAME SUBDIVISION LANDSCAPE PLAN BURLINGAME SUBDIVISION LANDSCAPE PLAN BURLINGAME SUBDIVISION – DRIVEWAY LOCATION BURLINGAME SUBDIVISION – ELEVATIONS BURLINGAME SUBDIVISION – ELEVATIONS BURLINGAME SUBDIVISION – ELEVATIONS BURLINGAME SUBDIVISION LANDSCAPE PLAN Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda Meeting Date: September 20, 2018 Agenda Item Number: 4 D Project File Number: H-2018-0087 Item Title: Hill's Century Farm Wireless Communications Facility For A Conditional Use Permit for a wireless communication facility in an R-8 zoning district by Horizon TowerNerizon Wireless. Meeting Notes: Coni I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 4.D. Presenter: Estimated Time f or P resentation: Title of I tem - Public Hearing for Hill's C entury F arm Wireless Communications F acility (H- 2018-0087) by Horizon Tower/Verizon Wireless C /O P owder River Development S ervices, Inc, L ocated at the southeast corner of E. Amity Rd. and S . E agle Rd C lic k Here for Applic ation Materials C lic k Here to S ign Up to Tes tify at Hearing Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 77 of 135 City of Meridian - Public Hearing Sign In Form Tools Details and Signatures For Public Hearing Hearing Date: 9/20/2018 Hearing Type: PZ Item Number: 4-D Project Name: Hill's Century Farm Wireless Communications Facility Project No.: H-2018-0087 Active: ❑d There are no signatures posted for this meeting type yet. Go Back To List Export To Excel © 2018 - City of Meridian, Idaho Page 1 of 1 http://internalapps/SIGNINFORMTOOLS/SignInFormDetails?id=64 9/21/2018 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Meeting Date: September 20, 2018 Agenda Item Number: 4E Project/File Number: H-2018-0089 Item Title Mountain View HS Addition CUP u✓ APPROVID Meeting Notes I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 4.E . Presenter: Estimated Time f or P resentation: Title of I tem - Public Hearing for M ountain View High School Addition (H-2018-0089) by Hummel Architects, Located at 2000 S. M illennium Way C lic k Here for Applic ation Materials C lic k Here to S ign Up to Tes tify at Hearing AT TAC HM E NT S: Description Type Upload D ate S taff Report S taff Report 9/11/2018 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 78 of 135 City of Meridian - Public Hearing Sign In Form Tools Details and Signatures For Public Hearing Hearing Date: 9/20/2018 Hearing Type: PZ Item Number: 4-E Project Name: Mountain View High School Addition Project No.: H-2018-0089 Active: ❑d There are no signatures posted for this meeting type yet. Go Back To List Export To Excel © 2018 - City of Meridian, Idaho Page 1 of 1 http://internalapps/SIGNINFORMTOOLS/SignInFormDetails?id=65 9/21/2018 Mountain View HS Addition – CUP H-2018-0089 PAGE 1 STAFF REPORT Hearing Date: September 20, 2018 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Sonya Allen, Associate City Planner 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: Mountain View High School Addition – CUP (H-2018-0089) I. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant, Joint School District No. 2, has submitted an application for a conditional use permit (CUP) to construct a 25,204 square foot addition to the existing 249,724 square foot public education institution (high school) in an R-4 zoning district. II. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposed CUP application, in accord with 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 approve File Number H-2018- 0089, as presented during the hearing on September 20, 2018, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications). Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2018-0089, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of September 20, 2018, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2018-0089 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 2000 S. Millennium Way, in the NW ¼ of Section 20, Township 3N., Range 1E. B. Owner/Applicant: Joint School District No. 2 1303 E. Central Dr. Meridian, ID 83642 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 79 of 135 Mountain View HS Addition – CUP H-2018-0089 PAGE 2 C. Representative: Jacob Rivard, Hummel Architects 2785 N. Bogus Basin Rd. Boise, 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. A public hearing is required before the Planning & Zoning Commission on this application, consistent with Meridian City Code Title 11, Chapter 5. B. Newspaper notifications published on: August 31, 2018 C. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: August 24, 2018 D. Posted to Next Door: August 28, 2018 E. Applicant posted notice on site(s) on: September 7, 2018 VI. LAND USE A. Existing Land Use(s) and Zoning: This property is developed with Mountain View High School, zoned R-4. B. Character of Surrounding Area and Adjacent Land Use and Zoning: 1. North: Professional office s and multi-family development, zoned L-O 2. South: Residential subdivisions and City park, zoned R-4 3. East: Vacant commercial and residential properties and multi-family development, zoned C- G and R-15 4. West: Church and seminary and residential subdivisions, zoned R-8, R-4, and RR in Ada County C. History of Previous Actions: The property was annexed into the City on March 10, 1994 (Ord. 658). In 1994, the property was part of a 97 acre preliminary plat for Sundance Subdivision. In 2000, a preliminary plat (Resolution Business Park) consisting of 107 acres, 54.99 acres for the school, was approved. In 2001, a certificate of zoning compliance was approved to construct the high school. In 2004, 2007, 2013, 2014 and 2015 certificate of zoning compliances were approved for modular classrooms. In 2017, a certificate of zoning compliance was approved for a new baseball practice facility. D. Utilities: 1. Public Works: a. Location of sewer: Sanitary sewer service to the subject site is existing. b. Location of water: Domestic water service to the subject site is existing. c. Issues or concerns: None E. Physical Features: 1. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: The Hunter Lateral runs along the west boundary of the site. 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. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 80 of 135 Mountain View HS Addition – CUP H-2018-0089 PAGE 3 VII. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designates this site as Civic. The purpose of the Civic designation is to preserve and protect existing and planned municipal, state, and federal lands for area residents and visitors. This category includes public lands, law enforcement facilities, post offices, fire stations, cemeteries, public utility sites (excluding ACHD), public parks, public schools, and other government owned sites within the Area of City Impact. This 54.99 acre site is zoned R-4 and was developed with a 249,724 square foot education institution (high school) in 2003. The proposed 25,204 square foot addition will provide additional classroom and cafeteria space to the existing high school consistent with the Civic designation. 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): “Ensure compatibility of schools with neighborhoods and adjacent land uses.” (3.02.01J) Expansion of the existing school will provide more capacity to a use that has proven to be compatible with surrounding neighborhoods and adjacent land uses. Although the existing high school has had an impact on the surrounding developments, traffic, and neighborhood parking, the addition is needed to increase the capacity of the school to provide a necessary service to the community. Staff realizes that traffic will increase with the addition, but believes that it should have minimal effect on the surrounding developments. “Ensure development provides safe routes and access to schools, parks and other community gathering places.” (3.07.02N) The existing property was developed with a variety of pathways to surrounding neighborhoods, businesses and services. The addition will not impact existing connectivity or safe routes. VIII. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE (UDC) A. Purpose Statement of Zoning District: 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: UDC Table 11-2A-2 lists the principal permitted (P), accessory (A), conditional (C), and prohibited (-) uses in the proposed R-4 zoning district. Any use not explicitly listed is prohibited. The proposed public education institution is listed as a conditional use in the R-4 zoning district; compliance with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-14, Education Institution, is required. C. Dimensional Standards: Development of the site should be consistent with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-5 for the R-4 zoning district. D. Landscaping: Landscaping is required to be provided on the site in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B as applicable. E. Off-Street Parking: Off-street parking is required in accord with UDC Table 11-3C-6B for non- residential uses. IX. ANALYSIS A. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation: Conditional Use Permit (CUP): A CUP is required for the proposed education institution (high school) since the property is Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 81 of 135 Mountain View HS Addition – CUP H-2018-0089 PAGE 4 located in the R-4 zoning district as set forth in UDC Table 11-2A-2 and the specific use standards listed in 11-4-3-14, Education Institution. When the school was constructed in 2001, the ordinance at the time allowed schools as principally permitted uses in residential districts. Specific Use Standards: There are specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-14, Education Institution, that apply to the proposed use. If approved, the proposed use is required to comply with the standards pertaining to accessory uses and portable classrooms, as applicable. Parking: Off-street parking should be provided for the proposed use in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6B for non-residential uses in residential districts (1 space for every 500 square feet of gross floor area). Based on the square footage of the proposed structure (25,204), and the square footage of the existing structure (249,724) a minimum of 550 spaces are required for the entire site. No additional parking spaces are required since the addition will not eliminate any existing parking and there are 1,223 existing spaces in excess of UDC standards on the site in accord with this requirement to accommodate students, staff, visitors and event parking needs. Landscaping: Landscaping is required to be provided on the site as set forth in UDC Table 11- 2A-6 per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B. The proposed addition will require that several trees be relocated, per UDC 11-3B-10, mitigation shall be required for all existing trees four inch (4”) caliper or greater. A tree mitigation plan is required to be coordinated with the City Arborist, Elroy Huff, and submitted concurrent with Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review applications. Building Elevations: Conceptual building elevations for the proposed addition were submitted with this application (see Exhibit A.4). The