Loading...
2018-10-18 M ER I D I A N P L ANN I N G AND Z ONI NG COMMI SSI ON M EETI NG AGENDA C ity C ouncil C hamber s 33 E ast B roadway Avenue M eridian, Idaho T hursday, O ctober 18, 2018 at 6:00 P M 1. Roll-C all Attendance __X__ Lisa Holland __X__ Steven Yearsley __X__ Gregory Wilson __ __ Ryan Fitzgerald __X__ Jessica Perrault __ __ Bill Cassinelli ____ Rhonda McCarvel - Chairperson 2. Adoption of Agenda Adopted with Correction to File Numbers for 4-A, 4-B, and 4-C 3. C onsent Agenda [Action I tem] Approved A. Approve M inutes of O ctober 4, 2018 P lanning and Zoning Commission M eeting B. F indings of Fact, Conclusion of L aw for Verraso Village North (H- 2018-0071) by C had Olsen, L ocated at 3561 E. Tecate Lane C. F indings of Fact, Conclusion of Law for EEG O ffice B uilding (H- 2018-0081) by C had Slichter, L ocated at 551 S W 5th Ave. D. F indings of Fact, Conclusion of Law for M er idian High S chool Auditorium (H-2018-0101) by L C A Architects, Located at 1900 W. P ine Ave. 4. Action Items L and U se P ublic H ea rin g P rocess: After th e P ublic H ea rin g is open ed the sta ff report will b e p resented b y the a ssigned city p lanner. F ollowin g S ta ff's rep ort the applicant has u p to 1 5 minutes to presen t th eir applica tion . E a ch m emb er of th e public m a y p rovid e testim on y u p to 3 minutes or if th ey a re rep resen tin g a la rg er g roup, su ch a s a H omeow n ers Association , th ey a re a llowed 1 0 minutes. T he applicant is th en allow ed 1 0 additional minutes to resp on d to th e public's commen ts. N o additional public testim on y is ta ken on ce th e public h ea rin g is closed . A. P ublic Hear ing for Alturas Rezone (H-2018-0105) by T r avis B arney, Alturas 1550 Tech L ane, LLC , L ocated at 1550 S. Tech L n Continued to November 1, 2018 1. Request: R ezone of 7.24 acres f rom I -L to C-G zone B. P ublic Hear ing for D el Taco (H-2018-0106) by Tom L ennon, L ocated at 1617 W. Island G r een D r. Continued to November 1, 2018 1. R equest: C onditional Use P ermit for a drive-through establishment withing 300 f eet of a res idential district and existing residences in a C -C zoning district C. P ublic Hearing for T he G oddard S chool (H-2018-0108) by Richard Antl, L ocated at 2009 S. Wells Avenue 1. R equest: Conditional Use P ermit f or a daycare center f or up to 150 children on 1.131 ac res in the C -G zoning district D. P ublic Hearing for J ocelyn P ar k Subdivision (H-2018-0100) by J arron L angston, L ocated at the S outhwest C or ner of W. Victory Rd. and S . M eridian Rd. 1. R equest: P reliminary P lat consisting of 23 building lots and 2 common lots on 13.32 acres of land in an R -8 Z oning D istrict E. P ublic Hearing for Rockbury Townhomes (H-2018-0091) by M ichael Nigh, L ocated North of W. Chinden B lvd. on the West side on N. T ree F ar m Way 1. R equest: P reliminary P lat consisting of 47 residential lots and 8 common lots on 6.23 acres of land in an R -15 zoning district F. P ublic Hearing for Residential D istrict Naming Convention Text Amendment (H-2018-0059) by D evC o D evelopment LLC 1.Request: A Text Amendment to Change the Naming Convention of the Residential Districts of R-2, R-4, R-8, R-15 and R-40 to R-A, R-B, R-C, R-D, R-D and R-E, and Modify Other Related Sections in Chapters 1 - 3 of the Unified Development Code (UDC) to Coincide with the Proposed Naming Convention Continued to November 15, 2018 Meeting Adjourned at 9:19 PM Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting October 18, 2018. Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of October 18, 2018, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Acting Chairman Jessica Perreault. Members Present: Commissioner Jessica Perreault, Commissioner Steven Yearsley, Commissioner Gregory Wilson, and Commissioner Lisa Holland. Members Absent: Chairman Rhonda McCarvel, Commissioner Bill Cassinelli, and Commissioner Ryan Fitzgerald. Others Present: Chris Johnson, Andrea Pogue, Bill Parsons, Josh Beach, Stephanie Leonard and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-call Attendance __X____ Lisa Holland ___X___ Steven Yearsley __X___ Gregory Wilson _______ Ryan Fitzgerald __X___ Jessica Perreault _______ 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 October 18th, 2018. Let's begin with roll call. Item 2: Adoption of Agenda Perreault: Thank you. Before we get started we would like to make a quick announcement regarding some of the file numbers for Action Items 4-A, 4-B and 4-C. Those were listed incorrectly on the posted agenda. The correct file numbers are 4-A, Alturas Rezone -- for 4-A Alturas Rezone, H-2018-0105. For 4-B, Del Taco, is H-2018-0106. And 4-C, the Goddard School, is H-2018-0108. So, these file numbers were correct on the mailers and the public notices, but they just were incorrectly marked on the posted agenda. Okay. So, next we have the adoption of the agenda, Items 4-A -- A and B, are going to be opened only for the purpose of continuing and it looks like we have dates for both of those. They will both be continued to November 1st, 2018. They will be open solely for that purpose. So, if there is anybody here tonight that is going to testify or interested in testifying, we will not be taking testimony for those particular applications until November 1st. Okay. So, can I get a motion to adopt the agenda as amended? Holland: So moved. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 1, 2018 – Page 4 of 137 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 18, 2018 Page 2 of 59 Wilson: Second. Perreault: It has 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. Approve Minutes of October 4, 2018 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting B. Findings of Fact, Conclusion of Law for Verraso Village North H-2018-0071) by Chad Olsen, Located at 3561 E. Tecate Lane C. Findings of Fact, Conclusion of Law for EEG Office Building H-2018-0081) by Chad Slichter, Located at 551 SW 5th Ave. D. Findings of Fact, Conclusion of Law for Meridian High School Auditorium (H-2018-0101) by LCA Architects, Located at 1900 W. Pine Ave. Perreault: Now we will -- the next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and we have four items on the Consent Agenda. 3-A, the approval of minutes for the meeting of October 4th, 2018, for the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Verraso Village North, H-2018-0071. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for EEG Office Building, H-2018-0081. And the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Meridian High School Auditorium, H-2018-0101. Can I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda as presented? Wilson: So moved. Holland: Second. Perreault: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Perreault: Now, I'm going to explain the public hearing process. At this time we will -- excuse me. I will briefly explain the public hearing process and 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 -- Uniform Development Code, with the staff's recommendations. After the staff has made their presentation the applicant will come forward to present their case for the approval of Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 1, 2018 – Page 5 of 137 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 18, 2018 Page 3 of 59 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 for public testimony. There is a sign-up sheet in the back -- and I think we actually have tablets back there -- as you entered for anyone who wishes to testify. Please do sign up. Those individuals will be allowed to come forward and speak for up to 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, then, they will be given up to ten minutes. After all testimony has been heard, the applicant will be given another ten minutes to respond -- take an opportunity to respond if they choose to do so. 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. Item 4: Action Items A. Public Hearing for Alturas Rezone (H-2018-0105) by Travis Barney, Alturas 1550 Tech Lane, LLC , Located at 1550 S. Tech Ln 1. Request: Rezone of 7.24 acres from I -L to C-G zone Perreault: Okay. At this time I would like to open the public hearing for Alturas Rezone, H-2018-0105, for the purpose of continuing to November 1st. Wilson: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Wilson. Wilson: I move we continue H-2018-0105. Yearsley: Second. Perreault: It has been moved and seconded to continue the public hearing for Alturas Rezone, H-2018-0105, to November 1st, 2018. All those in favor aye. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. B. Public Hearing for Del Taco (H-2018-0106) by Tom Lennon, Located at 1617 W. Island Green Dr. 1. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a drive-through establishment within 300 feet of a residential district and existing residences in a C-C zoning district Perreault: We will also open the public hearing for Del Taco, H-2018-0106, for the purpose of continuing to November 1st. Can I get motion? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 1, 2018 – Page 6 of 137 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 18, 2018 Page 4 of 59 Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I move we -- I move we continue the public hearing for Del Taco, H-2018- 0106, to the date of November 1st. Wilson: Second. Perreault: It has been moved and seconded to continue the public hearing for Del Taco H-2018-0106, to the date of November 1st, 2018. All those in favor say aye. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. C. Public Hearing for The Goddard School (H-2018-0108) by Richard Antl, Located at 2009 S. Wells Avenue 1. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a daycare center for up to 150 children on 1.131 acres in the C -G zoning district Perreault: Okay. Next is the public hearing for the Goddard School, H-2018-0108. We will begin with the staff report. Leonard: Good evening, Madam Chair, Commissioners. The project before you this evening is a conditional use permit. The site consists of 1.13 acres of land, zoned C-G, located at 2009 South Wells Avenue. To the north and west is undeveloped land, zoned C-G. To the south is a future townhome development, zoned C-G as well. Or, actually, TN-R. Sorry. And to the east is an apartment complex, The Fields Apartments, zoned R-40. In 2006 the property was included in the annexation and plats for Kenai Subdivision. The future land use map designation is mixed use regional. A CUP is requested for a 10,000 square foot daycare center for up to 160 children, six weeks to six years old, in the C-G district. The site plan depicts how the site is proposed to develop with two access points. The north driveway is accessed via a common drive aisle shared with the property to the north. The south driveway is access via Goldstone Street. Cross-access is provided to the adjacent property to the north and is required to be improved with asphalt and curbing. A minimum of 20 parking spaces are required. The applicant is proposing 35 spaces, in excess of UDC standards. A landscape street buffer and multi-use pathway exists along South Wells Avenue and East Goldstone Street. A minimum five foot pedestrian walkway is required to be provided from the perimeter sidewalk to the entrance of the building. Parking lot landscaping is required to be installed in accord with UDC standards. There are two proposed play areas, one at the north and one at the south. Both are proposed to be enclosed with the six foot nonscalable fence. Conceptual building elevations were submitted to the daycare center. The proposed building is a single story building. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 1, 2018 – Page 7 of 137 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 18, 2018 Page 5 of 59 Materials consists of stucco and brick, with metal seam awnings. The future structure is required to comply with the design standards listed in the UDC and the architectural standards manual. There was no written testimony for this project. Staff is recommending approval with conditions in -- in the report. The staff will stand for any questions. Perreault: Any questions for staff? Okay. Thank you. Would the applicant like to come forward, please. Please state your name and address for the record. Chatfield: My name is Jon Chatfield, with Chatfield Architecture. I reside at 1911 Montclair Drive, Boise, Idaho. Thank you for hearing our testimony tonight. I want to start by just kind of recapping what you already have in front of you with the site and the building and, then, yield my time to a Goddard Daycare representative to go through the Goddard School and their system and any questions you might have about that. As you know, starting with the site, this is a 1.1 acre site. We are in the designated zone C-G, which does allow for daycares with a conditional use, because of our size. We will be in the Grammercy Subdivision and located on the northwest corner of Wells and Goldstone. For site development we plan on new trees, landscape the entire site per city code, that includes grass and a stone -- kind of a riverbed look in front. We will have direct access from our sidewalks to both Goldstone and Wells. Our parking lot on the east side will have permeable pavers for drainage. So, it should look nice. Thirty- five parking stalls, as was mentioned, is what we are providing. Two accessible stalls. Our garbage enclosure will be a CMU home face structure with painted metal gates, so it will look nice as well. The school will have two playgrounds, one to the north, one to the south, 3,500 square feet and 3,300 square feet. It will have a padded play surface with artificial turf on both ends and, then, we will have play equipment on both sides as well. The playground will be fenced with a six foot tall metal fence. You can see through the pickets of the fence. It's not a vinyl fence and it will be a good looking fence, painted metal fence. The exterior of the building is, as mentioned, it's brick corners with a wainscot front and stucco above, with window shade -- metal window shading devices above all the windows and above the main entrance. It's a single level. The building was designed to fit the character of the neighborhood and some of the other buildings in the Grammercy Subdivision. We think it blends in and it's complementary to them. And we will have exterior lighting around the building, building lighting, and, then, lighting in the parking lot as well. Moving inside, the building is around a 10,000 square foot building. We have an occupancy group of I-4, which is for daycares. The building will be fully sprinkled and fire alarmed. There is 160 children. That's the maximum capacity of the school and, then, it's, you know, six weeks to five year old children. There is ten classrooms. The restrooms will be in each classroom with exterior doors in each classroom as well for additional exiting requirement. Not required by code, but required for convenience and above and beyond code in that sense. The facility will also have a multi-purpose room, offices, and break room. That's the technical elements of the project and a really quick briefing. And so now I would like to yield my time to Brian, who works for the Goddard School franchise, and -- and he can tell you a little bit more about them. So, thank you. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 1, 2018 – Page 8 of 137 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 18, 2018 Page 6 of 59 Johnston: Good evening, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. Thank you for allowing us to take your time tonight. I assure you this was not an accident in the daycare setting. Brian Johnston -- Perreault: Sir, would you mind stating your name and address for the record. Johnston: Brian Johnston. 1016 West 9th Avenue, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. I'm the site development manager for Goddard, responsible for the west coast of the United States. Nationally Goddard is about to open our 500th school this year and so we have a very wide presence. Everything that we have put together is as a result of the learning experience of opening those 500 schools. The typical hours, as Jon had said, is from 6:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. and that's depending on regional demand. Average occupancy nationally we are looking at about 86 percent across the -- across the system and for that count we are looking at somewhere between 430 and 440 is what we are counting as mature schools for that count. Obviously, we have to go through a rigorous licensing process governed by the state of Idaho and as far as what the staffing is concerned, the teachers must go through a master level -- I'm sorry, not the teachers, but the directors must go through a master level program that would have two teachers for every classroom, plus two to three floaters every day. One of the major concerns that I always get coming to these types of meetings is the parking and the traffic. Right? So, just to get ahead of that, we don't have a set start time. So, the nationally -- what we see as a peak time is 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and with that rolling start time that takes the pressure off of the parking lot, but it also takes the pressure off of the -- needing to have all of the -- all of the teachers there at one particular time. On any given day we see approximately five to ten percent of absentee for illness or vacation or what have you and 25 percent of the population nationally is sick, so you will have one car for multiple children. As it's stated in the staff report, we are only required for 20 spaces, but we are putting 35 in. We usually get above 30 anyway, even if the requirement is much less, because just nationally that's what we see as being the sweet spot for the rollover. Most of the spots on a -- on a given day will be taken by the staff, the teachers, the director and the owners. As I said earlier, the -- the rolling start time allows the parents to come in, drop their child off and, then, leave. An average turnover is about five to ten minutes for that. We don't have a drop-off spot. We do require each parent to bring their child into the building individually. This, obviously, helps with rapport and having the interaction with the teachers in the classrooms and everything, but it also allows it to minimize any stacking up of the vehicles, if you can imagine five or six vehicles stacking up idling. So, we eliminate that by having the requirement that the parents park in a specific spot and walk their kids in. From a security standpoint the building will have a double door entrance. The first door is open to the public and has a viewing window to one or both of the offices -- usually the office -- the building is set up so that the director is on one side and the owner is on the other and they have a vision panel there where the parents must scan their hand or enter a code to gain access through that second door. All visitors are required to sign in with the office and, then, are escorted through the building personally by one of the directors. As Jon said, that the -- you know, the playground is secure with a six foot fence. We like to have the Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 1, 2018 – Page 9 of 137 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 18, 2018 Page 7 of 59 fences be see through, so that if there is anything going on outside of the fence the teachers can be aware of that and act accordingly ahead of time. Outside of the fence, anywhere that a vehicle can come within 30 feet of a child, whether that be within the building or in the playgrounds, it's required to have vehicle protection and that's either in the form of a vehicle rated bollard, which I believe it's a 5,000 pound vehicle at ten miles an hour. So, the wall is rated for that condition, or a vehicle rated fence. All of the fencing will be non -- nonscalable. We do have security cameras located around the building and connected through a CCTV to monitor within the director's office and the owner's office. So, there is a sense of security as well. And I guess I will -- before I go too much further I will just open it up to some questions and, hopefully, I have covered everything, so I'm happy to answer anything. Thank you. Perreault: Are there any questions for the applicant? Yearsley: So, I'm kind of intrigued about the dropping off and getting the kids. So, we have got 35 parking spot -- spots. How many employees did we -- I didn't get the full count of what we anticipated for employees. Johnston: We have two -- two teachers per classroom. I don't -- I don't recall how many -- well, ten classes that would be 20 teachers, but we also have two to three floaters and the reason being is if there is -- we always have to be within ratio for the state guidelines and so if a teacher has to -- has an emergency outside of the classroom, needs to use the restroom or something like that, they can either call one of the floaters into cover that ratio or have one of the directors come into that room for that particular time. Because we have a rolling start time not all of those 20 teachers needs to be there right away and so if we see a pattern over the course of a year or so where, you know, it's staggered fairly well, some of those teachers might not need to show up until say 8:00 o'clock and so that, obviously, takes some of this parking spaces and allows them to be used for drop off, what have you. Yearsley: Okay. Because I was just looking at, you know, 24 individuals, that's taking up a good percentage of the parking for dropping off 160 kids and so I was just trying to wrap my brain around that. Johnston: I completely understand and that's a question that I get to answer every time I stand in front of a commission such as yours. Yearsley: Have you had pretty good success with not having a lot of people having to park off site to try and drop off their kids at other facilities like this? Johnston: Yes. In -- in some instances, if it's in a -- depending on the situation we would have a reciprocity with an adjacent business. Maybe it would be a doctor's office that might not open until later or if it's in a plaza with some retail spaces. So, it really is site dependent. Yearsley: Okay. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 1, 2018 – Page 10 of 137 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 18, 2018 Page 8 of 59 Johnston: Ideally we like to keep everything on site like we have here. When we have the proper amount of spaces, like we have here, we never have issues with offsite parking. Yearsley: And do you guys have like events that would have all your parents try to come in at once or do you not -- or do you have more localized type of events per classroom type situation, just -- Johnston: That's really up to the particular owner. Yearsley: Okay. Johnston: They have some events, such as graduation, which, obviously, wouldn't entail the entire student body, but there could be some open houses, in that nature. If that would come to fruition we would have to just figure out the best course of action for that. Throughout the system, though, we really overemphasize with our directors and our owners, the parking and traffic issue is one that always comes up in these meetings and we want to convey that to them. If we see that the parents just aren't behaving properly, we make sure that that's addressed immediately. We take it very seriously. Because we understand that we want to be good neighbors and that's a way that we could maybe not be a good neighbor, so we want to maintain those relationships and, obviously, we wouldn't be hitting our 500th school if we didn't take that seriously. Yearsley: And I appreciate that, because, you know, that's a lot of kids to put in and out of a school, so I appreciate you're conscientious about parking and drop off and pick up. Johnston: Sure. And I think -- and to your point about, you know, the events, if it would be a -- an event that would be a larger event that would have more than the allotment, it wouldn't be more than maybe one or two times a year. it would be very very minimized. But a graduation, again, if you're looking at maybe the largest class be 25, 30 kids, you know, that still fits within our -- our parking arrangement. Yearsley: Okay. Thank you. Johnston: Thank you. Perreault: On that note, what are the width of the parking spaces? I mean do you have issues with, you know, if you have a parent that has three children and they are getting them out of the car seats and the parent next door is trying to open their door -- I mean are there issues with those kinds of things? Because it does seem to -- on top of your teachers you will probably also have a director there and an office and administration person there and so you're probably talking about like 23 to 25 people at any one time. So, then, does that -- with that issue that Commissioner Yearsley mentioned, how is that working with parents who are getting kids in and out of car seats and, you know, Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 1, 2018 – Page 11 of 137 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 18, 2018 Page 9 of 59 making sure the three year old isn't running across the parking lot. So, can you -- can you just go into more detail about that or do you not run into issues in that regard? Johnston: We generally don't run into issues. I know that, you know, the -- the directors and the owners take pride in what they do and it becomes a little family within the school and if the -- a director sees -- or an owner sees a mom struggling, obviously, that person will be going right out there and I have seen it personally where a director has excused themselves in one of our site visits to go help a mom, even if it's just to open a door to help get a stroller through. So, the support is there. Nothing is in place formally to address that. We try to orient our parking lots, so that the ones that are being used the most would be closer to the building to minimize any of that running away, that sort of thing. I don't have a formal answer for that, other than just I have seen it in person, that it's -- it's just kind of inspiring how it's a team, you know. It works. Perreault: Okay. Any more questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you very much. Johnston: Thank you. Perreault: At this time we will take public testimony. Is there anyone signed up? Johnson: There were people signed -- two folks signed in. Neither indicated they wished to testify. Perreault: Okay. Is there anybody else in the room that would like to come up and speak? Okay. All right. So, at this time can I get a motional to close public hearing for -- Wilson: Madam Chair? Perreault: -- Item H-2018-0108. Wilson: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Wilson. Wilson: I moved to close H-2018-0108. 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. Yearsley: Madam Chair? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 1, 2018 – Page 12 of 137 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 18, 2018 Page 10 of 59 Perreault: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: I appreciate the -- the work that they have gone into this. You know, when I first saw the application I was really concerned about traffic and getting kids in and out of this facility without causing a lot of a mess. You know, taking my daughter to high school can be quite a challenge sometimes. So, I am grateful for their planning and their experience that they have had this, so they can actually try to maximize or minimize the disruption. So, based on their discussion I feel comfortable moving this one -- or approving this one. Wilson: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Wilson. Wilson: I would just add I agree and I'm glad that area is going to develop a little bit and I think this is a good addition to that area, so I will be supporting the application. Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I would echo both commissioners' comments here. I think it looks like a good fit through a mixed use area. I appreciate all the details that they provided and the work they have put into it. Perreault: All right. Well, I also concur. I think this is a really good location and a needed location for a learning center like this. So, thank you for all the diligence that you have put into the design. Yearsley: Madam Chair? Wilson: Madam Chair? Oh. Yearsley: After considering all staff and applicant -- applicant and public testimony, I move to approve file number H-2018-0108 as presented in a staff report for the hearing date of October 18, 2018, with no modifications. Wilson: Second. Perreault: It has been moved and seconded to approve the public hearing for the Goddard School, H-2018 -- excuse me. H-2018-0108. All those in favor say aye. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. D. Public Hearing for Jocelyn Park Subdivision (H-2018-0100) by Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 1, 2018 – Page 13 of 137 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 18, 2018 Page 11 of 59 Jarron Langston, Located at the Southwest Corner of W. Victory Rd. and S . Meridian Rd. 1. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 23 building lots and 2 common lots on 13.32 acres of land in an R -8 Zoning District Perreault: At this time I would like to open the public hearing for Jocelyn Park Subdivision, H-2018-0100. Let's begin with the staff report. Beach: Good evening, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. This is a preliminary plat. The proximate site is near the southwest corner of Victory -- West Victory Road and South Meridian Road. An aerial shot, so you can kind of see what's going on in the area. The site consists of 13.32 acres of land, which is zoned R-8, located near the southwest corner of Victory and Meridian Road, as I mentioned. The property is surrounded by residential single family homes, which are zoned R-8 and R- 4. This property was annexed in 2013 as part of the Victory South Subdivision. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is medium density residential. The applicant is proposing to develop a site with 23 single family residential lots and two common lots. The gross density of the proposed plat is 1.73 dwelling units per acre, with a net density of 2.62, with a request to step down in density, the project falls within the target density of the medium density residential designation. The average lot size is greater than 15,000 square feet and all the proposed lots comply with the dimensional standards of the UDC. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed density is appropriate for the area and compatible with the adjacent uses and zoning. All adjacent residential uses are zoned RUT, R-8 and R-4 and the proposed zoning would be consistent. There is a concern with -- going back to the plat. Typically we require that the maximum block length -- if you recall we approved the Timberline Subdivision directly to the west of this project. I can pull up the aerial again. So, this -- this property here that appears undeveloped has been -- received preliminary plat approval and they did not require -- or did not provide a stub street, other than the one stub street to the north and so this -- this property exceeds the -- again exceeds the block length, but City Council can approve a maximum block length up to 1,200 square feet. So, the applicant is going to request for a -- an exception to that section of code. Access is provided via one access to Winnipeg Street to the east and one to the west, which is West Cumberland Drive. The applicant is proposing one additional stub street to the parcel to the north or east, depending on how you look at it. This -- this location here. Future connectivity and to limit direct access to West Victory Road. Sidewalks are required along all public streets as set forth in the UDC. The applicant's proposing to construct the five foot wide attached sidewalk along internal streets. Also required to install a five foot detached sidewalk along the entire frontage of West Victory Road. A minimum of ten percent qualified open space is required to be provided for the development in accord with UDC standards. Based on the area of the plat, which is 13.32 acres, a minimum of 1.33 acres of qualified open space is required to be provided. The applicant has proposed 19.9 percent or 2.65 acres of land as open space. All developments consisting of five Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 1, 2018 – Page 14 of 137 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 18, 2018 Page 12 of 59 or more acres are required to provide a minimum of one site amenity. One additional site amenity is required for each additional 20 acres. Based on the acres of 13.32, one qualified site amenity is required. The applicant is proposing a tot lot and a gazebo. The applicant on their landscape plan is showing the gazebo and the tot lot up in the northern common lot up near the Ridenbaugh Canal. There is also a large common lot to the south that will be a pond and some -- some open space in that area. Building elevations. The applicant's provided some conceptual building elevations that appear to meet UDC standards. Building materials appear to consist of a mix -- a variety of wood siding, cultured stone and stucco, with architectural shingles. The homes will not require design review, but should be constructed generally consistent with the submitted elevations and materials. Staff did not receive any written testimony. The applicant did provide some mockups of the play structure that they are providing near the Ridenbaugh Canal up on their northern common lot. Staff is recommending approval and I will stand for any questions you have. Perreault: Do Commissioners have any questions for staff? Yearsley: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: So, that -- that road that stubs to the east, are we not requiring a turnaround on that or is that not long enough to require a turnaround or what's the status of that one? Beach: I believe it's long enough to require a turnaround. I know that -- it looks like they are providing some sort of a turnaround on their own property. Yearsley: Are we talking the one on the -- the north? Because that one actually stubs into the -- Beach: Well, sure. Yearsley: The other one on the north side stubs to the -- Beach: Let me look at the staff report while we -- and I will get an answer for you. Perreault: Josh, would you like us to continue with the applicant's testimony? Beach: Please. Please. That was my intention. Yes. Perreault: Okay. Thank you. Would the applicant, please, come forward. State your name and address for the record, please. Villegas: Good evening. Victor Villegas. 141 East Carlton Avenue here in Meridian. I am with the law firm of Borton Lakey here representing the applicant tonight. Thank you Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 1, 2018 – Page 15 of 137 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 18, 2018 Page 13 of 59 for having me. Just to go straight to at least one of the questions from Mr. Yearsley and that has to do with the -- that street up there to the north. Looking at that and speaking to one of our design individuals, our understanding is that's supposed to be possibly a -- for future connectivity to that adjoining parcel. However, if that is a concern, one of the things that we would be willing to agree to is to have that as a condition of approval that will -- will bulb that out for now and, then, as it opens up to -- if that site ever develops, then, that would allow for future connectivity to that. Again, just -- just looking at the -- the staff report, as well as the site specific conditions of approval, we really have no objections to what staff has said about this -- this project. In fact, I believe the conclusion of the staff report is that this application exceeds the minimum standards of the UDC and we agree with that. Looking at the -- the findings that this Commission and the City Council need to look at in terms of recommending and ultimately approving a preliminary plat -- first of all, the plat has to be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioners, you have heard the testimony from -- from staff and it's also indicated in the staff report itself that this application does conform with the Comprehensive Plan. The area out there is -- I believe it's medium -- medium density residential and this application meets that designation in the comp plan. The -- one of the other findings is that there are public services available or can be made available adequate to accommodate the proposed development. Staff has -- has found and recommended that public services will be available upon development of this project. We believe that to be accurate as well. There has to be a finding that the development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or general welfare. We are not aware of any special site specific conditions that would make this application detrimental to the public health. There is a -- one of the other findings is that the plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the city's capital improvement plan. This subdivision will not require capital improvement funds, because the development will be providing the -- the utilities. Or will be available to it. Interestingly, one of the -- one of the other findings is that the developer preserved significant natural scenic or historic features. There are none. This current site used to be a storage lagoon and so we are -- we are making this site better by -- by placing single family detached homes on the site. There was one other comment I read in the staff report. It had to do with the type of playground that was going to be used in the tot lot, but as the Commission saw, there was a picture that was submitted to staff that I think that probably, hopefully, addresses staff's concern with regard to what type of playground structure was going to be placed on the tot lot. With that said I stand for any questions. Perreault: Commissioners, are there any questions for the applicant? Yearsley: Madam Mayor? Perreault: Mr. Yearsley. Yearsley: I -- it was kind of hard to tell, but is there going to be a fence between the -- the open space and the -- there is a canal running through the north end of that property, too; is that not correct? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 1, 2018 – Page 16 of 137 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 18, 2018 Page 14 of 59 Beach: Commissioner Yearsley, there is. If you look at your landscape plan where my mouse is, it shows where the fence is located. Yearsley: Okay. And that's why I wanted to make sure. And then -- I know this is probably beyond my scope, but given that this was a lagoon or -- is there going to be some significant grading? Are we going to make this look like a depression? Or do -- do we have a plan for what they are wanting to do on the grading of this, given that it's in a depression? Villegas: Commissioner Yearsley, I -- I would hazard to guess that since it is -- it looks like a depression now, that I'm sure the city engineers are going to require that -- that the property be brought to grade in order to -- to have an adequate base to build these single family dwellings. Yearsley: That's all I have. Thank you. Perreault: Anymore questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you. Villegas: Thank you. Perreault: Is there anyone here to testify? Johnson: Madam Chair, we had one sign in wishing to testify. Kimberly Juarez. Perreault: Please come forward. Do you see Kimberly? Johnson: Yeah. She was signed in for multiples. I'm not sure if she's physically here. Perreault: Okay. If she's not present is there anyone else in the room that would like to testify? Okay. Yearsley: I guess, Madam Chair, did we find out what we are doing on that cul-de-sac or was that going to be a cul-de-sac or what? Beach: So, Commissioner Yearsley, the -- the staff report as you see in front of you does not have that condition in there, but fire has indicated that anything over 150 feet requires there to be a turnaround. So, they will have to accommodate that somehow. Yearsley: Okay. Beach: It's about 218 feet. Yearsley: So, there is a -- there is a condition that they have to meet. Okay. Perreault: Thank you. At this time can I get a motion to close the public hearing? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 1, 2018 – Page 17 of 137 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 18, 2018 Page 15 of 59 Wilson: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Wilson. Wilson: I moved to close the public hearing for H-2018-0100. 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. Yearsley: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Yearsley. You know, this is actually a -- a nice in-fill project to finally get that whole area kind of cleaned up and the mess that it had gone through. So, I think they have done a pretty decent job making it look good and, then, trying to meet the look of that area. I know we caused the condition for the longer block length, so I -- I think we recommend that that be approved through City Council. But it's not our condition to approve. But overall I think the houses look really nice and I think it will be a really nice subdivision. Wilson: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Wilson. Wilson: Just to add one point. I'm in support, too. I just -- I appreciate the open space. I think we are scrutinizing things like that and have been, rightly so. We can be a little more selective in our requirements and I appreciate stuff like that. Like the open space and -- and I think -- I agree it's a good project. Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I echo the same comments. I think they have -- they have done a nice job of including some open space, providing some -- some good future planning here and I don't see any concerns. I would like to -- I don't know if we need to make a note in our motion that they have that bulb out or if that's something that would just be taken care of by the requirements for fire. Beach: You're asking about the -- the turnaround for the 150 foot road section? If you - - add that as a condition if you would like to. I think that's probably not a -- not a terrible idea. We don't have that as a specific condition, but I know that the fire department Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 1, 2018 – Page 18 of 137 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 18, 2018 Page 16 of 59 holds those -- those -- the developers to that standard. If you would like I can pull up the staff report and you can make that a condition if you want to, just to make sure our bases are covered. Perreault: I think it's a good idea. Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I believe -- if we just make a motion, you will make a note to add that in the future? Beach: Absolutely. Yeah. Holland: Okay. Beach: Tell me what you want me to do. Perreault: Commissioner Holland, would you like to make a motion? Holland: Sure. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number H-2018-0100 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 18th, 2018, with the following modification: That we amend the staff report in the conditions and mitigation measures, Section 8, 1.1.9, that the -- there would be a bulb out at the -- Yearsley: Northeast. Holland: -- the northeast corner of the parcel where the road comes out. Yearsley: Second. Perreault: Okay. It has been moved and seconded to approve Item No. H-2018-0100 with modifications to the staff report. All those in favor aye? Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. E. Public Hearing for Rockbury Townhomes (H-2018-0091) by Michael Nigh, Located North of W. Chinden Blvd. on the West side on N. Tree Farm Way 1. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 47 residential lots and 8 common lots on 6.23 acres of land in an R -15 zoning Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 1, 2018 – Page 19 of 137 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 18, 2018 Page 17 of 59 district Perreault: At this time we will open the public hearing for Rockbury Townhomes, H- 2018-0091, and let's begin with the staff report. Beach: Before you is another preliminary plat. This site consists of 6.23 acres of land, which is zoned R-15, located at 4373 West Treecrest Drive. The property is surrounded by residential uses to the west, north, and east and a future church to the south, zoned C-N. The property was annexed into the city in 2006 as Tree Farm Subdivision and received preliminary plat approval in 2017. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is medium density residential. The applicant proposes to develop the site with 47 single family residential lots and eight common lots. The gross density is 5.8 dwelling units per acre, with a net density of 12.4, which falls within the target density of the medium density residential designation. Gross density for the subdivision is 5.8 as I said. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed density is appropriate for the area and compatible with the adjacent uses and zoning. Also compatible with the conceptual development plan that was approved with the development agreement back when the property was annexed in 2006. Development of the site is required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in the UDC for the R-15 district. The average lot size is 3,527 square feet. All of the proposed lots comply with the dimensional standards. Vehicular access is proposed for this site. One access to North Tree Farm Way to the east and an emergency access to the north -- or to West Treecrest Drive. That applicant is proposing to construct a private street to provide access and circulation within the development. The UDC requires private streets to be constructed within -- within -- within an easement and have a travel lane width of 24 or 26 feet. No allowed parking as determined by the fire marshal. The proposed private streets are all internal to the development or are to be constructed as a combination of 25 and 27 foot street sections. The applicant is proposing to share the private street with pedestrian and vehicles. Staff initially had concerns with that and what you see before you here is the applicant's changes to some of the conditions of approval from the staff report. I will go through those in just a second here for you. Initially there was concern about parking. The applicant has provided some additional parking here internally. Three spaces, plus an ADA stall close to their community structure, a fountain and a plaza area for their project. Also included a sidewalk around a central -- see where my mouse is here. So, you can see it's a combination of on-street pedestrian connectivity and, then, you can see where my mouse is, a sidewalk going back across the street and there is a four foot sidewalk that goes around the entire center area of the development, as well as several pedestrian connections out to sidewalks that will be constructed along Treecrest and Tree Haven Way and several -- as I said, several -- it's a private street, so there will be gates and they are required to have pedestrian access to those gates as well. Ten percent qualified open space is required, again, for this development based on the area of the plat, which is 6.23 acres, a minimum of 0.62 acres of qualified open space are required. The applicant is providing 0.66 acres or 11 percent open space. Site amenities include a plaza, water feature, and a community structure. Also accommodates mail. Building elevations have been submitted by the applicant. Pretty consistent mix. A variety of wood siding with architectural shingles. The applicant will Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 1, 2018 – Page 20 of 137 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 18, 2018 Page 18 of 59 be required to submit a certificate of zoning compliance application for any required parking as shown on their site plan, as well as administrative design review for any attached single family homes. The majority of the structures are attached -- I shouldn't say the majority. All of them are attached. There is a combination of two and four structures -- or single family attached homes connected. The R-15, the side setback is three feet. Initially staff had concerns about the number of the ability of -- and the ability of guests to park within the development. Even if it was a public street, the majority of the structures -- there are driveways, so there is not a whole lot of area to park, because it is a private street and with the narrow width of the streets, the fire marshal has restricted it to -- it's all just a fire lane. There is no parking anywhere within the development, exception of on driveways, so there is two cars acquired in a -- and each individual parcel is required to have two stalls in a -- in a garage, plus two in a driveway, and we have asked the applicant to make a proposal for additional parking and so they have done that with these four stalls. Have not received any written testimony on this application. Staff is recommending approval. They have made some -- some strides to make some improvements since the staff report was written. There are still some concerns about parking into the development as far as staff is concerned, but we are still recommending approval. I will stand for any questions. Perreault: Any questions for staff? Yearsley: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: Josh, did I hear that you're -- they are proposing four foot sidewalks? Beach: Correct. Just to further explain that, we don't require sidewalks with private streets, so they are -- they are proposing four foot. Yearsley: I just find four feet is really hard to walk side by side with somebody, so that's -- that's my only concern with the four foot sidewalks. Perreault: Any other questions for staff? Okay. Would the applicant, please, come forward. Please state your name and address for the record. Nigh: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Michael Nigh. Address is 904 Madrid Avenue, Torrance, California. 90501. Just wanted to give a quick overview. Staff has already done an excellent job in detailing this project, but as a -- just a point of reference, a quick overview. The Rockbury North, which is this project, is a planned development, consisting of 47 single family dwellings. The project is designed as a gated, fully maintain community, with on-site amenities, as well as access to Spurwing Country Club by means of their lifestyle membership. The on-site amenities include a water feature, plaza, clubhouse, dog walk park area and walking paths surrounding the development. The secure interior is maintained through wrought iron fencing around the perimeter and between the units. Walking path access gates are located on all four Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 1, 2018 – Page 21 of 137 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 18, 2018 Page 19 of 59 sides of the development, as well as through the -- where they drive the cars. The interior of the development is accessed on the east side by the main vehicular gate. The subdivision will be maintained by a homeowner's association. Rockbury has been in preliminary discussions with Spurwing HOA and we anticipate that Rockbury North will becoming a sub association of that -- of that HOA -- of the master Spurwing HOA and we believe that this will help create a continuity between all of the subdivisions there in the Spurwing development. The design and the structural feel of the project is currently in development, with preliminary design elevations, which we have included with our package submitted to the city. The design is being created to fit well within and complement the overall structural feel and architecture of the community at large. The townhome concept isn't new to the Treasure Valley market, but in this area it's relatively underdeveloped. We believe that this design and concept adds additional housing options, while maintaining the quality and integrity already established in the north Meridian location. A well developed combination of wood siding, stone, stucco, metal railing, trees, trellis, porches, rooftop patios, interior site lighting and extensive landscaping will help create luxurious feel of our planned community and at this point I will take any questions you may. Perreault: Are there any questions for the applicant? Yearsley: Have you built many of these elsewhere? Nigh: No. Our other projects have been smaller in scope. We have developed some out in Nampa is our other project, but that was more of a multi-family apartment quad type living. So, this is relatively new to us, but yes. Yearsley: Okay. Perreault: I have a few questions. Regarding the three foot setbacks, was that -- can you give some more -- three foot setbacks, there are a few communities in this area that have those, but they are -- they are pretty rare and so we always, as a Commission -- well, I shouldn't say always. We tend to have some caution with those and so I'm just curious is -- was that for the intention of getting a certain number of units in or -- you know. And -- and also how are the eaves going to work and -- can you just give a little more information about that, please? Nigh: Yeah. Actually, I have got Pete Rockwell with R.S. Rockwell Architects here. He can address any of the architectural part of that. And Leslie is here with Breckon Land Design who can address some of the land issues. Perreault: Okay. Yearsley: So, I'm -- I guess before he comes up, Madam Chair? Perreault: Okay. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 1, 2018 – Page 22 of 137 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 18, 2018 Page 20 of 59 Yearsley: So, I just want to clarify that you're proposing for four foot sidewalks on the interior. Would you have any heartburn to go to five foot sidewalks? Nigh: Well, if -- if you look on the site plan, what we have established, in addition to the four foot sidewalk, which is an additional amenity for people to access is we have a -- a paver section, it's beside the road, for additional access that because of the variation in -- from asphalt to pavers creates a walk area, even crosswalks through the development that can be delineated as additional access walking areas. So, we feel like between the two of them it would create enough access, plus designating the areas of ten mile an hour speed limit will -- and it's a relatively smaller -- it's not -- it's not very large. So, with those two we believe that it will give people sufficient access from outside in and also circulation within the development. Perreault: So, you won't have a curb? Nigh: Right. Perreault: Okay. And before he comes up, as far as the parking goes, staff had -- had mentioned their concerns about parking. Is there any possibility or interest in -- instead of having the three spots with the ADA spot there next to the plaza, maybe bringing that part in just a little bit and putting some parallel parking around that section? Nigh: We can provide additional parking and Leslie maybe able to address this with the 50 by 100 space required for the open -- Perreault: Uh-huh. Nigh: -- we had -- we slid the parking up into -- by the clubhouse. She may be able to address if we are able to provide additional nose-in parking versus parallel parking -- Perreault: Okay. Nigh: -- in that area. We have also -- I spoke with Josh Beach earlier today about providing additional parking in the -- it would be the northwest corner -- Perreault: Uh-huh. Nigh: -- we have -- and the question that -- at that point was can we provide that off of what is essentially a private drive, which he's indicated that we can. So, we can provide some additional parking there. We have a dog park, a walk area established for that right now, but if -- if we need to we can provide some additional spaces there. Perreault: And you feel like you can still stay in with -- within the ten percent open space requirement -- Nigh: Yes. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 1, 2018 – Page 23 of 137 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 18, 2018 Page 21 of 59 Perreault: -- doing that? Okay. And, then, can you just give a -- a little further explanation of the use of that clubhouse. Nigh: The clubhouse is a -- it's a meeting area for people that live in the development. So, if you have a family over, a large group that you want to do an outdoor barbecue or just a place to meet, it will have restrooms and a kitchen -- Perreault: Okay. Nigh: -- kitchenette. So, that's a place that people can have family get togethers, a little meeting room and it will be run by the HOA. Perreault: Okay. Nigh: So -- yeah. Perreault: Yeah. Is there -- what's the time we have left for the applicant? It's not showing up on my screen. Johnson: When you start questions I stop the time. Perreault: Oh. Okay. Okay. Johnson: Whatever you want. Perreault: If he would like to come forward that would be great. Rockwell: Commissioners, my name is Pete Rockwell. I live at 664 East Parkway Court, Boise, Idaho. On the question of the -- the three foot setback, it was a combination of things. So, this is basically a townhouse development, so it's groups of single family homes gathered together in groups of twos, threes, and fours. So, those are, you know, squished together and, then, there is -- there is three feet on each of the other lots. So, we are six feet apart in probably about three or four locations only in this whole 47 deal. The other -- the two walkways north and south have got walkways that are 12 to 15 feet wide and then -- plus an entry there is more space, too. So, I don't think that the three foot setback is a problem on this anywhere. As far as eaves, I think we are allowed, you know, 18 inches into that setback. Have to check that out, make sure I'm accurate on that, so that's how we would handle those. Anything else? Perreault: Any additional questions? Okay. Thank you very much. Rockwell: Thank you. Perreault: At this time we will take public testimony. Is there anyone signed up? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 1, 2018 – Page 24 of 137 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 18, 2018 Page 22 of 59 Johnson: The only sign in was Kimberly Juarez. Perreault: Please come forward. Albert: Good evening. I'm Jane Albert, 6628 North Salvia Way in Meridian in Spurwing Greens. I have a couple of questions, more than just comments. I -- I have some concern about -- in the project folder there was -- there was something called color renderings and that's very different than what's being shown tonight in the application on the staff report. It doesn't show elevations even close to what we are seeing here and it also shows -- I am concerned about also this -- the clubhouse building. I'm not sure where that shows on the site plan that's being shown here. Also on the color renderings there -- this is referred to as Spurwing Townhomes. So, I have some questions about that and I don't know how to ask the applicant or the developer. Perreault: The applicant will have time to come back up and answer. Albert: All right. I also had a question about the landscape buffer on Tree Haven Way. What that's -- what that's going to look like and what the size of that is. When I was looking through the application I saw that the fire department -- I have a question on the fire department sign off. The last communication I see is in August of 2017 and I didn't see an agency comment and they were talking about changing the radiuses and such, so I'm just curious about that. Also I spoke before the Spurwing homeowners association meeting last night about this project and asked if it was -- if they had approached us about joining the master association and the answer was -- actually was that they had not talked to them -- or talked about coming into the master association and I don't believe that if so that these elevations would meet the architectural requirements. So, those are my concerns. Perreault: Okay. Thank you. I think between the staff and the applicant we probably can answer a good majority of those. Is there anyone else here that would like to testify? Please come forward. Karnes: Good evening. My name is Susan Karnes. I live at 5556 South Graphite Way here in Meridian. I apologize for my voice. I have got a little laryngitis. We have a concern about this project. I have a family member who recently moved into a similar project in Boise and here you have a community center planned in a gated community, but where are people going to park? When we have a family gathering we have 20 people in our family and I think this is scant parking. I think it's totally inadequate. And I say that having tried to negotiate her new living situation in Boise and I think we really set the bar very low if we are willing to accept 11 percent green space in such a desirable part of our city. So, I don't think that the green space is adequate. I certainly don't think that parking is either and those are my concerns. Perreault: Thank you. Karnes: Thank you. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 1, 2018 – Page 25 of 137 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 18, 2018 Page 23 of 59 Perreault: Did I see someone over -- please come forward. Lupher: Hi. My name is Shelley Lupher. I live at 7030 North Sienna Glen Way in Meridian. A few points I wanted to make as a resident that lives near this development, I did read Mindy's report about the traffic. I was a little concerned that a traffic study is not required, specifically because of, A, the approved Costco development. The fact that this development -- or this intersection, rather, is already approximately 20 percent over the planned capacity. The trips that will be generated by this development, even though it is small, represent ten percent of the capacity that was of that intersection as it was designed and we are already way over that and, then, adding the church on top of that creates additional traffic problems. In analyzing the church traffic and getting out of that intersection, we estimate that leaving that intersection on a Sunday after church lets out will take 38 minutes to get out of that intersection to clear all of that area, because there is only about seven cars that get to turn left at that intersection at one time. So, it's a big concern. Thirty-eight minutes is life or death for someone who is having an ambulance type situation. I was surprised to see these elevations I guess they are called, that significantly vary from what was originally presented to homeowners. These are extremely bland, boring. We actually showed them at our board meeting last night and someone thought that they looked like tract homes or low income housing. So, this does not definitely meet with the architectural standards that are in our community at this time. I have a concern about this -- basically it's three long straight streets in this neighborhood. The longest one on the south side is 630 something feet, which if you can imagine in your head is the length of two football fields long of houses that are exactly lined up with one another. That is monotonous and repetitive and people don't respond well to that type of architecture in their environment. It actually is a negative. In addition, I didn't see anything from the fire department report or e-mail exchange that said that -- how are they going to respond -- if you say, well, I'm in the gray townhouse with the white door, how are they going to find it in all of this monotonous repetitive building. Additionally concerned about the green space being eaten up -- and I see that my time is out, so I will end. I think that at this point there are just too many unknowns and too many other things to do research and verify to make an approval. Thank you. Perreault: Is there anyone else that would like to testify? Okay. Can I get a motion to close the public hearing? I'm sorry. My apologies. Would the applicant like to come back and respond, please? Nigh: Yes. Thank you. In regards to -- there were several comments made about the renderings of the initial brochure. When we had our initial meeting with the neighborhood about a year ago we had some preliminary drawings that were distributed to -- as some mockups of what was happening in the plaza and just very basic drawings of the buildings. They were more like placeholders. Since that time we have had some redesign done by architect and that's what you see before you right now. So, that's the -- the updated from what was originally expressed by the concerned people, so -- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 1, 2018 – Page 26 of 137 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 18, 2018 Page 24 of 59 Perreault: Do you know about how long ago those were submitted to staff? How long have they been available for the public to view? Nigh: Since August. Perreault: August. Nigh: Yeah. Since we submitted our package the first of August those elevations have been available. It's the same ones. Perreault: Okay. Nigh: Another comment was made about Spurwing Townhomes. Again, that was a placeholder a year ago when we were starting the process. We didn't have a name, which we still don't for the development, so we were just -- we had just put a placeholder name on there and it was called Spurwing Townhomes just as a designation of what was -- where it was going and what it was versus an actual name for the product. So, it will not have either of those names in the signage that ultimately ends up at the -- at the development. One question was on the landscaping on Tree Haven Way. There is a minimum of a ten foot landscape buffer from back of sidewalk. So, that's the minimum size that would be developed on the landscaping, so just to answer that question. We weren't sure what size that was. As far as traffic goes, yes, our development is small. It definitely will have an impact. We have already been notified that we will not be given any building permits until the road on Black Cat is opened up, so the people will be able to have an additional access point to -- to Chinden. It will be not only off Tree Farm Way, but also off of Black Cat. And in regards to the church, we are really not part of that project. We don't really have anything to do with it. They have to deal with their own traffic and when they come to submit for their -- for their project. Adequate parking. When we receive notification from staff that additional parking would be required or requested, we didn't have a number, so we didn't know exactly what we were dealing with as far as spaces. So, as we mentioned before we do have some additional area that we can expand for additional parking needs and we can work with staff on that to make sure that they have additional spaces within the -- within the development itself. As far as the fire department access and notification, all the buildings they are -- all the units are single family. They are addressed just like any other home is and so I don't think the identification of that -- they have their own emergency access if needed that they can access the site and they will be able to easily determine which house they need to respond to. I think that was all the questions that -- unless you think of something else that needs to be addressed. Perreault: Can you also address the concern regarding the master subdivision not being aware that Rockbury would like to join? Nigh: I don't know -- we have been working with Joy, who is the representative -- what's Joy's last name? Jones. Joy Jones. So, we have had quite a few discussions with her Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 1, 2018 – Page 27 of 137 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 18, 2018 Page 25 of 59 in regards to that in actually formatting and developing the agreement for our development. So, maybe it hasn't gotten to all the people yet, don't know, because it's still at the HOA level, so -- Perreault: Okay. Commissioners, do you have any more questions for the applicant? Yearsley: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: So, I have been kind of mulling over the parking and -- and what is -- what is a decent number and trying to pinpoint kind of what a -- what a good range is and going back and forth. I -- would -- would you be amenable to like .2 parking stalls per unit? That would put you about ten total parking spaces. Nigh: I believe that will put us -- if we take -- if we do ten that will put us over -- as far as our open space it will reduce that even more. We do have parking on Tree Haven Way to the east. So, there is parking out there if need be. Beach: Commissioner Yearsley, if I could quickly, the required open space is -- we call it qualified open space and it has to be 50 by 100 anyway. So, the area over here on the northwest doesn't count for qualified open space anyway -- Yearsley: Uh-huh. Beach: -- and so I think that not -- kind of eyeballing it, you really could get five or six parking spaces in that area and if it was straight on and back into that common driveway I think that probably gets you most of the way to ten. Yearsley: Okay. Nigh: Probably get us pretty close. Perreault: Any other questions for the applicant? Okay. Nigh: Thank you. Perreault: Thank you. Wilson: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Wilson. Wilson: I move to close the public hearing on H-2018-0091. Holland: Second. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 1, 2018 – Page 28 of 137 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 18, 2018 Page 26 of 59 Perreault: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for Roxbury Townhomes, H-2018-0091. All those in favor say aye. None opposed. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I think one of the biggest concerns noted is -- is the parking and also the open space. I always hate when you have to get rid of more green space for parking. I wish that there could just be a way of adding more green space and more parking, but, obviously, that's not something we can necessarily control too much. I like having the green space in the middle of the plaza, because I think it makes it nice for all the residents to be able to access it evenly, rather than having it on just one side of the parcel. That's my initial thought for now. I might have more later. Yearsley: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: You know, I think this is not a bad mix for this area, understanding the area that it's at. I agree, I do like the open space and -- but, yeah, I am concerned and I don't want to put a burden on the other neighbors by having them park on Tree Haven is -- is my concern. I have been going through while he has been talking of different iterations on what percentage -- you know, what -- what made perfect sense and, you know, I just gut feel I think that .2 is not a bad -- still I would be curious to see what your thoughts is, because that puts it about 9.4. So, it would be ten -- ten spaces, so -- and I think he could probably work some of that in there as possible. Wilson: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Wilson. Wilson: I mean I think that's reasonable. I don't know, Bill usually is the advocate for more parking and he excels at that, but I think -- I mean I think that that's -- I think that's a reasonable compromise and, again, sometimes you got to make trade offs. Perreault: I would like to see an extra spot or two there in the -- in the middle area to kind of even it out and not have it all clustered on the one end. Be nice to even add some additional parking farther -- farther to the east, but -- but if there was a few spots added there in the center and, then, five or six spots added on the west side, I think that would accommodate nicely. Three foot setbacks always give me pause, even -- even though technically they can be applied for in the R-15 zone, they just -- they do. I'm curious my fellow Commissioners' thoughts on it in this application. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 1, 2018 – Page 29 of 137 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 18, 2018 Page 27 of 59 Yearsley: Madam Chair. I -- I agree. The three foot setbacks are -- are really tight. However, we live next door to the Sobe Subdivision and they have the three foot setbacks and, you know, for the most part it -- it's -- it's not bad. I mean it -- you know, it's not the greatest thing to look at, but, you know, it does have enough of a break there that, you know, you can kind of separate between the different homes and so -- Perreault: Is that with -- just with a single levels there or with the -- Yearsley: They put two stories in there as well, so -- Perreault: Okay. Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I think my -- my comment with the three foot setbacks -- I tend to -- I agree, too. I like to have more setbacks, because I like that more space between it when you're wanting to walk between properties. When you're looking at a townhome product I think it's less critical, because they are already attached units, but since they are not detached units I don't have as much pause for concern. I still always like to see a little bit more setbacks when we can. Perreault; Yeah. I agree. I also agree with Commissioner Yearsley's comments regarding not parking on Tree Haven. That -- that street is -- is already very full and I don't -- I don't think we should add any additional expectation to that. Okay. Josh, were you looking at something regarding the fire department comments -- agency comments? Beach: The only real concern they had was making sure that it was signed no parking, fire lane. Other than that they didn't really have a concern with access. We got comments from them on response times and resources available and -- the majority of the concern was just making sure that it was signed appropriately for no parking. Perreault: Okay. Yearsley: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I moved to recommend approval to the City Council of file number H-2018-0091 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 18th, 2018, with the following modification: That the off -- or offsite parking or off-street parking within this compound have to -- meet a .2 per lot or per home parking requirement and that's all. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 1, 2018 – Page 30 of 137 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 18, 2018 Page 28 of 59 Wilson: Second. Holland: Madam Chair? Commissioner Yearsley, one clarification question for you on your motion. Do we want to have them revise this map and have that for Council for consideration? Yearsley: I think they -- they need to have that so they can show that they can meet that condition, yes. Wilson: Second. Beach: Quickly. Staff's recommendation is just -- if you want ten just, just have them provide ten parking spaces. That's cleaner and you don't have to worry about arithmetic errors or whatever. Yearsley: All right. I think ten would be good. I will make my -- make that change to ten and have those -- those site plans revised to show those ten space before City Council. Wilson: Second. Perreault: Okay. It has been moved and seconded to approve Rockbury Townhomes, H-2018-0091, with stated modifications. All those in favor. None opposed. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. F. Public Hearing for Residential District Naming Convention Text Amendment (H-2018-0059) by DevCo Development LLC 1. Request: A Text Amendment to Change the Naming Convention of the Residential Districts of R-2, R-4, R-8, R-15 and R-40 to R-A, R-B, R-C, R-D, R-D and R-E, and Modify Other Related Sections in Chapters 1 - 3 of the Unified Development Code ( UDC) to Coincide with the Proposed Naming Convention Perreault: Next we will open the public hearing for Residential District Naming Convention Text Amendment, H-2018-0059, and begin with the staff report. Parsons: That was a mouth full. Good evening, Members of the Commission. The last item on the agenda this evening is the UDC text amendment before you. This request is actually coming before you from a private request. It's not a staff-initiated request as you typically see. Just for the members in the audience -- and the one thing that I would Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 1, 2018 – Page 31 of 137 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 18, 2018 Page 29 of 59 like to point out to the Commission this evening is staff is continuing to receive public testimony on this application even during the hearing as it's going on now. So, I just want to share that with you, that there is -- this is a hot topic this evening, so stay tuned and we will try to give you those updated numbers. I don't know exactly where we are at now, but maybe the clerk can chime in and let us know how many people have signed up in opposition to this particular project. First of all, I want the Commission and the audience to really focus on the summary table that's before you and the reason why this slide came about was the same reason that we are talking about this requested change before you this evening. In the past there has been some confusion in the way our zoning ordinance is being applied and what I mean by that is if you look at the zoning designations on here -- so, we have -- in our zoning ordinance we have a low density residential zone, a medium high density residential zone, et cetera, et cetera. But we do -- what we do on the map is we have an abbreviated version for those type -- those zoning districts that are in our -- are in our zoning ordinance and that correlates to an R-2 and R-4 and R-8 zoning district. Well, a few years ago our zoning ordinance did have a maximum -- maximum density requirement in our code. That came before this body and ultimately went to be for City Council and that density requirement -- maximum density requirement was removed from the code and we wanted the comp plan to guide density for our city, because that's the vision document that we use when we look at these development applications. So, keep that in context. So, when we -- when we look at those areas or when they come in, we have to make those findings that they are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. This is something that we have talked about for a long time and so this graphic that's before you was kind of what spurred that conversation or -- or that change. Now, we realize once we have made that UDC text amendment and took out that density requirement of the code, that the R- 2, R-4, R-8 could still imply density and we had talked about at some point meeting with our UDC focus group and having a larger discussion with our community partners. That was -- that's -- those conversations have occurred, but not -- they are not vetted enough to come back and bring it forward to you. So, the applicant was willing to go ahead and do that and have that conversation with -- with you this evening. So, really, the application before you this evening is twofold. There is actually two requests that are being proposed to be amended. One has to do, again, with the map symbol of our residential zoning districts and how they displayed on our -- our zoning maps and how they are defined in our code -- or not really defined, but displayed in our code. And the other one is changing dimensional standards for R-15 zoning districts. As you look through the staff report, this one simple change affects multiple areas in our staff report and multiple -- or multiple sections in our zoning ordinance and so even though it's one - - on paper it looks like it's an easy change to modify that, it isn't, you have to go through every section of code to make sure that everywhere it says R-2, R-4, R-8, R-15, it has to be changed in a 300 page document and so the staff brings that up a little bit longer as I continue to work on it. So, I'm not going to highlight all of the changes as part of the UDC text amendment, but I can tell you from the public testimony that we are receiving - - this seems to be the crux of the conversations on what we are hearing and the main focus for why the neighbors are concerned is because we are in the middle of a Comprehensive Plan update and a lot of the residents want to be part of that process and they are part of that process giving us feedback. So, I do want to go on record and Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 1, 2018 – Page 32 of 137 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 18, 2018 Page 30 of 59 say that this particular change doesn't affect the update to the Comprehensive Plan, this is merely to try to clean up something that we wanted to clean up a few years ago and just haven't had a chance to do that, at least on staff's time frame. We had always envisioned coming back to this, we just weren't ready to do it yet. But the applicant, again, was ready to do that. So, again, what the applicant is proposing this evening with the R -- to change R-2, R-4, R-8, R-15, R-40 to an R-A, R-B, R-C, R-D, R-E designation. We don't think that's the right way to go either and that way -- that's the reason why in my staff report staff recommended the changes that you see before you on the screen. If you look at the other zoning designations below our residential zones, you can see that this is in alignment with many other districts that we have in our zoning ordinance. So, again, we realize there needs to be a change, I'm not advocating this is the best change at this time, but what I'm saying is this is the most consistent change and the one that makes the most sense if the Commission and Council decide to approve this change and that's why we have that R-LD, R-MLD, it's consistent, again, with the rest of the zoning districts. The other item that I would like to point out to you as part of this change is something you should take into consideration. So, I did a quick query in our GIS map and realizing that we have over 39,000 parcels that are zoned R- 4 -- R-2, R-4, R-8 all the way through to R-40 zone and that number continually increases as plats and subdivisions record, we get more and more of these lots. That communication has not been shared with those residents and the reason why is because typically when you go through a zoning ordinance amendment the code does not require that we notify residents and it does not require a neighborhood meeting, but the fact that we have this many neighbors here testifying -- or citizens here testifying and advocating to you this evening, I'm very impressed that we have that much turnout for a UDC text amendment, because typically we don't. So, that's why the process is a little bit different than when you have a parcel specific application before you. So, keep that in mind. We have -- and the Ada County Assessor's Office is also going to have to change all of those zoning districts for those particular parcels as well and as I mentioned to you, we are in a Comprehensive Plan update as well. So, just keep that in mind. But, again, this is meant to align with how it's written in a Comprehensive Plan, too, and should not affect that if this were to go into effect. Now, the other request is specific to our R-15 dimensional standards and currently -- I just want to give you a little bit of context on this particular change and why it came forward from the applicant. As you recall this was continued out for several months and the main purpose was to get this one caught up and marry up with the residential name change or the maps, then, will change that I just shared with you. Essentially what has happened is the applicant came before you, got approval of an East Ridge project if you recall and Movado Village and what that is is a cluster development with central -- space in a centralized amenity package. So, the yards themselves, the homes that are built on those lots don't necessarily have any yards per se, all of those amenities and open space are centralized for all residents to use and all the maintenance of that particular development are maintained by one HOA, but what we realized is as they came forward and try to get building permits they realized that the code didn't really speak to how to apply the setbacks to developments to access a public street and/or common driveways. Additionally, what staff has done is when someone comes in with a common driveway code tells us that we get an exhibit, they are supposed to show us how those Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 1, 2018 – Page 33 of 137 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 18, 2018 Page 31 of 59 homes fit on that lot to ensure that those homes meet establish setbacks of that R-15 district. Again, we found out that there is a little bit of a difference of opinion in interpretation in how that is applied and that's why the applicant thought they wanted to bring this forward and just clarify on the record and in code how they think these setbacks should be applied. So, the graphic before you this evening shows the new setbacks that the applicant's proposing. Again, these aren't currently in code, this is something that we discussed with the applicant at length and spent a lot of staff time on it, to be quite honest with you, with the applicant and trying to find a solution. So, a couple things is those particular projects that they have had entitled currently and are under construction and constructing homes as we currently speak, those particular projects all have private streets and they are gated communities. So, these specific changes, again, wouldn't apply to an R-15 development that was a typical traditional subdivision. So, if it was a 5,000 square foot lot and it was still zoned R-15, he would still have the front yard, two side yards and a rear yard. These proposed changes are mainly meant to coincide with those specific developments that have access to a common driveway and/or a private street. The applicant did provide an exhibit trying to demonstrate how that would work and staff is also recommending some changes to what they are proposing for you this evening. So, here on -- the graphic on the left- hand side shows how the -- the setbacks would apply as proposed by the applicant. You can see a zero -- a zero foot setback or a three foot setback. Again, they are asking for a one and a half foot setback for the homes as a -- from the common driveway and, then, anything along a private street would still be ten feet, which is consistent with an R-8 and R-15 zone today. So, again, as far as street frontage, they are still -- they are fine with a ten foot setback. That's -- there is not a change there. I think that's a -- that's a good thing to have. Staff's concerned with -- and, again, they have given you some aerial photography to kind of demonstrate what that would look like in the real world. What we are concerned with with some of these setbacks -- and I think we have called that out in the staff report -- is that currently the City of Meridian does not have a drainage -- a drainage ordinance in effect. We rely on the building code to tell us how to handle that. The applicant hasn't really showed staff how this would work with a three foot setback, if it was the entire boundary of the development and so just bring that up to you, we don't know how that's going to work and, hopefully, the applicant can elaborate a little bit more for you on that and what we are also not in favor of is the one and a half foot setback from the common driveway. You can see in that lower right-hand corner here you can see where that house does project closely to that common driveway. Now, keep in mind their proposal is not to have the entire facade be one and a half feet from the common drive, their proposal is for no more than 50 percent of the facade be located within that setback, that one and a half foot setback. Staff is recommending that it -- it just be a three foot setback in its entirety. The other -- the other things that I want to point out to you is the requirement for the 12 foot along the perimeter. So, for example, those -- the applicant, if they were going to have these cluster homes, anything that was along the perimeter or adjacent to a single family home development or traditional subdivision, would still have that adequate separation and setback from those adjacent residents. So, it would transition or provide that blend. Also mention to you that as part of this amendment, because staff -- when we were working with the applicant we were concerned with really no yards for anyone to -- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 1, 2018 – Page 34 of 137 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 18, 2018 Page 32 of 59 private open space. I have mentioned to you there is an amenity package -- there is central open space. How are these -- how are these folks supposed to enjoy their living space and still have some privacy and so the applicant did indulge staff and added a footnote here that they said every home that takes advantage of those setbacks would have to provide a minimum 120 square foot patio and that's pretty consistent with our multi-family standards to require that as part of that approval. However, it's only 80 square feet for multi-family development. So, the applicant stepped up and actually proposed more patio open -- private open space, if you will, for the single family homes. And I would mention to you -- and these are some of the conversations that we had with the applicant as well -- is the amount of staff time that it would take to verify that every one of these homes are meeting this requirement. So, that will take -- if these are approved that will put additional time on staff to review this to make sure that they are meeting all of this criteria. And, lastly, staff is also recommending one additional change to the applicant's proposal and that is that when they actually depict a zero lot line that they actually build an attached home or -- at that -- at that property boundary. We don't want the applicant to just pick and choose which setback that applies their development, it's either a three foot setback or a zero foot setback with attached homes and that's what footnote number five shows in this graphic. So, again, with all the public testimony -- I know the last time I looked, before I came in, I saw at least 45 -- at least part of the public record had signed up in opposition of this particular application. I don't know if Chris has anything that he would like to add before I conclude my presentation and stand for any questions. Johnson: Madam Chair, Commissioners, 120 people signed in in opposition. Five indicated wishing to testify, which, of course, you will get to, but there were 120 and, then, e-mails have continued to come in throughout the evening as well. Parsons: So, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, again, staff is recommending approval of the texts amendment with the modifications in Exhibit -- in Section 6 of the new -- new staff report and I would stand for any questions you have. Holland: Sorry. Just one question. On that last strip that you were showing us, all of the items that are in blue are what's proposed additions, it's -- none of those things are in the code currently; is that correct? Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, the items in blue are proposal from the applicant, yes, and they are not in code. The red our staff's recommended changes. Holland: Okay. Thank you. Perreault: All right. Would the applicant, please, come forward. Bailey: Madam Chair, Commissioners, My name is Laren Bailey. My address -- work address is 4824 West Fairview Avenue. Good evening and thank you for hearing our request tonight. Do we have a PowerPoint? Sorry, I thought we had it set up. I don't Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 1, 2018 – Page 35 of 137 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 18, 2018 Page 33 of 59 need them for the first part, so I'm just going to go ahead and continue while they get it going. As staff indicated, we are discussing two different issues tonight, both related to the city code. Even though both are dealing with zoning designations, they are -- they are really two separate requests. So, I'm going to cover the zoning code name change first and -- and I don't know how you want to handle it, if you want to do questions then or if you want to wait until the end, but I will pause and talk about that. Before you tonight we are really just trying to add clarity to an otherwise confusing area of the city code. As staff indicated, you know, a lot of letters have -- have come in from residents and I think it just goes to show how confused folks are and we are not trying to make this more difficult, we are trying to find a solution and we want to talk about the ways in which the Meridian City Comprehensive Plan and city code work in conjunction with one another, but it's important to note that they are separate documents and tonight we are really focused on the code, not on a Comprehensive Plan, which is -- which is being updated. So, I'm going to begin and discuss these dimensional standards. We -- as Bill indicated, we have been working with staff for -- for well over a year on this. We have had meetings, we have gone back and forth, we -- we have thought about coming in and, then, we changed our -- we thought about waiting a little bit and it's gone back and forth and it just -- as time goes on it seems to be more and more of a confusing topic. So, we begin submitting -- we began working on this long before the comp plan update had been undertaken. The changes that we are requesting do not have any bearing on the Comprehensive Plan update. It's interesting to note that the very reason that we brought this before you tonight was to help provide clarity to the neighborhood -- or to the neighboring property owners and public in general. The letters the city has received in response for our application tonight have proven our point that the current naming convention is confusing and needs to be updated. As the staff report suggests, the City Council changed the zoning code a few years ago and removed the density requirement from residential districts within the Unified Development Code. This idea what -- the idea was that it would allow the Comprehensive Plan to dictate the density on specific properties and city code would provide the dimensional standards only. So, it separated those two issues. In theory this was a good way to allow the two documents to work together. The problem today is the current naming of the zoning districts still reflects the old code and causes confusion about density. To illustrate the point I want to bring up this -- this is the agenda from tonight's meeting. So, prior to our meeting you heard two -- two residential subdivisions that came in. Jocelyn Park was -- was just under two units per acre, but it's in an R-8 zone. So, you can see the confusion that happens here. You have got neighbors thinking, well, they can do eight units -- they are doing eight units per acre when really they are only using that for dimensional standards and that's especially true in the Rockbury Townhomes. It's an R-15 zone, but it only has 7.8 units per acre. So, there is a big discrepancy between the name of the zone and how many units are actually being applied for, so -- so it's important to note that most of these developments have -- are in zones that reflect the dimensional standards only. That zone does not reflect the density. Real quickly. This is just a little graphic to show -- we have got a Comprehensive Plan on one side, we have got zoning code on the other side, so, again, the Comprehensive Plan tells you you are in a medium density residential zone or area. You have got a maximum density that's called out of eight units per acre. You go to the zoning code in an R-15 -- ask for an R-15 zone for the Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 1, 2018 – Page 36 of 137 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 18, 2018 Page 34 of 59 dimensional standards, but you're -- still your net is less than eight units per acre. The zoning codes R-2 through R-40 names simply do not correlate to density as they did in the past. Our request before you tonight is strictly an issue of changing the naming, so it is less confusing for everyone involved. We understand that change can be difficult. Yes, it's going to require some work for staff and, yes, Ada county is going to have to make some changes, but our understanding is those are doable things. It's not impossible and just because it's hard in our opinion doesn't mean it's the wrong thing to do. Staff is in agreement that there needs to be a change, as Bill -- as Bill said. Some of these -- you know, when we have gone back and forth staff's brought up some concern about