structure is proposed to be consistent with the existing high school façade. Building materials are proposed to consist of concrete masonry veneer to match existing façade, aluminum storefront windows, and two roll-up aluminum doors. Standing seam roof panels will be installed to provide weather protection to the south entry doors and to match the existing high school. The architectural character of the structure is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and the Architectural Standards Manual. Certificate of Zoning Compliance: If approved, a Certificate of Zoning Compliance application is required to be submitted for establishment of the new use and to ensure all site improvements comply with the provisions of the UDC and any associated requirements prior to construction, in accord with UDC 11-5B-1. Design Review: If approved, a Design Review application is required to be submitted 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 conceptual building elevations, site plan and landscape plan submitted with this application and the standards listed in UDC 11-3A- 19 and the City of Meridian Architectural Standards Manual. Staff recommends approval of the proposed CUP application in accord with the findings contained in Exhibit B. X. EXHIBITS A. Drawings/Other 1. Vicinity/Zoning Map 2. Proposed Site Plan (dated: 8/08/18) 3. Proposed Landscape Plan (dated: 8/08/18) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 82 of 135 Mountain View HS Addition – CUP H-2018-0089 PAGE 5 4. Conceptual Building Elevations (dated: 1/30/18) B. Conditions of Approval 1. Planning 2. Public Works Department 3. Fire Department 4. Police Department 5. Parks Department 6. Ada County Highway District 7. Idaho Transportation Department 8. Nampa Meridian Irrigation District 9. Department of Environmental Quality C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 83 of 135 Exhibit A Page 1 A. Drawings/Other Exhibit A.1: Vicinity/Zoning Map Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 84 of 135 Mountain View HS Addition – CUP H-2018-0089 PAGE 2 Exhibit A.2: Proposed Site Plan (dated: 8/08/18) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 85 of 135 Mountain View HS Addition – CUP H-2018-0089 PAGE 3 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 86 of 135 Mountain View HS Addition – CUP H-2018-0089 PAGE 4 Exhibit A.3: Proposed Landscape Plan (dated: 8/08/18) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 87 of 135 Mountain View HS Addition – CUP H-2018-0089 PAGE 5 Exhibit A.4: Conceptual Building Elevations (dated: 1/30/18) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 88 of 135 Mountain View HS Addition – CUP H-2018-0089 PAGE 6 B. Conditions of Approval 1. PLANNING DIVISION 1.1 Development of the site shall substantially comply with the site plan, landscape plan and building elevations included in Exhibit A, and the conditions of approval listed herein. 1.2 The applicant shall comply with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-14, Education Institution. 1.3 The site and landscape plans, dated 8/08/18, included in Exhibit A shall be revised as follows (as applicable): a. The applicant shall provide details of the required tree mitigation plan with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. 1.4 The applicant is required to submit a Certificate of Zoning Compliance application for approval of the proposed use and site layout from the Planning Division prior to submittal of a building permit application. 1.5 The applicant shall submit a Design Review application concurrent with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application for approval of the site layout and building elevations. The proposed site layout and structures are required to comply with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and the Architectural Standards Manual. The future structure shall comply with commercial architectural design standards, rather than the residential standards, due to the type of use. Dimensional standards shall comply with UDC table 11-2A-5, medium low-density residential district (R-4). 1.7 Staff’s failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or terms of the approved conditional use does not relieve the applicant of responsibility for compliance. 1.8 The Applicant shall have a maximum of two (2) years to commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval listed above. If the use has not begun within two (2) years of approval, a new conditional use permit must be obtained prior to operation or a time extension must be requested in accord with UDC 11-5B-6F. 1.9 The applicant shall complete all required improvements prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. It is unlawful to use or occupy any building or structure until the Building Official has issued a Certificate of Occupancy. 2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2.1 Site Specific Conditions of Approval 2.1.1 Sanitary sewer and water services currently exist on the subject site, and no new connections are being proposed with this application. 2.1.2 The site plan provided in the application does indicate the existence of an underground storm water disposal facility within the envelope of the proposed structure, however there is no indication of what is planned for the relocation/replacement of this facility. 2.2 General Conditions of Approval 2.2.1 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. 2.2.2 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 89 of 135 Mountain View HS Addition – CUP H-2018-0089 PAGE 7 2.2.3 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.2.4 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. 2.2.5 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. 2.2.6 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. 3. FIRE DEPARTMENT 3.1 The Fire Department has no concerns with this application. 4. POLICE DEPARTMENT 4.1 The Police Department has no concerns with this application. 5. PARKS DEPARTMENT 5.1 The Parks Department has no concerns with this application. 6. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT (ACHD) 6.1 Ada County Highway District did not provide comment on this application. 7. IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT (ITD) 7.1 Idaho Transportation Department did not provide comment on this application. 8. NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT 8.1 Nampa Meridian Irrigation District did not provide comment on this application. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 90 of 135 Mountain View HS Addition – CUP H-2018-0089 PAGE 8 9. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 91 of 135 Mountain View HS Addition – CUP H-2018-0089 PAGE 9 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 92 of 135 Mountain View HS Addition – CUP H-2018-0089 PAGE 10 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 93 of 135 Mountain View HS Addition – CUP H-2018-0089 PAGE 11 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 94 of 135 Mountain View HS Addition – CUP H-2018-0089 PAGE 12 C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code 1. Conditional Use Permit (UDC 11-5B-6E) The Commission shall base its determination on the Conditional Use Permit request upon the following: a. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. Staff finds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and the dimensional & development regulations of the R-4 district as required by the UDC (see Analysis Section IX for more information). b. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in accord with the requirements of this Title. Staff finds that the proposed use is consistent and harmonious with the UDC and Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Civic designation for this site if designed in accord with the conditions listed in Exhibit B. c. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. Staff finds that the proposed use will provide a necessary service to surrounding residences and should be compatible with other existing and future uses in the general area and with the existing and intended character of the area. d. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Staff finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the proposed use will not adversely affect other property in the area. e. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools, parks, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, and sewer. Staff finds that sanitary sewer, domestic water, refuse disposal, and irrigation were provided to this property with development of the subdivision; services will be extended to the proposed building by the developer. Staff finds that the proposed use will be served adequately by all of the public facilities and services listed above. f. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. If approved, the applicant will be financing any improvements required for development. Staff finds there will not be excessive additional requirements at public cost and that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the community’s economic welfare. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 95 of 135 - 13 - g. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. Staff finds the proposed use will not involve excessive traffic, noise, or odors that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare. h. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. Staff finds that the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural, scenic or historic feature of major importance in this area. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 96 of 135 City of Meridian - Public Hearing Sign In Form Tools Details and Signatures For Public Hearing Hearing Date: 9/20/2018 Hearing Type: PZ Item Number: 4-E Project Name: Mountain View High School Addition Project No.: H-2018-0089 Active: ❑d There are no signatures posted for this meeting type yet. Go Back To List Export To Excel © 2018 - City of Meridian, Idaho Page 1 of 1 http://internalapps/SIGNINFORMTOOLS/SignInFormDetails?id=65 9/21/2018 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Meeting Date: September 20, 2018 Agenda Item Number: 4F Project/File Number: H-2018-0085 Item Title Verado West MDA, AZ, PP WI mod►� uo,)!'i or' -6 Meetinq Notes I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 4.F. Presenter: Estimated Time f or P resentation: Title of I tem - Public Hearing for Verado West (H-2018-0085) by DevCo Development L L C, L ocated at 3090 N. L ocust G rove Rd. C lic k Here for Applic ation Materials C lic k Here to S ign Up to Tes tify at Hearing AT TAC HM E NT S: Description Type Upload D ate S taff Report S taff Report 9/14/2018 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 97 of 135 City of Meridian - Public Hearing Sign In Form Tools Details and Signatures For Public Hearing Hearing Date: 9/20/2018 Hearing Type: PZ Item Number: 4-F Project Name: Verado West Project No.: H-2018-0085 Active: ❑d Page 1 of 1 Signature City -State- I Wish To Sign In Address For Against Neutral Name Zip Testify Date/Time Michael 1918 E Kamay 9/20/2018 Meridian X X Simpson Dr 6:51:24 PM Thekla 1918 E Kamay Meridian Id 9/20/2018 X Simpson Dr 83646 6:52:31 PM Chris Meridian, id. 9/20/2018 1838 e. Kamay X X catherman 83646 6:53:25 PM Paul 1812 E Kamay Meridian, 9/20/2018 X X Nielson Drive, Meridian Idaho 83646 7:26:15 PM Chuck Meridian id 9/20/2018 e kamay X X catherman 83646 7:35:32 PM 1958 E Kamay Meridian, ID 9/20/2018 Megan Izzo X X Dr 83646 7:41:30 PM 5854 N Boise, ID 9/20/2018 Will Dilmore X X Rosepoint PI 83713 7:45:40 PM Go Back To List I Export To Excel © 2018 - City of Meridian, Idaho http://internalapps/SIGNINFORMTOOLS/SignInFormDetails?id=66 9/21/2018 STAFF REPORT Hearing Date: September 20, 2018 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Sonya Allen, Associate City Planner 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: Verado West – MDA, AZ & PP (H-2018-0085) I. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant, DevCo Development, LLC, has submitted applications for the following: • Modification to the existing development agreement for Verado Subdivision to include the subject property in the agreement; • Annexation & zoning of 19.44 acres of land with an R-15 zoning district; and, • Preliminary Plat consisting of 132 building lots and 18 common lots on 17.35 acres of land in an R-15 zoning district. II. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposed MDA, AZ and PP applications in accord with the conditions of approval in Exhibit B and the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in Exhibit D. The Commission is not required to make a recommendation on the MDA application; City Council is the decision making body on this application. 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-2018-0085, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of September 20, 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-2018-0085, as presented during the hearing on September 20, 2018, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2018-0085 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 southeast corner of N. Locust Grove Rd. and E. Ustick Rd. at 3090 N. Locust Grove Rd., in the NW ¼ of Section 5, Township 3 North, Range 1 East. Verado West – MDA AZ PP H-2018-0085 PAGE 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 98 of 135 B. Owner(s): Brinegar Investments, L.P. 1590 N. Locust Grove Rd. Meridian, ID 83642 C. Applicant: DevCo Development, LLC 4824 W. Fairview Ave. Boise, ID 83706 D. Representative: Laren Bailey, DevCo Development, LLC 4824 W. Fairview Ave. Boise, ID 83706 E. Applicant's Statement/Justification: Please see applicant’s narrative for this information. V. PROCESS FACTS A. The subject application is for a development agreement modification, annexation and zoning and preliminary plat. A public hearing is required before the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council on the annexation and zoning and preliminary plat applications; a public hearing is only required before the City Council on the development agreement application, consistent with Meridian City Code Title 11, Chapter 5. B. Newspaper notifications published on: August 31, 2018 C. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: August 24, 2018 D. Applicant posted notice on site(s) on: September 10, 2018 VI. LAND USE A. Existing Land Use(s) and Zoning: The subject property consists of rural residential/agricultural use, zoned RUT in Ada County. B. Character of Surrounding Area and Adjacent Land Use and Zoning: North: E. Ustick Rd. and single-family residential, zoned R-4 West: Single-family residential, zoned R-8 South: Single-family residential, zoned R-8 East: Rural residential, zoned RUT in Ada County; and future single-family residential, zoned R- 15 C. History of Previous Actions: None D. Utilities: 1. Location of sewer: Sanitary sewer mains intended to provide service to the project area, currently exist in the adjacent stub streets to the south and east. 2. Location of water: Domestic water mains intended to provide service to the project area, currently exist in the adjacent stub streets to the south and east 3. Issues or concerns: None Verado West – MDA AZ PP H-2018-0085 PAGE 2 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 99 of 135 E. Physical Features: 1. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: The South Slough runs across the southeast corner of this site. 2. Hazards: Staff is unaware of any hazards that may exist on this site. 3. Flood Plain: This site does not lie within the Meridian Floodplain Overlay District. VII. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designates this site as Medium Density Residential (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). The applicant proposes to develop this 17.35 acre site with 132 single-family residential detached and attached homes at a gross density of 7.6 dwelling units per acre (d.u./acre) and a net density of 12.32 units/acre consistent with the MDR FLUM designation. Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this property and apply to the proposed use (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 medium density development with single-family detached and attached homes will contribute to the variety of housing types in this area. Staff is unaware of how “affordable” the homes will be. • “Permit new development only where urban services can be reasonably provided at the time of final approval and development is contiguous to the City.” (3.01.01F) City services are available and will be extended by the developer to the proposed lots with development of the site in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. • “Require new urban density subdivisions which abut or are proximal to existing low density residential land uses to provide landscaped screening or transitional densities with larger, more comparable lot sizes to buffer the interface between urban level densities and rural residential densities.” (3.05.02F) The proposed subdivision does not provide adequate transition in lot sizes to existing residential lots along the southern boundary of the development [i.e. 3 lots (or portions thereof) are proposed to every single (1) lot to the south]. • “Improve and protect creeks (Five Mile, Eight Mile, Nine Mile, Ten Mile, South Slough, and Jackson and Evans drainages) throughout commercial, industrial and residential areas.” (5.01.01E) The South Slough runs across the southeast corner of this site and should remain open and be protected during construction. • “Require common area in all subdivisions.” (3.07.02F) Because this site is over 5 acres in size, the UDC (11-3G-3) requires a minimum of 10% qualified open space to be provided within the development. The applicant is proposing 1.73 acres (or 10%) of qualified open space within the development (see Exhibit A.4). Because this Verado West – MDA AZ PP H-2018-0085 PAGE 3 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 100 of 135 property is being combined with the previous phase of the Verado development, staff believes additional open space should be required beyond the minimum of the 10 percent(see analysis below). • “Encourage infill development.” (3.04.02B) The proposed infill project is surrounded by City annexed land developed with single-family residential uses except for the small County parcel at the northeast corner of the site. • “Review new development for appropriate opportunities to connect local roads and collectors to adjacent properties (stub streets). (3.03.020) The proposed plat depicts the extension of existing and future stub streets at the south and east boundaries of the site. • “Coordinate with public works, police, and fire departments on proposed annexation and development requests, and the impacts on services.” (3.04.01H) Staff has coordinated with public works, police and fire and has incorporated their comments and conditions in this report. • “Develop pathways to connect Meridian with Boise, Nampa, Kuna and Eagle.” (6.01.02C) The Pathways Master Plan depicts a segment of the City’s multi-use pathway system adjacent to the South Slough at the southeast corner of the site; a multi-use pathway is proposed accordingly. VIII. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE (UDC) A. Purpose Statement of Districts: 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). B. Schedule of Use: UDC Table 11-2A-2 lists the principal permitted (P), accessory (A), conditional (C), and prohibited (-) uses in the R-15 zoning district. Any use not explicitly listed, or listed as a prohibited use is prohibited. Single-family detached and attached dwellings are principally permitted uses in the R-15 zoning district. C. Dimensional Standards: Development of the site should be consistent with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Tables 11-2A-7 for the R-15 zoning district. D. Landscaping: Landscaping shall be required in accordance with the standards listed in UDC 11- 3B-7C, Street Buffer Landscaping; and, 11-3G-3E, common open space areas. E. Off-Street Parking: Off-street parking is required in accord with UDC Table 11-3C-6 for single- family detached and attached dwellings. F. Structure and Site Design Standards: Development of the attached dwellings within this development must comply with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and in the Architectural Standards Manual (ASM). Verado West – MDA AZ PP H-2018-0085 PAGE 4 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 101 of 135 IX. ANALYSIS A. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation: 1. Development Agreement (DA) Modification: The applicant proposes to modify the existing development agreement (Inst. #2016-119079) for Verado Subdivision to include the subject property in the agreement. The first two phases of Verado Subdivision exist to the east of the proposed development as shown on the map below. A legal description and exhibit map will need to be submitted that incorporates the overall Verado development. The existing DA provisions are included in Exhibit A.6; staff has proposed modifications in strike-out/underline format to accommodate the provisions associated Verado West subdivision. 2. Annexation & Zoning The applicant has applied for annexation and zoning of 19.44 acres of land with an R-15 zoning district. The proposed gross density of 7.6 dwelling units per acre is consistent with the MDR FLUM designation as discussed above in Section VII. The Applicant states the R-15 zoning district is requested specifically for the 3 foot side yard setback and not for an increase in density. The legal descriptions submitted with the application, included in Exhibit C, shows the boundaries of the property proposed to be annexed and rezoned. The property is contiguous to land that has been annexed into the City and is within the Area of City Impact boundary. The City may require a development agreement (DA) in conjunction with an annexation pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A. Because there is an existing DA for the first two phases of the Verado development to the east (highlighted in green above) that the Applicant requests to amend with this application to include the subject property in the agreement, staff does not recommend a separate DA is required for the proposed annexation. Verado West – MDA AZ PP H-2018-0085 PAGE 5 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 102 of 135 3. Preliminary Plat The proposed preliminary plat consists of 132 building lots and 18 common lots on 17.35 acres of land in a proposed R-15 zoning district. The subdivision is proposed to develop in two phases starting at the east end of the property. The minimum property size of the proposed building lots is 3,081 square feet (s.f.) with an average lot size of 3,573 s.f. Several of the lots in the southwest corner (Lots 52-54, Block 1) abut E. Kamay Court right-of way. Per UDC 11-6C-3A.1 through properties are prohibited except where it is shown that unusual conditions make it impossible to meet this requirement. Because this street is not proposed or required to be extended with this development, staff believes that there is an unusual circumstance. Prior to City signature on a final plat, the applicant shall include a note on the final plat that designates Lots 52-54, Block 1 (or any configuration of lots that abuts Kamay ROW) to take access from E. Stormy Drive. NOTE: As noted below, staff is requiring the applicant to provide transitional lots sizes along the south boundary. If Commission supports the transition recommended by staff this would reduce the number of through lots. A mix of single-family detached and attached homes, but mostly attached, are proposed along the north and west boundaries of the site adjacent to Ustick & Locust Grove Roads; single- family detached homes are proposed internal to the development. Black Rock Homes is proposed to be the builder of homes within the proposed development and is proposing to construct homes from their Urban Collection; this design was used in Solterra, Sovi, Verado Estates (to the east), and Movado Greens developments. The internal detached homes are proposed to be 2-story and range in size from 1,377 to 1,850 square feet; the attached homes will be single-level and are designed to serve mature “empty nesters.” The detached homes proposed adjacent to arterial streets (i.e. Ustick and Locust Grove Roads) are also proposed to be a single-story in height. Transition in Lot Sizes to Existing Residential Lots: The proposed subdivision does not provide adequate transition in lot sizes to existing residential lots along the southern boundary of the development [i.e. 3 lots (or portions thereof) are proposed to every single (1) lot to the south]. Staff recommends more comparable lot sizes are proposed to existing lots along the southern boundary of the development; the plat should be revised accordingly. NOTE: During the project review meeting, several concerns were raised with the number of narrow lots and the impacts that it has to on-street parking (lessened due to the number of driveways in close proximity). In addition, narrow lots limits the variation in housing types and limits the homes being constructed on the lots from having varied step backs in building setbacks within the development to articulate and break up the front wall planes of structures visible from interior streets (all homes are constructed at the same setback with a garage dominated design that diminishes community character). The applicant is requesting that this development be combined with the previous phases to construct much of the same housing types. The Commission should determine if more variation in lot sizes is needed in this area to provide more housing diversity throughout the entire Verado development. Existing Structures: There are several existing structures on the site that are proposed to be removed. Removal of these structures should take place prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer for the phase in which they are located. Verado West – MDA AZ PP H-2018-0085 PAGE 6 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 103 of 135 Dimensional Standards: Development of this site is required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC 11-2A-3B and 11-2A-7 for the R-15 district; and the subdivision design and improvement standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3. The maximum block face length allowed in residential districts is 750 feet without an intersecting street or alley. Where a pedestrian connection is provided, the maximum block face may extend up to 1,000 feet in length. The proposed block lengths comply with UDC standards. Traffic Impact Study (TIS): A TIS was not required by ACHD to be provided for this development. However, a traffic impact analysis was received from Daniel Thompson, Thompson Engineers, Inc., summarizing the traffic impact for the proposed subdivision based on information provided from the Applicant. Based on the information contained in the analysis, it’s the opinion of the traffic engineer that this development will not have a significant impact on the collector and local streets in the two subdivisions southeast of the intersection of Locust Grove and Ustick Roads. See complete letter in project file for more information. Streets: All streets within this development are proposed to be public. North Chantilly Ave., an existing stub street at the south boundary of this site is proposed to be extended. There is another existing stub street (i.e. E. Kamay Ct.) that exists approximately 240 feet to the west that is not proposed or required to be extended with this development. Note: On-street parking will be diminished due to the number of driveways in close proximity of one another. Access: Access to streets is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-3 unless otherwise waived by City Council. No public street access is proposed to adjacent arterial streets (i.e. Locust Grove & Ustick); all access is provided through Verado Subdivision to the east and Chamberlain Estates Subdivision to the south. Common Driveways: Common driveways are required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3D. Common driveways are proposed on Lots 6, 39 and 51, Block 1. An exhibit is required to be submitted with the final plat application that depicts the setbacks, fencing, building envelope, and orientation of the lots and structures on lots accessed via the common driveway. If Lots 5, 40 and 52, Block 1 aren’t proposed to take access via the common driveway, the driveway on those lots should be located on the opposite site of the shared property line with the common driveway. A perpetual ingress/egress easement shall be filed with the Ada County Recorder, which shall include a requirement for maintenance of a paved surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment; a copy of said agreement shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to City Engineer signature on the final plat. Lot 51, Block 1 abuts a common lot approved with the Chamberlain Estates Subdivision (Lot 32, Block 2). This common lot also provides a pedestrian access to Locust Grove Road. Staff recommends that the applicant provide a pedestrian connection through Lot 51, Block 1 that connects to the common lot in Chamberlain Estates Subdivision for pedestrian interconnectivity between the two (2) developments. Parking: Off-street parking is required to be provided for single-family detached and attached homes as set forth in UDC Table 11-3C-6. Landscaping: Landscaping is required to be provided in the proposed development as set forth in UDC 11-3B-7C and 11-3G-3E. A landscape plan was submitted with this application for the area proposed to be platted as shown in Exhibit A.3. Verado West – MDA AZ PP H-2018-0085 PAGE 7 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 104 of 135 A minimum 25-foot wide buffer is required adjacent to N. Locust Grove Rd. and E. Ustick Rd., both arterial streets, as set forth in UDC Table 11-2A-7. A 4- to 5-foot tall berm on top of a retaining wall with a 6-foot tall vinyl fence is proposed with the street buffer which will screen the adjacent single-story homes from the street. Landscaping is required along all pathways as set forth in UDC 11-3B-12C. Open Space/Site Amenities: Single-family developments over 5 acres in size in residential districts are required to comply with minimum open space and site amenity requirements as set forth in UDC 11-3G-3. Based on the residential area (17.35 acres), a minimum of 10% (or 1.74 acres) qualified open space and one (1) qualified site amenity is required to be provided within the development. The applicant proposes a total of 10% (or 1.73 acres) of qualified open space consisting of internal common area, landscaping along a micro-path, and half of the street buffers along adjacent arterial streets (i.e. Ustick & Locust Grove Rds.) in accord with UDC standards as shown in Exhibit A.4. While the proposed open space meets the minimum standards in the UDC, it’s not ideal as the common area is located clear at the east end at the entrance of the development; staff recommends it’s relocated further to the west to be more central to the development and more accessible to all residents. Further, due to the small lot sizes proposed within this development, staff recommends a minimum of an additional 8,000+/- square feet (or 0.18 of an acre) of common area is provided. This could be achieved by switching the locations (i.e. configuration) of Blocks 3 and 4 or 5 and losing two building lots resulting in a “through” common area. Note: The eligible open space depicted on the plat is incorrect. Qualified site amenities for the proposed development consist of a segment of the City’s multi-use pathway system along the southeast corner of the site adjacent to the South Slough and a 6,500+/- square foot dog park with seating areas in accord with UDC standards. Staff recommends an additional qualified site amenity is provided for this development such as a gazebo/covered picnic area with picnic tables or sports courts (or other comparable amenity). Parkways: No parkways are proposed in this development. Tree Mitigation: Mitigation is required for all existing trees 4” caliper or greater that are removed from the site with equal replacement of the total calipers lost on the site up to an amount of 100% replacement as set forth in UDC 11-3B-10C.5. Prior to removal of any trees on the site, the Applicant should contact the City Arborist, Elroy Huff (208-371-1755) to determine mitigation requirements. Mitigation information should be included on the landscape plan in accord with UDC 11-3B-10C.5. Pathways: Per the Pathways Master Plan, a segment of the City’s 10-foot wide multi-use pathway system is planned along the north side of the South Slough at the southeast corner of this site. A public pedestrian easement is required to be submitted to the Planning Division for the multi-use pathway. The easement should be submitted prior to City Engineer signature on the final plat for the phase in which it is located. Sidewalks: Sidewalks are required along all public streets as set forth in UDC 11-3A-17; detached sidewalks are required along all arterial streets and attached (or detached) sidewalks are required along local streets. Verado West – MDA AZ PP H-2018-0085 PAGE 8 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 105 of 135 Attached sidewalks exist along N. Locust Grove Rd. and along a portion of E. Ustick Rd.; detached sidewalk was constructed along the east portion of Ustick Rd.; because this is a fairly new sidewalk, staff does not recommend the attached portions are replaced with detached sidewalks. However, new sidewalk should be constructed where the curb cut for the existing home is located that is required to be removed with development. Where the existing sidewalk along Ustick Rd. is detached from the curb and gravel exists in the parkway, the gravel should be replaced with landscaping in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. Utilities: 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. Street lighting is required to be installed within the development in accord with the City’s adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. Pressurized Irrigation (PI): An underground PI system is required to be provided to each lot in the subdivision in accord with UDC 11-3A-15. Storm Drainage: A storm drainage system is required for the development in accord with the City’s adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. Design and construction shall follow best management practice as adopted by the City in accord with UDC 11-3A-18. Waterways: The UDC (11-3A-6) requires natural waterways intersecting, crossing, or lying within the area being developed to remain as a natural amenity and not be piped or otherwise covered. The South Slough crosses the southeast corner of this site and is a natural waterway; as such, it is required to be protected during construction and remain open as a natural amenity and not be piped or otherwise covered. Smaller irrigation ditches that cross the site are required to be piped. The applicant is proposing to pipe the portion of the South Slough that crosses this site; in accord with UDC 11-3A-6, this waterway shall remain open and not be piped. An easement for the waterway should be depicted on the plat. Floodplain: This site is not within the floodplain. Fencing: All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-6B and 11-3A-7. Fencing along natural waterways shall not prevent access to the waterway. In limited circumstances and in the interest of public safety, larger open water systems may require fencing as determined by the City Council, Director and/or Public Works Director. Side yard fences that follow the side yard property line shall only be allowed where the side setback is 5 feet or greater. A 6-foot tall vinyl private fence is proposed around the perimeter of the development except for around the common area proposed at the southeast corner of the site where there is existing fencing that is proposed to remain. A small section of 6-foot tall black vinyl coated chainlink fence is proposed along the south boundary of the site adjacent to the South Slough where there is not existing fencing. A 5-foot tall wrought iron fence is proposed around the dog park (i.e. small dog area) and around the common area on Lot 1, Block 3. Building Elevations: The applicant has submitted two (2) conceptual building elevations for the proposed single-family detached homes depicting a mix of horizontal and vertical siding with stone/brick veneer accents as materials; and one (1) conceptual building elevation for the proposed single-family attached residential dwellings depicting horizontal siding with stone/brick veneer accents. The single-family attached units are required to comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. Verado West – MDA AZ PP H-2018-0085 PAGE 9 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 106 of 135 Design Review: Administrative design review is required for all attached single-family homes. The design of the attached dwellings should be consistent with standards in the Architectural Standards Manual. In summary, Staff recommends approval of the proposed development agreement modification, annexation and preliminary plat requests for this site with the modified development agreement provisions and conditions listed in Exhibit A. 6 and Exhibit B of this report in accord with the findings contained in Exhibit D. X. EXHIBITS A. Drawings/Other 1. Vicinity/Zoning Map 2. Preliminary Plat & Phasing Plan (dated: 6/29/18) 3. Proposed Landscape Plan (dated: 7/18/18) 4. Open Space Exhibits 5. Conceptual Building Elevations 6. Proposed Changes to Development Agreement B. Agency & Department Comments/Conditions C. Legal Description & Exhibit Map for Annexation & Zoning Boundary D. Required Findings from Unified Development Code Verado West – MDA AZ PP H-2018-0085 PAGE 10 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 107 of 135 Exhibit A.1: Vicinity/Zoning Map Verado West – MDA AZ PP H-2018-0085 PAGE 11 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 108 of 135 Exhibit A.2: Preliminary Plat & Phasing Plan (dated: 6/29/18) Verado West – MDA AZ PP H-2018-0085 PAGE 12 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 109 of 135 Exhibit A.3: Proposed Landscape Plan (dated: 7/18/18) Verado West – MDA AZ PP H-2018-0085 PAGE 13 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 110 of 135 Verado West – MDA AZ PP H-2018-0085 PAGE 14 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 111 of 135 Exhibit A.4: Open Space Exhibit for Verado West AND Exhibit Depicting Open Space for the Entire Verado Developments Verado West – MDA AZ PP H-2018-0085 PAGE 15 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 112 of 135 Exhibit A.5: Conceptual Building Elevations Verado West – MDA AZ PP H-2018-0085 PAGE 16 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 113 of 135 Exhibit A.6: Proposed Changes to Development Agreement 4. USES PERMITTED BY THIS AGREEMENT: This Agreement shall vest the right to develop the Property in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. 4.1 The uses allowed pursuant to this Agreement are only those uses allowed under the UDC. 4.2 No change in the uses specified in this Agreement shall be allowed without modification of this Agreement. 5. CONDITIONS GOVERNING DEVELOPMENT OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: 5.1. Owner/Developer shall develop the Property in accordance with the following special conditions: a. Except the public street access to E. Ustick Road, direct lot access to E. Ustick Road and N. Locust Grove Road, an arterial streets, is prohibited in accord with UDC 11-3A-3. [Staff proposed modification] b. The applicant shall comply with the submitted home elevations attached in Exhibit A.4 of the Staff Report for Verado Subdivision in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law attached hereto as Exhibit B. Future homes in Phases 1 and 2 adjacent to E. Ustick Road (Lots 2-10, Block 1, and Lots 2-10, Block 2) shall incorporate a mix of materials, windows and decorative trim, and two variations in the roof lines to provide articulation and modulation to the side and rear facades that face the arterial street. c. The applicant shall comply with the submitted home elevations attached in Exhibit A.5 of the Staff Report for Verado West Subdivision in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law attached hereto as Exhibit B. [Staff proposed modification] d. As a natural waterway, tThe applicant shall obtain a waiver from City Council to UDC 11- 3A-6A in order for the South Slough to shall remain open and not be piped as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6B due to the large capacity of the facility. If a waiver is not obtained, the waterway is required to be piped. [Staff proposed modification] e. The landscape buffers along E. Ustick Road must be constructed with the first phase of development of Verado Subdivision. The landscape buffers along E. Ustick Road and N. Locust Grove Road shall be constructed with the first phase of development of Verado West Subdivision. [Staff proposed modification] f. The developer shall provide the amenities in the overall Verado & Verado West Subdivisions within the central common area on Lot 8, Block 3, a segment of the City’s multi-use recreational pathway and pathways through internal common areas as proposed on the landscape plans in Exhibits A.3 of the Staff Reports in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law attached hereto as Exhibit B, and in accord with the qualified site amenity requirements listed in UDC 11-3G-3C. [Staff proposed modification] g. Structures along adjacent arterial streets (i.e. E. Ustick Rd. and N. Locust Grove Rd.) are restricted to a single-story in height as proposed by the Developer, except for the following lots: Lots 9, 14, 18, 24, 31, 34, 42, 45, 50, Block 1. Verado West – MDA AZ PP H-2018-0085 PAGE 17 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 114 of 135 AN AMENDED LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED TO INCLUDE THE ANNEXATION AREA IN THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARY SUBJECT TO THIS AGREEMENT Verado West – MDA AZ PP H-2018-0085 PAGE 18 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 115 of 135 EXHIBIT B - AGENCY & DEPARTMENT COMMENTS/CONDITIONS 1. PLANNING DIVISION 1.1 Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1.1 The preliminary plat included in Exhibit A.2, dated 6/29/18, is approved subject to the following changes: a. The “eligible open space” depicted in the Site Data table is incorrect; revise accordingly consistent with the qualified open space standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3. b. Graphically depict the Irrigation District’s easement for the South Slough. c. The proposed subdivision does not provide adequate transition in lot sizes to existing residential lots along the southern boundary of the development [i.e. 3 lots (or portions thereof) are proposed to every single (1) lot to the south]. Staff recommends more comparable lot sizes are proposed to existing lots along the southern boundary of the development; the plat shall be revised accordingly. d. Prior to City signature on a final plat, the applicant shall include a note on the final plat that designates Lots 52-54, Block 1 (or any configuration of lots that abuts Kamay ROW) to take access from E. Stormy Drive and restrict access to E. Kamay Ct in accord with UDC 11-6C- 3A.1. e. Lot 51, Block 1 abuts a common lot approved with the Chamberlain Estates Subdivision (Lot 32, Block 2). The applicant shall incorporate a 5-foot wide pedestrian pathway through Lot 51, Block 1 that directly connects to the common lot (Lot 32, Block 2) in Chamberlain Estates Subdivision for pedestrian interconnectivity between the two (2) developments. 1.1.2 The landscape plan included in Exhibit A.3, dated: 7/18/18, is approved subject to the following changes: a. Prior to removal of any trees on the site, the Applicant should contact the City Arborist, Elroy Huff (208-371-1755) to determine mitigation requirements; mitigation information shall be included on the plan in accord with UDC 11-3B-10C.5. b. The “eligible open space” depicted in the Development Data is incorrect; revise accordingly consistent with the qualified open space standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3. c. The curb cut for the existing home on Locust Grove Rd. shall be removed and sidewalk shall be extended in this area. d. Where the sidewalk is detached from the curb along E. Ustick Rd. and gravel exists in the parkway, the gravel shall be replaced with landscaping in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. 1.1.3 Common driveways are required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3D including, but not limited to the following: a. An exhibit shall be submitted with the final plat application that depicts the setbacks, fencing, building envelope, and orientation of the lots and structures on lots accessed via the common driveway. b. If Lots 5, 40, and 52, Block 1 aren’t using the abutting common driveways for access, the driveways on those lots shall be located on the opposite site of the shared property line with the common driveway; include the driveway location on the exhibit required above. c. A perpetual ingress/egress easement shall be filed with the Ada County Recorder, which shall include a requirement for maintenance of a paved surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment; a copy of said agreement shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to City Engineer signature on the final plat. Verado West – MDA AZ PP H-2018-0085 PAGE 19 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 116 of 135 1.1.4 Side yard fences that follow the side yard property line shall only be allowed where the side setback is 5 feet or greater per UDC 11-3A-7C.5. 1.1.5 The South Slough is a natural waterway and as such, shall remain open and not be piped as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6. 1.1.6 A minimum of 11% (or 1.91 acres) of qualified open space is required to be provided within the development. An updated plan shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to the public hearing before the Commission that depicts the minimum open space required and relocation of common area more central to the development as discussed in Section IX.3. 1.1.7 At a minimum, a 6,500+/- square foot dog park with seating areas, a segment of the City’s multi-use pathway system and a gazebo/covered picnic area with picnic tables or sports courts (or other comparable amenity) shall be provided as amenities within the development in accord with UDC 11-3G- 3C. 1.1.8 Provide traffic calming near the intersection of E. Ringneck St. and N. Summerfield Way to slow traffic where the micro-path is proposed. 1.1.9 The developer shall construct all proposed fencing and/or any fencing required by the UDC, consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6C and 11-3A-7. 1.1.10 Removal of existing structures on the site shall take place prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer for the phase in which they are located. 1.1.11 A public pedestrian easement is required to be submitted to the Planning Division for the multi-use pathway on this site. The easement shall be submitted prior to City Engineer signature on the final plat for the phase in which it is located. 1.1.12 Because the rear and/or sides of 2-story homes constructed on lots that abut N. Locust Grove Rd. and E. Ustick Rd., both arterial streets, will be highly visible, these elevations should incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the following: modulation (e.g. projections, recesses, step-backs, pop-outs), bays, banding, porches, balconies, material types, or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines that are visible from the adjacent public street. Single- story structures are exempt from this requirement. 1.1.13 A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application is required to be submitted to the Planning Division for approval prior to submittal of building permits applications for all single-family attached structures on the site. All attached structures shall comply with the standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. 1.2 General Conditions of Approval 1.2.1 Comply with all bulk, use, and development standards of the R-15 zoning district listed in UDC Table 11-2A-7. 1.2.2 Comply with all provisions of 11-3A-3 with regard to access to streets. 1.2.3 Construct on-street bikeways on all collector streets as set forth in UDC 11-3A-5. 1.2.4 Comply with the provisions for irrigation ditches, laterals, canals and/or drainage courses, as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6. 1.2.5 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. 1.2.6 Comply with the sidewalk standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-17. 1.2.7 Install all utilities consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-21 and 11-3B-5J. 1.2.8 Construct all off-street parking areas consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3C-6 for single-family dwellings. Verado West – MDA AZ PP H-2018-0085 PAGE 20 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 117 of 135 1.2.9 Construct the required landscape buffers consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3B-7C. 1.2.10 Construct storm water integration facilities that meet the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3B-11C. 1.2.11 Construct all parkways consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-17E, 11-3G-3B5 and 11-3B-7C. 1.2.12 Comply with all subdivision design and improvement standards as set forth in UDC 11-6C-3, including but not limited to cul-de-sacs, alleys, driveways, common driveways, easements, blocks, street buffers, and mailbox placement. 1.2.13 Protect any existing trees on the subject property that are greater than four-inch caliper and/or mitigate for the loss of such trees as set forth in UDC 11-3B-10. 1.2.14 Comply with all provisions of UDC 11-3A-3 with regard to maintaining the clear vision triangle. 1.3 Ongoing Conditions of Approval 1.3.1 The applicant and/or assigns shall have the continuing obligation to provide irrigation that meets the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3B-6 and to install and maintain all landscaping as set forth in UDC 11-3B-5, UDC 11-3B-13 and UDC 11-3B-14. 1.3.2 All common open space and site amenities shall be maintained by an owner's association as set forth in UDC 11-3G-3F1. 1.3.3 The project is subject to all current City of Meridian ordinances and previous conditions of approval associated with this site. 1.3.4 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. 1.3.5 The applicant shall have an ongoing obligation to maintain all pathways. 1.3.6 The applicant has a continuing obligation to comply with the outdoor lighting provisions as set forth in UDC 11-3A-11. 1.3.7 The applicant and/or property owner shall have an ongoing obligation to maintain all landscaping and constructed features within the clear vision triangle consistent with the standards in UDC 11-3A-3. 1.4 Process Conditions of Approval 1.4.1 No signs are approved with this application. Prior to installing any signs on the property, the applicant shall submit a sign permit application consistent with the standards in UDC Chapter 3 Article D and receive approval for such signs. 1.4.2 The applicant shall complete all improvements related to public life, safety, and health as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. A surety agreement may be accepted for other improvements in accord with UDC 11- 5C-3C. 1.4.3 The final plat, and any phase thereof, shall substantially comply with the approved preliminary plat as set forth in UDC 11-6B-3C2. 1.4.4 The applicant shall obtain approval for all successive phases of the preliminary plat within two years of the signature of the City Engineer on the previous final plat as set forth in UDC 11-6B-7B (if applicable). 1.4.5 The preliminary plat approval shall be null and void if the applicant fails to either 1) obtain the City Engineer signature on a final plat within two years; or, 2) gain approval of a time extension as set forth in UDC 11-6B-7. 1.4.6 Upon installation of the landscaping and prior to inspection by Planning Division staff, the applicant shall provide a written certificate of completion as set forth in UDC 11-3B-14A. Verado West – MDA AZ PP H-2018-0085 PAGE 21 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 118 of 135 2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2.1 SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 2.1.1 A street light plan will need to be included with each 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 Sanitary sewer and water mainline shall be designed within public right-of-ways. Service lines shall be extended into the shared driveway locations. Water meters shall be located at the right-of-way line. 2.1.3 Any existing sanitary sewer or water services that won’t be used as part of this development, will need to be abandoned per the Meridian Public Works Department’s Standards. 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. 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. Verado West – MDA AZ PP H-2018-0085 PAGE 22 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 119 of 135 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 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 Verado West – MDA AZ PP H-2018-0085 PAGE 23 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 120 of 135 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. 3. POLICE DEPARTMENT Verado West – MDA AZ PP H-2018-0085 PAGE 24 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 121 of 135 4. FIRE DEPARTMENT Fire Department Summary of Report: 1. Service Delivery Travel time from nearest fire station (level of service expectation = 5 minutes) This development is 1:00 minute from the nearest fire station (under ideal conditions). If approved, the Fire Department can meet the response time requirements. 2. Resource reliability Current reliability of closest fire station (expectation should be 85% or greater) This development is closest to Fire Station #4. Current reliability is 80% from this station and does not meets the targeted goal of 85% or greater. 3. Risk Identification Risk Factor (1=residential, 2=residential with hazards, 3=commercial, 4=commercial with hazards, 5=industrial) This proposed commercial development has a risk factor of 1, in which current resources would be adequate to supply service to this propose project. 4. Resources available Water Supply (list expectations) Water supply for this proposed development requires 1000 gallons per minute for one hour for up to 3,600 square foot residence. (Approximate – see appendix B of the 2015 International Fire Code) 5. Accessibility Roadway Access, traffic This project meets all required road widths and turnarounds. The subdivision will be limited to 30 building lots until a second access point is built. 6. Specialty needs a. Aerial device needed for development (more than 30’ in height)? i. If yes, is one available within a 10 minute travel time This proposed development will not require an aerial device. The closest truck company is 6 minutes travel time (in ideal conditions) to the proposed development, and therefore the Fire Department can meet this need in the required timeframe if a truck company is required. b. Other specialty needs (water rescue, hazmat, and technical rescue)? i. If yes, is one available within a 5 minute travel time? There are no specialty needs at this time. 7. Other Comments Project specific comments are listed below. Verado West – MDA AZ PP H-2018-0085 PAGE 25 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 122 of 135 ***All IFC code sections per 2015 IFC or as noted*** RESOURCE AVAILABILITY - Fire Flow and Water Supply: 1. Fire Flow: One and two family dwellings not exceeding 3,600 square feet require a fire- flow of 1,000 gallons per minute for a duration of 1 hours to service the entire project. One and two family dwellings in excess of 3,600 square feet require a minimum fire flow as specified in Appendix B of the International Fire Code. Fire Hydrant spacing shall be provided as required by Appendix C of the International Fire Code. 2. Water Supply: Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department or their designee 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 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. ACCESSIBILITY - Fire Department Roadways, Access and Addressing: 3. Roadways: 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. Cul-D-Sacs shall be 96’ in diameter minimum and shall be signed “No Parking Fire Lane” per International Fire Code Sections 503.3 & D103.6. 4. Roadways: 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. 5. Roadways: All common driveways shall be straight or have a turning radius of 28’ inside and 48’ outside and have a clear driving surface of 20’ in width capable of supporting an imposed weight of 80,000 GVW, per International Fire Code Section 503.2. 6. Roadways: Private Alleys and Fire Lanes shall have a 20’ wide improved surface capable of supporting an imposed load of 80,000 lbs. All roadways shall be marked “No Parking Fire Lane” per International Fire Code Sections 503.3 & D103.6. 7. Roadways: To increase emergency access to the site a minimum of two points of access Verado West – MDA AZ PP H-2018-0085 PAGE 26 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 123 of 135 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 an additional stub street to the property. 8. Roadways: Buildings over 30’ in height are required to have access roads 26’ in width minimum in accordance with the International Fire Code Appendix D Section D105. 9. Roadways: The roadways shall be built to Ada County Highway District cross section standards and have a clear driving surface. Streets less than 26’ in width shall have no on- street parking; streets less than 32’ in width shall have parking only on one side. These measurements shall be based on the drivable surface dimension exclusive of shoulders. The roadway shall be able to accommodate an imposed load of 80,000 GVW as set forth in International Fire Code Section 503.2.1 and D103.6.1 and D103.6.2. 10. Roadways: ALLEY – In all cases, right of ways shall be a minimum of 20’ in width. 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. The minimum distance for alley accessed properties shall be 20’ from the face of a garage to the property line. (International Fire Code Section 503.4) 11. Roadways: 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. 12. Access: Fire lanes, streets, and structures (including the canopy height of mature trees) shall have a vertical clearance of 13’6 as set forth in International Fire Code Section 503.2.1. 13. Access: 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. 14. Access: Secondary emergency access routes shall be protected from illegal entry by a gate or collapsible bollards as set forth in IFC 503.5. An example would be the MaxiForce Collapsible bollards that is hydrant wrench activated or an approved equal. 15. Access: 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. SPECIALTY NEEDS/OTHER COMMENTS: Other Comments: Ensure that all yet undeveloped parcels are maintained free of combustible vegetation as set forth in International Fire Code Section 304.1.2. 5. REPUBLIC SERVICES 5.1 No comments received from this service provider. Verado West – MDA AZ PP H-2018-0085 PAGE 27 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 124 of 135 6. PARKS DEPARTMENT 1. The project developer shall design and construct a multi-use pathway consistent with the location and specifications set forth in the Meridian Pathways Master Plan (Chapter 3). Any proposed adjustments to pathway alignment shall be coordinated through the Pathways Project Manager. 2. Prior to final approval, the applicant shall submit a public access easement for a multi-use pathway on the north side of the south slew, through subdivision common lot, to the Planning Division for Council approval and subsequent recordation. The easement shall be a minimum of 14’ wide (10’ pathway + 2’ shoulder each side). Use standard City template for public access easement. Easement checklist must accompany all easement submittals. 3. Prior to City Engineer signature on the final plat, the applicant shall depict a public access easement for the multi-use pathway(s) [described above] on the final plat. 4. Construct multi-use pathway per typical paving section(s) shown in the Meridian Pathways Master Plan Chapter 3. 5. The owner (or representative association) of the property affected by the public access easement shall have an ongoing obligation to maintain the multi-use pathway. 6. 6’ high open vision fencing shall be installed between pathways and (live) water irrigation canals and laterals as detailed in the Meridian Pathways Master Plan, Chapter 3, page 3-5. All other fence details per UDC 11-3A-7. 7. Prior to constructing any pathway within an existing irrigation district easement, the applicant shall first consult with the district having jurisdiction to obtain a License Agreement and/or other required approvals. 8. Should any discrepancy exist between City of Meridian pathway conditions of approval and the requirements of the irrigation district, the developer shall work with Pathways Project Manager to achieve a pathway design that meets both City and irrigation district objectives. 7. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT (NO COMMENTS RECEIVED BY THE TRANSMITTAL DATE OF THE STAFF REPORT.) 7.1 Site Specific Conditions of Approval 7.2 Standard Conditions of Approval 8. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT Verado West – MDA AZ PP H-2018-0085 PAGE 28 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 125 of 135 9. COMPASS Verado West – MDA AZ PP H-2018-0085 PAGE 29 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 126 of 135 10. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 1. Air Quality Please review IDAPA 58.01.01 for all rules on Air Quality, especially those regarding fugitive dust (58.01.01.651), trade waste burning (58.01.01.600-617), and odor control plans (58.01.01. 776). The property owner, developer, and their contractor(s) must ensure that reasonable controls to prevent fugitive dust from becoming airborne are utilized during all phases of construction activities per IDAPA 58.01.01.651. Per IDAPA 58.01.01.600-617, the open burning of any construction waste is prohibited. The property owner, developer , and their contractor(s) are responsible for ensuring no prohibited open burning occurs during construction. For questions, contact David Luff , Air Quality Manager, at 373-0550. 2. Wastewater and Recycled Water DEQ recommends verifying that there is adequate sewer to serve this project prior to approval. Please contact the sewer provider for a capacity statement, declining balance report, and willingness to serve this project. IDAPA 58.01.16 and IDAPA 58.01.17 are the sections of Idaho rules regarding wastewater and recycled water. Please review these rules to determine whether this or future projects will require DEQ approval. IDAPA 58 .01.03 is the section of Idaho rules regarding subsurface disposal of wastewater . Please review this rule to determine whether this or future projects will require permitting by the district health department. All projects for construction or modification of wastewater systems require preconstruction approval. Recycled water projects and subsurface disposal projects require separate permits as well. DEQ recommends that projects be served by existing approved wastewater collection systems or a centralized community wastewater system whenever possible. Please contact DEQ to discuss potential for development of a community treatment system along with best management practices for communities to protect ground water. DEQ recommends that cities and counties develop and use a comprehensive land use management plan, which includes the impacts of present and future wastewater management in this area. Please schedule a meeting with DEQ for further discussion and recommendations for plan development and implementation . For questions , contact Todd Crutcher, Engineering Manager , at 373-0550. 3. Drinking Water DEQ recommends verifying that there is adequate water to serve this project prior to approval. Please contact the water provider for a capacity statement , declining balance report, and willingness to serve this project. IDAPA 58.01.08 is the section of Idaho rules regarding public drinking water systems. Please review these rules to determine whether this or future projects will require DEQ approval. Verado West – MDA AZ PP H-2018-0085 PAGE 30 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 127 of 135 All projects for construction or modification of public drinking water systems require preconstruction approval. DEQ recommends verifying if the current and/or proposed drinking water system is a regulated public drinking water system (refer to the DEQ website at http://www .deg. idaho .qov/water -quality/drinking-water .aspx ) . For non-regulated systems , DEQ recommends annual testing for total coliform bacteria, nitrate, and nitrite. If any private wells will be included in this project, we recommend that they be tested for total coliform bacteria, nitrate, and nitrite prior to use and retested annually thereafter. DEQ recommends using an existing drinking water system whenever possible or construction of a new community drinking water system. Please contact DEQ to discuss this project and to explore options to both best serve the future residents of this development and provide for protection of ground water resources . DEQ recommends cities and counties develop and use a comprehensive land use management plan which addresses the present and future needs of this area for adequate , safe, and sustainable drinking water. Please schedule a meeting with DEQ for further discussion and recommendations for plan development and implementation. For questions, contact Todd Crutcher, Engineering Manager at 373-0550. 4. Surface Water A DEQ short-term activity exemption (STAE) from this office is required if the project will involve de-watering of ground water during excavation and discharge back into surface water, including a description of the water treatment from this process to prevent excessive sediment and turbidity from entering surface water. Please contact DEQ to determine whether this project will require a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit. If this project disturbs more than one acre, a stormwater permit from EPA may be required. If this project is near a source of surface water, DEQ requests that projects incorporate construction best management practices (BMPs) to assist in the protection of Idaho's water resources . Additionally , please contact DEQ to identify BMP alternatives and to determine whether this project is in an area with Total Maximum Daily Load stormwater permit conditions . The Idaho Stream Channel Protection Act requires a permit for most stream channel alterations . Please contact the Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR), Western Regional Office, at 2735 Airport Way, Boise, or call 208-334-2190 for more information . Information is also available on the IDWR website at: http:llwww .idwr .idaho.gov/WaterManaqement!StreamsDams!Streams/AiterationPermit!AiterationPermit .htm The Federal Clean Water Act requires a permit for filling or dredging in waters of the United States. Please contact the US Army Corps of Engineers , Boise Field Office, at 10095 Emerald Street, Boise, or call 208-345-2155 for more information regarding permits . For questions , contact Lance Holloway , Surface Water Manager , at 373-0550. Verado West – MDA AZ PP H-2018-0085 PAGE 31 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 128 of 135 5. Hazardous Waste And Ground Water Contamination Hazardous Waste. The types and number of requirements that must be complied with under the federal Resource Conservations and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Idaho Rules and Standards for Hazardous Waste (IDAPA 58.01.05) are based on the quantity and type of waste generated. Every business in Idaho is required to track the volume of waste generated , determine whether each type of waste is hazardous , and ensure that all wastes are properly disposed of according to federal, state , and local requirements. No trash or other solid waste shall be buried, burned , or otherwise disposed of at the project site. These disposal methods are regulated by various state regulations including Idaho 's Solid Waste Management Regulations and Standards , Rules and Regulations for Hazardous Waste, and Rules and Regulations for the Prevention of Air Pollution . Water Quality Standards. Site activities must comply with the Idaho Water Quality Standards (IDAPA 58.01.02) regarding hazardous and deleterious-materials storage, disposal, or accumulation adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of state waters (IDAPA 58.01.02.800); and the cleanup and reporting of oil-filled electrical equipment (IDAPA 58.01.02.849); hazardous materials (IDAPA 58.01 .02.850); and used -oil and petroleum releases (IDAPA 58.01.02.851 and 852). Petroleum releases must be reported to DEQ in accordance with IDAPA 58.01.02.851.01 and 04. Hazardous material releases to state waters, or to land such that there is likelihood that it will enter state waters , must be reported to DEQ in accordance with IDAPA 58.01.02.850. Ground Water Contamination. DEQ requests that this project comply with Idaho's Ground Water Quality Rules (IDAPA 58.01.11), which states that "No person shall cause or allow the release , spilling , leaking , emission, discharge , escape, leaching , or disposal of a contaminant into the environment in a manner that causes a ground water quality standard to be exceeded, injures a beneficial use of ground water, or is not in accordance with a permit , consent order or applicable best management practice , best available method or best practical method ." For questions, contact Albert Crawshaw, Waste & Remediation Manager, at 373-0550. 6. Additional Notes If an underground storage tank (UST) or an aboveground storage tank (AST) is identified at the site, the site should be evaluated to determine whether the UST is regulated by DEQ. EPA regulates ASTs. UST and AST sites should be assessed to determine whether there is potential soil and ground water contamination. Please call DEQ at 373-0550, or visit the DEQ website (http://www.deq.idaho.gov/waste-mgmt- remediationlstorage-tanks.aspx) for assistance. If applicable to this project, DEQ recommends that BMPs be implemented for any of the following conditions: wash water from cleaning vehicles, fertilizers and pesticides, animal facilities, composted waste, and ponds. Please contact DEQ for more information on any of these conditions. We look forward to working with you in a proactive manner to address potential environmental impacts that may be within our regulatory authority. If you have any questions, please contact me, or any our technical staff at 208-373-0550. 11. IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Verado West – MDA AZ PP H-2018-0085 PAGE 32 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 129 of 135 Development Application H-2018-0085 MDA, AZ, PP Project Name VERADO WEST SUBDIVISION Project Location 3090 North Locust Grove Road , west of SH-55 milepost 38.89 Project Description Modification to the Development Agreement for Verado Subdivision to include the subject property in the agreement; an annexation and zoning of 19.44 acres of land with R-15 zoning and a preliminary plat consisting of 132 building lots and 18 common lots Applicant DevCo Development LLC The Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) reviewed the referenced development agreement modification, annexation, zoning, and preliminary applications and has the following comments: 1. This project does not abut the State highway system. 2. Due to the size and proximity of this development to SH-55, ITD requests documentation of trip generations for full site build-out and may require a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) . 3. The City is reminded that the SH-55 (Eagle Road) corridor is already congested . This project will increase the number of vehicle trips in the corridor. As the City continues to add additional trips to the corridor through development, the congestion will worsen until the roadway system is ultimately overloaded and fails. ITD has no current funding assigned to mitigate traffic congestion in the SH-55 (Eagle Road) corridor in this area . 4. Idaho Code 40-1910 does not allow advertising within the right-of-way of any State highway. 5. IDAPA 39.03.60 governs advertising along the State highway system. The applicant may contact Justin Pond, Program Manager for ITD's Headquarters Right-of-Way Section at (208) 334-8832 for more information. 6. ITD objects to the proposed application due to traffic concerns. ITD will withdraw any objection to the proposed application once all traffic concerns have been addressed with ITD Staff. If you have any questions, you may contact Tom Haynes at (208) 334-8944 or me at (208) 332-7190. Sincerely, Ken Couch Development Services Coordinator Ken.Couch@itd.idaho.gov Verado West – MDA AZ PP H-2018-0085 PAGE 33 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 130 of 135 - 2 - Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 131 of 135 C. Legal Description & Exhibit Map for Annexation & Zoning Boundary - 3 - Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 132 of 135 - 4 - Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 133 of 135 D. Required Findings from Unified Development Code 1. Annexation and Rezone Findings: 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: a. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; The Applicant proposes to annex and zone 19.44 acres of land for the development of single-family attached and detached homes at a gross density of 7.6 units per acre consistent with the MDR FLUM designation in 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 zoning district is consistent with the purpose statement for the 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 map amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. City utilities will be extended at the expense of the developer. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council consider any oral or written testimony that may be provided when determining this finding. 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 annexing the subject 19.44 acre property is in the best interest of the City if the developer complies with the development agreement provisions and conditions of approval in this report. 2. Preliminary Plat Findings: 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 conformance with the Comprehensive plan if the site is developed in accord with the conditions of approval in Exhibit B. (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 are available and are adequate to serve the proposed development. (See Exhibit B of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers.) - 5 - Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 134 of 135 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 development 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; Based on comments from public service providers in Exhibit B, Staff finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development. (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’s 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 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 unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that exist on this site that need to be preserved. - 6 - Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 20, 2018 – Page 135 of 135 Verado West Community Vicinity Map Verado Community Verado Community Amenities Total Landscaped Open Space = 5.09 Ac. 13.5% Total Eligible Open Space = 4.25 Ac. or 12.24% 10’ wide Region Pathway on the Finch Lateral 2 Large Neighborhood Parks Including: Fencing for Child Safety Play Structures Climbing Dome Swing Sets Basketball Court Walking Path and Big Wheel Track Seating Areas Active Sports Field Suitable for Soccer or Football Park Shade Structure Small Dog, Dog Park Attractive Plantings and Boulders o Site Specific Condition Item 1.1.1. c. – Lot size transition Delete this condition o Site Specific Condition Item 1.1.5 – Finch Lateral •Delete this condition o Site Specific Condition Item 1.1.6 – Require 11% Open Space Modify to read: A minimum of 10.2% of Qualified Open Space o Staff Analysis IX.3. – Relocate Interior Open Space (page 8) Delete this recommendation o Staff Analysis A.6.5.E - Construct All Arterial Landscape Buffer in First Phase (page 17) Allow Per Phase P & Z Commission Recommendations for Approval Neighborhood Transition Ratio of 1.7 to 1 Lateral Piping Five Mile Creek Finch Lateral Verado Community Open Space Total Landscaped Open Space = 5.09 Ac. 13.5% Total Eligible Open Space = 4.25 Ac. or 12.2% Interior Open Space Location Surrounding Area o Site Specific Condition Item 1.1.1. c. – Lot size transition Delete this condition o Site Specific Condition Item 1.1.5 – Finch Lateral •Delete this condition o Site Specific Condition Item 1.1.6 – Require 11% Open Space Modify to read: A minimum of 10.2% of Qualified Open Space o Staff Analysis IX.3. – Relocate Interior Open Space (page 8) Delete this recommendation o Staff Analysis A.6.5.E Construct All Arterial Landscape Buffer in First Phase (page 17) Allow Per Phase P & Z Commission Recommendations for Approval Verado West Community Neighborhood Transition Village Collection Cottage Collection Verado Neighborhood Park and Playground River Valley Elementary River Valley Elementary Verado Neighborhood Playground/Amenities Park Areas Passive Active