the nomenclature that we put forward about R-A, R-B, R-C. We are not saying that that's necessarily the right answer. They have also proposed some naming and we have -- we had some discussion with staff and it was getting close to the hearing. I don't think we have really come to an agreement on what -- what would be best. What we would really like to do, with your approval tonight, is meet some more with staff before the City Council hearing to try and come up with some more options on that naming and let Council decide what -- what really is best for -- for the code. So, with that, Madam Chair, Commissioners, if you would like, we can do questions on that right now or wait until the end. I don't know what you would like to do. Perreault: I think we can just wait until the end. Bailey: Okay. Good. Okay. So, I'm going to move on to Item No. 2. In that -- in this one we are looking at a specific code. We are looking at the -- or a specific zone. We are looking at the R-15 zone specifically. This also has to do with the zoning code, but it's actual dimensional standards within the R-15 zone. In working through design and construction of a couple of recently approved developments, as Bill had brought up, it's become clear that the R-15 zone -- it doesn't have enough setbacks to fit all of the situations and even though when we submitted plans for a preliminary plat and went through the process with -- with Planning and Zoning and City Council, we showed detailed plans, but when -- when staff actually goes out to actually look at this and does it fit in the building permit process, there got to be a lot of questions and a lot of concerns came up and the fear was we didn't want to do something that wasn't -- you know, wasn't in the code. Staff wants something to fall back on to make sure they are doing things correctly and we are in agreement with that. So, that's why we are here tonight. We are talking about setback requirements for projects that specifically utilize private streets. So, this is not for every project in the R-15 zone, it's -- I'm not going to say always, because I don't think there is an always in any of this, but typically you're talking about a gated community that has private streets that -- that -- that is enclosed to itself. So, we have worked with staff and we have talked about, as Bill said, different -- different ideas, different ways to go about this and we are just trying to make this easier and more streamlined for both the city and for development in general and in the future everybody will -- will know what the rules are and it will be easier to move through this process. So, I have kind of numbered each one of these on your screen and so I'm going to talk through them one at a time and the first thing I want to point out is these changes are not changing the density in any way in the zone and they are not changing the minimum lot sizes. That's not something we are trying to change tonight. So, under Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 1, 2018 – Page 37 of 137 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 18, 2018 Page 35 of 59 the -- under the first heading street setbacks for garages, under item number one, we have just added private street and as you see it's still a 20 foot setback, just as a local street would be. So, we just added that heading because if it's -- it's clearer for staff as they review these, they know what the answer is. They are not going, well, this isn't a local street, it's private, how do we apply this. It is clear. Number two is the same issue, but on a common driveway. We have also got 20 feet from our garage setback. So, move down to the next heading, which is setbacks for the living area. So, again, on a private street we are ten feet. On a local street we are the same, ten feet. Common driveways. This is where, as Bill brought up, we -- we propose something -- we propose the one and a half feet to three feet setbacks from a common driveway and that one and a half would be for -- we said 40 percent or less of that side of the home. I think Bill said 50. We can make 40 work. We are just trying to provide some undulation in those homes and not have just a straight wall. So, that's why we -- we suggested that. So, move to -- so, item number five. This has not changed. We just add -- staff thought it was a good idea and we are agreed to add public street to the rear setbacks, so it clarifies that that's 12 feet. So, then, we move to number six -- or, excuse me, I think I just -- yeah. So, then, we go to the private street setback and feet on number six. So, number seven. So, where we have -- currently we have attached homes, so there is zero lot line homes. We could have attached in this particular case on number seven and the rear setback. What we are asking is we want to say, okay, it can be zero, which we have today, and we have that approved or it could be a three foot setback. We are having a lot of potential homeowners request to have -- they don't want the attached structures. We are attaching four units together. They would prefer to have detached homes and so the -- adding the three foot would allow us to do that on -- on the rear setback, so -- so, where these are four pack attached, it would allow a three foot, basically, all -- not all the way around, but on -- on the two sides. So -- so, we are just asking for that to be consistent with the side yards for homes on private -- on -- again, this is on private streets only. This does not accept -- this does not affect any perimeter lots or any -- any other lots that we would be abutting, anything outside of the subdivision, that would just be internal to this development. Now, number eight, the exterior boundary. Again, we would -- we would have 12 feet of setback on the exterior boundary of the entire development, just like we would have had to before. So, that really hasn't changed, we have just added another line to clarify that. So, again, as Bill stated, we did work with staff. We want to require that that minimum square footage of private usable open space for each residence and so that's the footnote. It's 120 square feet. And, then, we -- we don't have a problem with staff's recommendation on the final plat that -- that we show the lot lines that are to be attached and the ones that won't be attached. So, we will -- we may have to -- in the future we would need to delineate that beforehand before construction begins. So, again, none of the proposed changes that you're seeing tonight would increase density. It's simply providing dimensional requirements to the code that did not exist before. We are trying to make this as simple for everyone involved as possible. We believe that these changes will help staff in the review process in providing clear and defined requirements. It will also aid in the design and construction process by providing a set of rules for developers and builders to follow. We are asking for your recommendation to City Council to add requirements to the R-15 zone. And with that I will stand for any questions. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 1, 2018 – Page 38 of 137 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 18, 2018 Page 36 of 59 Perreault: Any questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you. Bailey: Thank you. Perreault: At this time we will take public testimony. Chris, how many did you say are signed up? Johnson: There are five indicating they wish to testify. First is Susan Karnes. Perreault: Please come forward. Karnes: Good evening again. I'm Susan Karnes. 5556 South Graphite Way. And I'm here speaking tonight on behalf of the Meridian Southern Rim Coalition. We have reviewed the proposed amendments and we wish to submit our opposition for the public record. We want the Commission to carefully examine the context and the optics of this application. Comp plans drive code and they, too, should align. Residents for the last year and a half or two have expressed outrage at the city's numerous deviations from its existing comp plan. Council, realizing the comp plan is outdated, has invested in an expensive Comprehensive Plan process in which it has promise stakeholders in writing -- and I quote -- a robust and effective community outreach process. Unquote. As a member of the steering committee for the new Comprehensive Plan committee, along with Chairwoman McCarvel and, in fact, the applicant Mr. Conger of DevCo, I'm especially baffled and confused by this application and its timing. In the last two steering committee meetings we have had breakout groups and spent hours taking feedback from stakeholders that the city has made an excruciating effort to gather, we are analyzing it and we are trying to see what drives the vision for this city. We have had enormous maps of the City of Meridian at our last two steering committee meetings and we have been asked in our breakout groups to discuss zoning and land use. I think that this application, if approved, sends a terrible mixed message when we are trying so hard to engage our citizens and restore public trust in the process. What's the rush? What's the urgency for what we perceive as substantial changes requested tonight? Why can't we allow our new Comprehensive Plan process time and protect its integrity by not making substantial changes. We support business that will elevate the quality of development or enhance public safety, but why in the world that this application -- I'm going to -- I'm just referring to the staff report. Quote: Typically code changes should occur after the adoption of a new comp plan. It's going to affect 39,000 parcels whose owners have not had notice of this application. Staff is concerned about runoff and drainage on affected R-15 lots. They report the city doesn't have an adequate grading and -- and drainage ordinance. There has been an increase in the number of citizens complaining about this. Staff was hoping to have a discussion with UDC focus group for additional input and guidance, but the applicant didn't want to wait for the city time frames. I understand my three minutes are up. Can I speak for the coalition and go for another moment or two? Perreault: We need to have a raise of hands to do that. Who else -- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 1, 2018 – Page 39 of 137 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 18, 2018 Page 37 of 59 Karnes: You have dozens of people that signed in online, so I -- I would consider that hands raised. Perreault: Okay. Karnes: Okay. Thank you. I have tried to make it brief. I'm not going to take ten minutes. This is why we get so much feedback from our residents that they believe developers are driving growth and development in the city. So, we see no benefit in approving this application, other than its benefit the developer, and we will remind those in attendance and the Commissioners that this application, if approved, will affect approved R-15 developments, one of which, Eastridge Estates, is along the southern rim. Nearly every neighbor in nearby HOA opposed Eastridge and now the developer can use the UDC amendment to further increase density without going back through the process of notifying neighbors and presenting his amended plan in public hearings. If P&Z approves these dimensional standards they will have the ability to construct a development of higher density significantly different than what was proposed and approved through public hearings. That, our members are telling us, is not transparency in government, that's circumventing the process. That scenario offends many of our members and we believe gives Commissioners reason enough to deny this application. We do agree the present naming convention is confusing and we believe it needs to be overhauled to address Meridian's standing as a city of a hundred thousand plus and we could support staff's naming amendment. However, we would prefer to support it after completion of the new Comprehensive Plan. If you're asking stakeholders to speak, then, give them the respect of listening. While we agree that the city needs higher density housing to accommodate growth and the need for affordable housing, we believe the proposed R-15 dimensional standards are best suited in certain zones and not city wide and I say that to you also from the context of seeing some of the survey results that are coming in from stakeholders. However, we can't support any aspect of R-15 dimensional standards to substantial UDC changes until after the new comp plan is approved. We believe Planning and Zoning should deny this application. By doing so you will take an enormous step toward restoring public trust in our city government, the Comprehensive Plan, and the new comp plan process. Thank you. Any questions? Perreault: Any questions? Thank you. Karnes: Thank you. Johnson: Next is Greg Reynolds. Kimberly Juarez. Sally Reynolds. Reynolds: Good evening, Madam Chair, Commissioners. My name is Sally Reynolds and I live at 1166 West Bacall in Meridian. So, I'm going to make a couple of general comments, but they do apply to this amendment. So, over the last couple of months I have seen NextDoor post the comp plan survey and corresponding website, which is encouraging residents to participate in planning the city's future. The residents who Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 1, 2018 – Page 40 of 137 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 18, 2018 Page 38 of 59 participate in these surveys, obviously, feel strongly about the future of Meridian and take time to -- and care enough about it to take time to give feedback. When local government asks for input and, then, turns around and makes a unilateral decision, which undermines that process, it breeds distrust and even worse apathy. I can't tell you how many times I have heard why are you even trying, they don't listen to us. The developers run the city and there is nothing we can do to stop it. It's a done deal, so why try. And my favorite. Growth is coming like it or not, so if you don't like it move. My response to the last one is I love Meridian, my kids love Meridian, and we want it to continue be a great place to live and, yes, growth is coming, but it can be controlled. Smart growth managed by a local government that understands the concerns of residents. A government that can balance the creation of jobs and housing without sacrificing our quality of life. Please respect the residents and wait for that process to finish. The comp plan and UDC go hand in hand. Over the last year and a half I have testified on several applications, especially in the north Meridian area. Time and time again the residents are told that the comp plan is not a legally binding document and merely a guide for the city. What is it supposed to guide? The Meridian city code. This code is what the developers are held to. Please let the comp plan guide the UDC. As you heard the applicant himself say, they fall back on the UDC and that's what we count on and that's what needs to be defined. In regards to this particular amendment, the current naming condition, while it may not be tied directly to the type of housing and numbers of dwellings, it at least gives residents an idea of what level of housing density a developer is planning. The R-A, R-B designation structure obscures an applicant -- that applicant's proposed land use. It further muddies the waters on what is already a very difficult process to understand, especially if you're not in the land use industry and most of us aren't. The naming convention proposed by staff is much more easily understood and they have some expertise in this area. As a Meridian city resident I appreciate when my local government leaders exhibit integrity, accountability, and transparency. The A, B, C -- I don't -- I don't understand how that would correspond in any way. So, how does this add value to Meridian? Well, as far as I can tell it doesn't. It's favoring the developers and their profits and not engaging the public at all. I was going to read some quotes from NextDoor, which were given from Kaycee Emery asking for feedback today for the town hall meeting, but I will just close. So, believe it or not, I have learned a lot in the last 18 months. I understand growth will come and there is a need for a mixture of housing, but this is not an amendment that should be considered right now given the comp plan revisions. I firmly believe it would rarely ever be in Meridian's best interest to have minimal setbacks and possibly cram more units into the area. If it is, let developers prove that and approve it on a case-by-case basis. Please protect the integrity of the public process. Make it the exception rather than the default. And, please, deny this request. Thank you. Perreault: Thank you. Reynolds: And for a visual, here is -- there is three feet. Johnson: Last sign in is Robert Nielsen. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 1, 2018 – Page 41 of 137 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 18, 2018 Page 39 of 59 Nielsen: My name is Robert Nielsen. I live at 3508 East Quinn Drive in Meridian. Thanks for the opportunity to testify and I thank you for the staff comments. It's clarified some things. Clearly this is a -- something that is in process, since some of the information we are showing tonight was not on the website a few days ago when I looked to see what was happening tonight. In any case, I want to recommend that P&Z not approve the proposed text amendment to the residential naming district. The current zoning designations, indeed, as -- as mentioned, are not precise indicators of what I always thought as a resident were maximum density for the zone and that's because the city code had been changed to specify dimensional standards, like minimum -- pardon me -- minimum property size per dwelling unit setbacks. However, while those designations, if there are assumed to be maximum units per area, are not precise, the current residential zoning districts do reasonably correspond to the maximum allowable density. Last August when this first came up on the city website, I went through and looked at the 2018 city projects and of the 37 residential projects that were on that list, if you go through the applications, there are only four of them that exceeded the designated -- what I assumed was the maximum residential density for that zoning and three of those four were things -- were -- exceeded the limit by amounts that were very small zoning areas. So, while they are not precise, they are reasonable estimates of what would be a maximum allowed zoning -- units per area. The City of Meridian residents are already at a disadvantage to understanding the zoning process and the development process. It's very complex. Now I -- I appreciate the effort to provide more transparency of this process by changing R-2, R-4, R-8, et cetera, into R- A, R-B, R-C, because that doesn't help me a lot. Not at all. It actually decreases transparency obviously. Although the staff recommendation is to have -- have names that are more associated with the Comprehensive Plan, makes a lot more sense, because at least the generic description of those -- of those densities tells the residents something, that A, B, C and D does not. If -- if changes are needed to the residential designations to correspond to the changes that have been made in city code, I would recommend, as has been stated that, it be done after the Comprehensive Plan is approved and that the changes that are made not be R-A, B, C, D and E, but something that corresponds to what's in the Comprehensive Plan. Further, in regard to the other proposal in the application, I'm concerned about the setbacks that are described. It's been stated that we do see setbacks to zero and three feet people will not increase density. Well, that's kind of ludicrous, because when you keep a standard building size and you decrease the setbacks, you allow more of the buildings per unit -- per unit area. Now, it may not exceed the number of units in a density designation like an R-15, the 15 units per building, but, in fact, when you look at these 37 applications last August, many of them are well below what the maximum will be applied by the current zoning designation. So, what reducing setbacks would do would be to increase the densities to more approach what the maximum would be for the current designations. Finally, when you talk about a one and a half foot setback from your public street, I get concerned about safety. Now, maybe people don't speed on private streets. They certainly speed where I live and one and a half feet is not very far from a car across the street. Thank you. Perreault: Thank you. Chris, is that everyone that was signed up? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 1, 2018 – Page 42 of 137 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 18, 2018 Page 40 of 59 Johnson: That was everybody that signed in. Perreault: Is there anybody else present here that would like to speak? Please come forward. G.Nielsen: Thank you. My name is Glen Nielsen. I'm at 2135 West Sunnyslope Drive. And I just wanted to come down tonight to -- on this one issue. If your staff has items that they need to have clarified, then, you know, it shouldn't be passed right out. They have to -- they have to make up their minds, go through the process. They are talking, well, we don't know if it's going to be -- what is it, three feet or zero -- whatever. And how is that going to work with like utilities or whatever. So, they need to figure that out. And, then, if you're going to make these changes and you say you're going to pass that on, Ada county has to make the changes -- well, you can't direct Ada county to make the changes. So, that was just where I'm just at. So, I would just say, no, not tonight. Thank you very much. Perreault: Anyone else? Lupher: Hi, again. Shelley Lupher. 7030 North Sienna Glen Way, Meridian. I agree with the applicant that this topic is confusing. It is. I have been involved with several of these projects and I still don't understand it. But I'm also not a developer. But at this point this appears to be just a way to manipulate setbacks in order to increase density, as the previous gentleman just stated. You know, we -- we get that code provides dimensions, the comp plan provides zoning, and these don't always talk to each other very well. But, you know what, now is our opportunity to make these match, make them a -- modify them so that they do talk to each other in a more complete and straightforward way. If we are modifying the comp plan, then -- then make it all work. Make it easy enough for people to understand. It -- it doesn't seem like it would be that hard to do and renaming it R-A, R-8 -- that's just -- that's an insult, frankly. I think the graphic presented by the applicant actually shows a problem. When you get down to the bottom and it says net greater than eight units, this is a subtle manipulation of the Comprehensive Plan. If you show on a Comprehensive Plan that it's going to be eight units per acre, that's what it ought to be. Not greater than eight units per acre when it ends up being built out. You know, as someone who is directly affected by lack of following the comp plan, because I live across the way from the Costco that may be going in, this is not the right time to make this change and if we are going to all this trouble and spending all this money to change the comp plan, then, make it easy for people to understand. It doesn't have to be dumbed down to a point where an 8th grader can understand it, but, you know, if we are all adults we can read and we can understand that. So -- you know. And there are some parts with the applicant's, you know, request that do make sense. I think for -- certain types of setbacks are appealing for certain types of developments, like 55 plus communities or people who want to retire in one level homes, but don't want a huge yard, you know, that may make sense to them, but a ten by 12 patio for a family home, they -- it needs to be larger than that. So, that doesn't make sense. So, changing this for the entire city does not make sense. It Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 1, 2018 – Page 43 of 137 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 18, 2018 Page 41 of 59 needs to be very specific and it needs to be shown in the comp plan that way. I think that the full impact of these changes are not completely understood, not only by citizens, but by staff as indicated in the report and their recommendation to make further changes and at this point the only beneficiary piece -- appears to be the applicant. As citizens we are not really feeling heard and this appears to be an undermining of the Comprehensive Plan review process. Thank you. Perreault: Anyone else? Please come forward. State your name and address for the record. Wheeler: Yes. Doug Wheeler. 2402 East Taconic Drive, Meridian. I just wanted to speak to the Commission. I didn't have anything really prepared tonight, but I have just been listening and I have been able to come the last two or three years to P&Z meetings and so forth. Just observations I guess is what I'm -- I'm thinking of. We talked about the Comprehensive Plan and I know when I moved here about nine years ago I looked into a lot of that when I started seeing things happening in Meridian and I kept saying they don't quite seem to match up and I know that's a concern that's being worked on. I came to the area, too, thinking look at all this land and all the area that we have here and, then, I just started saying how is it being squeezed in. So, obviously, density is a big -- big concern and I have been hearing that the last couple three years. I know that our infrastructure and roads are really being pushed because of that. This reclassification I guess you would say, I think really needs to be looked at very carefully, because that can have some big effect on what the future is going to be. We have a lot of situations where we have seen -- maybe track records of various developers that are always asking for things to be squeezed in more, so there is a little bit more profit possibly, but you as a commission do also need to look out for Meridian and I do urge you to look towards that, because that's -- the tax dollars aren't the only thing here, people want other things. I think our biggest concern is who is really driving the bus. Are the developers or is the P&Z looking at things and saying, you know, we need to really take a good look on things here, because this is a city that's really booming and some of these squeezings in here are making it so that people are starting to be concerned about do I really want to settle in Meridian now, because I have seen what's happening. Observations. Thank you. Perreault: Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like -- please come forward. Affleck: My name is Mary Affleck. I live at 6519 South Raap Ranch Lane in Meridian. And I just think this is really sneaky, actually, to come in through the back door to increase the density in a very rural area. We live right across the street from the subdivision that is supposedly going in for the 55 plus and we have 16 acres and a park now next to us and it sounds like a fire station. So, not too unhappy with that, but not very happy about the density that's being packed in. The one thing that I wanted to tell you, though, was that we just got word from a friend -- she texted me and told me that the meeting was tonight and that what they were discussing and several other friends and so we signed in as quickly as we could, but there are several others that got shut out because it started. So, I just wanted you to know that there are several other people Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 1, 2018 – Page 44 of 137 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 18, 2018 Page 42 of 59 -- two different text groups that are -- yeah, text groups that were discussing this and wanted to sign in, but couldn't, and that are against it. Just mainly -- the main thing -- I don't know that it has anything to do with the naming of it, but has to do with the density and just the numerous amount of people that are coming in -- into our area, which -- I don't know. We love Idaho. I was born in Boise and -- and we are -- to my whole life. We are retired Air Force and I have lived all over the world and the places that we have loved -- well, that we came back to it's Idaho and we were done, because it isn't California and it's not England, although England has a pretty good plan. They don't build in their countries at all. It's designated country and you just rebuild the cities. So, the cities don't fail. Also Korea where it is packed in and we have lived in the big cities all around the world. So, that's the only thing that I have to say is that I love Meridian and that's why I'm -- the only reason I would stand up and say anything, because I love Idaho. Thanks. Perreault: Please encourage those individuals to send in communications to the clerk's office and/or come to the City Council hearing and testify there as well. Affleck: Okay. Thank you. I appreciate it. Perreault: Anyone else? At this time would the applicant, please, like to come forward. Bailey: Madam Chairperson, Commissioners, just wanted to touch on a couple items quickly. You know, I think everybody who got up here testified about density and the two developments that -- that Bill brought up, both of those are already approved, they have development agreements that set the number of units. This is not going to change any of the density of those units. Those projects are approved with mostly attached products. So, we are actually asking for the three feet to detach those products. So, we are going the opposite direction from what -- a lot of the testimony we just heard. Those are 55 and over communities and we have focused the open space and areas for those folks in the one place and provided gated communities that -- that that demographic is looking for. We agree it's not -- it's not right for all of Meridian, but in specific instances we believe it is and that's why we are here tonight. We heard testimony that -- that there is a lot of confusion and I think that's still the case. We are -- you know, we are here tonight trying to make that better. You know, that -- that's the goal. We -- we heard comments about public streets. These -- these changes aren't for public streets, they are for private streets. And, then, we heard a lot of comment about, you know, the comp plan and how it should drive code and, definitely, I believe, you know, we believe that's true. The current comp plan process -- I think if you ask staff right now they are planning on about nine months to a year before that comes to a close. I mean I have been through these processes several times in the Treasure Valley. Meridian, Ada county, Boise. Time frames to -- it's one of those things that takes a long time. And, then, once it's even decided upon it takes time to get it published to me to ratified and get it approved by Council and Planning and Zoning Commission. So, we are not trying to do an end run around anybody, we just feel like there is a -- there are issues today and we are trying to put something in place to take care of the next year, year and a half, and -- and really following a comp plan Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 1, 2018 – Page 45 of 137 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 18, 2018 Page 43 of 59 amendment, yeah, there will probably be changes to the code and at that time if these things need to be revisited they should be and we agree with that, but -- but tonight we are asking for your recommendation to City Council for approval. Any questions? Perreault: I have a few questions for you. I know that you as developers understand the zoning, no matter what they are named you understand the zoning. So, I'm curious as to how that -- the name change really does benefit you and -- Bailey: Well -- okay. I will go back to the example we talked about in the presentation. You know, you have got projects and we are submitting application and the current zone is R-8 or we are asking for an R-15 to get those dimensional standards we are talking about tonight, but our density -- I mean even in the two projects we are talking about, we are under or around five to six units per acre, but we are at an R-15 zone to get the dimensional standard and so what happens is, then, the public is all -- are confused, because they think we are asking for 15 units per acre when that's really not the case. We are, you know, between four and five or five and six units per acre. So, that density doesn't translate, it creates a lot of confusion and we get a lot of people coming and testifying that -- that they believe we are developing R-15. There is also concern that when we get -- when we get a project approved with an R-15 zone that somehow we can come back -- come back and backdoor in increased density and we have -- we have had discussions with -- with City Council just in the last year about that concern, that they did -- they agreed with what we were doing, they thought it was fine, but the R-15 zone concerned them, because they were afraid somebody would come later and try and change it and so that's -- that's the concern. That's why we want to change this. We want it to be consistent. And I understand what some of the -- the constituents were saying or some of the citizens that R-A is maybe more confusing to them than R-15. I get that. But it still doesn't solve the problem and so I agree with staff, we need to come up with -- with a name that does -- that does relay what -- what the density is, but doesn't -- doesn't provide that fear factor, I guess, so to speak of this is going to be 15 units per acre, when, really it's five. Perreault: And can you take us through more clearly what the difference would look like for you when you make an application for private street with the existing process, having the distances specifically set? Help us understand what those -- how that looks different for you and why you're making application for that. If you -- you still have the right to apply for that currently, it's just that you want that stated because -- Bailey: Well, I think the way we would have to apply for that currently would go through a PUD process and I -- I don't -- I'm not saying that's a bad idea. Meridian's current PUD process doesn't allow us a lot of opportunities. There are some things that we have to provide. We have to show that we have got -- you know, that there is a -- a hindrance or something because of natural features or some of the other things that -- that are required in a PUD that makes that difficult. It's another area that we have talked to staff about and I think Bill would agree with me needs to be changed in the code, but that's a much bigger undertaking, the PUD process. It is an option, but we -- we feel it's much cleaner to come in and show, you know, just fix the code, so that we Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 1, 2018 – Page 46 of 137 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 18, 2018 Page 44 of 59 can come in directly and not have to go through a PUD process to do that. So, that's why we are asking for this, to -- to make that clarity. Also it makes it easier, like I said, for staff in their review, because they can go and say, oh, we do have a requirement for a private street, whereas -- whereas there wasn't one today. So, instead of them trying to figure out, well, shall we just say this is like a local street -- they actually have that delineation that says, no, we have a private street setback, we know what that is. We can improve this. Perreault: Okay. And can you also -- sorry. I just lost my train of thought. Okay. I think I think that sufficiently -- I just wanted to -- I understand all of the requests that are being made. I wanted to know how it's affecting you, the applicant specifically. Oh, I remember what I was going to ask. Why the timing now? I mean, you know, you have already heard there is a lot of concerns about -- I understand the comp plan's role in this and the code's role in this, but to me it would make more sense if this was all rolled out at one time with the comp plan, so that the public has sort of digesting these changes at the same time and -- and just from a public understanding it would make more sense to have all those changes made at the same time. Bailey: I guess I want to point out that there wasn't some grand plan here that we decided this was a better time to do this. We -- we have been talking about this with staff for -- for over a year about the issue. We have brought it up at City Council as part of our presentations trying to educate and say, look, these are the situation. We thought that was an approach that maybe would grab hold and -- and help the decision body. I think in some ways it has, but in other ways it hasn't and so as we were working through this we really this spring decided, you know, we really need to submit an application, but we wanted to work with staff, we wanted to talk about the options and -- and all of this takes time, just as the comp plan takes time. There wasn't a -- you know, we just had been moving forward with our process. We didn't -- the comp plan, then, came up and got started work on it. We didn't put those two together, I guess, to say one should happen first or we should wait. I think it's -- I think, though, it is a bad idea to wait, because the issue is here before us today. The comp plan, you know, will continue on for a year or so and beyond that, then, we are going to have to change the code, which could continue on for just as long. I mean so you're talking this could be two or three years from now before this issue gets visited and we felt like it's -- it's -- it's at the forefront today, it's an issue that needs to be handled today. Perreault: Thank you. Any other questions? Holland: One more follow up. Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: One more follow-up question. What are your thoughts on staff's red line changes to your -- your suggestions here? Bailey: In -- just in general or which one specifically that -- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 1, 2018 – Page 47 of 137 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 18, 2018 Page 45 of 59 Holland: For the -- for the naming convention and, then, for any of the other recommendations they have made off of what you have put forward. Bailey: On the naming convention I know -- I understand what they tried to do. I understand what we tried to do. We -- we were just -- we thought about it for a while and said, you know what, this is complicated. Let's put out something simple. You have got to, then, go read what is R-A, you have got to go read the actual text and know what that is, rather than just hearing R-15 and knowing it's 15 or guessing, I guess, that it's 15. So, you got to actually read the text, which I think would be helpful for everyone. But, you know, staff's saying we are going to change it to more directly correspond to the comp plan. I think that makes sense, except for the comp plan will allow usually for one or two or even sometimes three of these items within one comp plan designation area. So, I think that will provide additional confusion. I don't want to get into that tonight, because I think it's -- I think it's a deep hole to go down. I think we need to spend a little more time with staff before we go to Council and come up with some better options -- is what we would prefer to do. We didn't know about staff's comments until, you know, early in the week and so that didn't give us a lot of time to comment back on that, so not -- not that that's anybody's fault, just -- I think that could take a week or two of comments to come up with something better. Perreault: Any additional questions? Yearsley: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: Bill, can you go back to the example of the -- the homes? So, looking at this, I have to admit I would much prefer an attached product, because I don't see how this will actually work with the three foot setback on three sides -- or at least two sides. I -- I have seen it on the side lot -- yard and stuff like that and, you know, landscaping wise most times they just do rock, but, you know, if you have a fence between there and you're trying to get into that back corner, it's -- it's almost impossible to do that or even to work on the side of your house. I have to admit I'm a little, you know -- I guess I'm a little concerned about a back setback at three feet based on that -- just based on this slide alone and especially the one and a half on the -- on the -- against the driveway, just because, you know, it wouldn't take much for someone to pull in and hit the side of the house. So, I guess if you can walk through how something like this would actually, you know, look out in real life, that's -- I'm having a hard time looking at that. And associated with that -- I know most times with the three foot setbacks you have no eaves and so at this point what do you do for an eave on the back of the house? You know, do not have any -- how do you take care of the drainage, that type of stuff, because, you know, even in our area where we have big lots we still have problems with drainage. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 1, 2018 – Page 48 of 137 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 18, 2018 Page 46 of 59 Bailey: Madam Chairperson, Commissioner Yearsley, so I'm going to start backwards to forwards there. We will start with drainage. This particular product in the -- in the 55 and over gated community and the two that we have discussed, these are very stringently planned out, everything from drainage -- each and every roof drain, everything's planned out. If we have got a lower area, there is going to be an area drain to take care of that. This isn't your standard single family residential development where, you know, the lots are just graded away from the home and -- and drainage goes where it goes. This is very well thought out. It has to be, because there is not enough room to do anything else. The second part on fencing, there is no fence -- interior fencing in this community. Everything's open. All of the maintenance and landscaping is maintained by the HOA. So, nobody needs a lawn mower, nobody's taking care of their own lawn, it's all done for them and that's -- that's what -- and in our research and our questioning potential buyers that's what people are looking for. They want a -- a place they can retire, that they don't have to worry about the maintenance thing, they can go to Arizona anytime they want to and not have to worry about keeping up the yard or watering the plants, that's all taken care of for them. That goes for the exterior maintenance as well. Onto the eaves. This is a different product than what you have seen at Solterra and Sobe and Verado. This -- this is a product that is, again, very well designed. There is a lot of -- that goes into each one of these homes and there are eaves on these -- on this product. Fire rated eaves that -- that would be required in a three foot setback. So, really, what the issue here is is finding -- or providing more space between homes or opening up areas. That's not what these folks are looking for. They have a large meeting area -- social area. There is a project similar to this in Boise and the folks who live there, they -- they love it. They -- they all go to the central meeting area. There is a clubhouse. They have potlucks every Friday night. Everybody knows everybody's name. No for sale signs ever go up in there, because when somebody moves out somebody's got a friend they want to move in. It's all word of mouth. We think this is a great product for -- for the community and -- and we assumed that the attached product would -- would sell fine and it -- it will, but we are getting a lot of people asking for a detached product and that's -- that's part of the reason we are here, but the other part is to clean up the zoning issues for staff as well. Yearsley: So, what do you do about windows between the two? I mean given that close, you know, you may want a window for light, but, you know, if you're -- I mean you're -- you're right there looking at each other if -- Bailey: I mean you -- if you were attached there would be no window; right? Yearsley: Oh -- and I realize that. I just -- so, that's why I -- Bailey: Yeah. You're going to have some windows on those sides. Not as many, because -- like you said. And -- and things are going to be staggered. There is -- these product -- they are built as a -- as a group, that's all been thought out, so you're not -- you don't have two windows staring at each other. You don't have those issues, because it's all been thought through and designed specifically for this product in this location. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 1, 2018 – Page 49 of 137 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 18, 2018 Page 47 of 59 Yearsley: So, I'm going to go back. So, I understand that your products are -- are maybe well thought out and stuff like this, but how do we protect the public from those people who haven't thought that out. That's -- that's where I -- I come in, because you get some that -- oh, I just can do this and I want to do this and -- and, then, at the end of the day we are left with a mess and so, you know, my concern is -- is having enough teeth to protect the public against -- against that type of a development I guess. Bailey: And I think -- I think to clarify that, when we initially met with staff that was their concern as well and that's why we have added so many more items to the R-15 for the private street section specifically -- was to address those issues, to provide the -- the open space per unit, to provide all the different setbacks from each side and from the common drive, all of those specific requirements, so that it would hem -- hem in the next person that tries to do a similar development, they will have those requirements to keep that consistent. Perreault: Other questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you so much. Bailey: Thank you. Perreault: At this time can I get a motion to close the public hearing for Item No. H- 2018-0059? Holland: So moved. Yearsley: Second. Wilson: Second. Perreault: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for H-2018- 0059. All those in favor say aye. None opposed. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Perreault: I would like to request a five minute break. So, let's take five minutes, use the restroom, come back here shortly. (Recess: 8:35 p.m. to 8:40 p.m.) Perreault: Okay. It looks like we are ready to start again. Commissioners, it's time to discuss this application. Commissioner Yearsley, you look like you have some thoughts. Yearsley: Didn't know I was going to go first, but -- Perreault: You have the most experience. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 1, 2018 – Page 50 of 137 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 18, 2018 Page 48 of 59 Yearsley: You know, I -- I like the naming -- changing the name, because I have heard many many times like if you have an apartment complex with an R-40 zoning, you know, they are going to put 40 units to the acre. I mean and -- and so I understand where the applicant's coming from on that, is because, you know, it is an antiquated system and it does not meet what's currently being proposed and -- and we see that all the time. That being said, you know -- and maybe Bill might be able to answer that -- is do we see out of the comp -- you know, because I'm sure a lot of this is out of the zoning districts and out of the -- the comp plan. Do we anticipate the low density and the medium density, medium high, medium -- you know, high density names changing. You know, I would actually consider more of an R-4 as a medium density and maybe the R-40 as an extreme density, but, you know, that's personally me. But, you know -- you know, that would be my only concern is if we get through all this process and something changes on the zoning map or on the -- you know, coming out of the comp plan that we don't match per se. That being said, I don't think we are going to see that significant of a change that it shouldn't be that big of an issue. So, I could support that application -- portion of the application to make those changes and the fear of changing the -- all the lots -- the different ones. We are going to have to do it some time, you know, so when -- when do you make that -- make these changes. So, with the dimensional standards -- that one I struggle to keep -- put my head around in how that actually works. I understand where you guys are coming from and it helps you -- and, you know, with specific areas. My concern is how we protect those individuals and have enough teeth and I -- and at this point I don't have that level of comfort that we have the teeth in there to make sure we have a good product based on these dimensional standards. So, I'm not quite sure where -- you know, how we want to proceed with this at that point. You know, I'm kind of at a -- do we continue it and talk about it further? I would be curious to see what the rest of the Commission thinks. Holland: Madam Chair. So, if you could go back to the first slide, Bill, that you have. We have had conversations where the -- the zoning code is confusing to people who don't have a planning background or who haven't worked in economic development or don't understand development projects and this was something that -- we have done a better job of putting this up at the beginning of every meeting. We started implementing this a few months back and maybe even longer than that ago, for the reason of trying to help people understand what the R-2, R-4, R-8 actually means and so this chart I think is really helpful in educating the public. When they come in for an application they can see the agenda and they can look and see R-2, it's kind of in that rural, but it's also in this low density and so you can kind of see how it -- how it blends in there. I think this is a good start to explaining to the public how we kind of see applications and what really fits in those zoning codes. Could we still do better? Yes, I think we could. I -- I'm not opposed to changing the language on how we refer to some of those zones, but I do have some concerns, as well as what was -- what people were testifying is why isn't this part of just kind of rolling out with the Comprehensive Plan, what's the urgency of having it done right now. I don't know that it -- I feel like this kind of puts a little bit of a Band- Aid on it, having this chart that helps us kind of explain that to the public. I would like to maybe see that change as part of the Comprehensive Plan rollout, but I'm worried that if Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 1, 2018 – Page 51 of 137 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 18, 2018 Page 49 of 59 we change it now and there might be something else that we add to the Comprehensive Plan that makes it more confusing, then, you have got to change it twice, rather than just waiting and doing it all at once. That's my thought about that. I'm not opposed to changing it, but I want to make sure we do it at the right timing to make sure it makes sense for staff and to make sure it makes sense for the Comprehensive Plan committee and at least get some of their buy in on their thoughts about this piece. On the other piece about changing some of the setbacks, I think you -- you expressed it in some of your comments earlier. It's hard to put forward a change that we know maybe one developer could do well with putting together a good product, but we can't guarantee that all developers are going to do the same thing and it's hard to approve a plan that comes from the request of one developer rather than a collaborative staff driven, committee balanced proposal. So, I guess I would prefer to have some deliberation from -- from staff a little bit more on what they would like to see or have maybe some Comprehensive Plan committee input into this process or certainly more deliberation amongst ourselves on that. But I have some concerns with the way that that looks for some of the same comments that you have mentioned earlier, Commissioner Yearsley. Wilson: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Wilson. Wilson: So, yeah, I mean I -- I was thinking about this and in terms of process I understand, you know, you kind of initiate this process in the spring and now it's kind of coinciding and getting closer in proximity to the release of that Comprehensive Plan and so -- I mean I think from a timing standpoint do you want to do this twice? Because more than likely on the naming conventions we are going to have to do it twice and I don't -- I think I would rather do it once now that I really think about it, even though I think that I -- I have been around long enough to know that there is a lot of confusion about the naming conventions and that discussion has -- there has been a lot of discussion about how we change those and I think that the option -- that the revised option by staff makes a lot of sense, but, then, I don't want to tinker with it again in eight to 12 months or whenever that's coming. So, that's kind of my thoughts on that. And, then, I -- I completely agree on sort of that setback issue. I don't feel like I have a good enough grasp at this point in thinking through all the implications of it to kind of say, oh, yeah, that -- let's move that -- let's kick that up to City Council. I do want to make that clear to everybody, I mean that would be the next step in the process. It would go to City Council for approval. I think there was a little bit of confusion on that. In terms of our options -- now, obviously, if we deny it it would go to City Council for their consideration. If we continue it -- I mean when would we continue it for? Considering the skepticism on the naming conventions, eight months from now, nine months from now, is it just sitting out there to be determined? So, I think we are going to have to probably deny it if that's where we are leaning. Those are my thoughts at this time. Perreault: So, just thinking about these -- the private drives, the common -- the common driveways, I would anticipate that this would allow developers to create more developments using private drives. We don't -- I, at least in the time that I have been Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 1, 2018 – Page 52 of 137 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 18, 2018 Page 50 of 59 here, I have not seen that to be a common thing and just like the one that we had heard earlier that has that private drive there, they are -- they are not required to have sidewalks, they are -- they are not required to be the width of a public street and I think that if we set it up in such a way that it is easier for the developers so they don't have to go through the PUD process to do this and that we are going to start seeing some additional applications on these small in-fill projects for these private roads and that we are going to create issues for -- for our -- our safety services, obviously, we will continue to have conversations about enough parking in -- in those kind of communities -- in the communities where we are going to have the private roads and several common -- common driveways. So, while the applicant is saying that it -- the intention is not to allow for communities with greater density and it doesn't -- it doesn't. I mean I understand. In other words, they can't come in and ask for a larger density than R-15 allows. So, in that sense they can. But they can try to put additional units in a smaller space and so that it feels more dense, even if they haven't gone outside the parameters of that zone and so -- and, then, add a private road on top of that that's smaller without the requirement for sidewalks and I just feel like we are creating an easier way for it to become safety issues, you know, just -- just -- the things that we continually talk about and address every time we have an application that -- that's -- that's close together where the -- the residences are this close together. So, I -- as far as the naming goes, I completely agree with -- with my Commissioners that we can be doing this as a repeat. I really think if the intention of renaming the zones, as the applicant has stated, is for the purpose of public understanding, then -- then let's do this with -- in -- with the Comprehensive Plan, so that we are introducing that, because I know that this -- that the city has a plan to introduce the Comprehensive Plan when it comes out to the public in a way that is -- you know, I think they have done a great job in getting public feedback and I know that they will be rolling that out so the public will understand the comp plan, so -- so, why not, then, introduce names -- new names for the zones at that time. I just think it makes more sense if the intention is for public understanding. I don't think -- it's my opinion that a year isn't going to make or break anything when it comes to this and I think it will really be a lot easier on the public for us to do that at the same time. I know the developers understand the zones as they are currently and -- and I don't disagree with -- with changing the name. I think the names need changed and -- and I don't -- and I think it would be fine for the applicant to meet with the city and go over those options of the names. I don't have any concern about them doing that. I think it's a fantastic idea to explore as many -- as many options as we can -- can consider to make the -- make it clear for the public. I was wondering if -- Bill, is there -- I don't even know if this is something that has been analyzed or look -- looked at, but what kind of -- of cost and effort and time frame is there on the city's part to make a name change like that? You -- you noted several different places it needs to be changed in the code, but what does that look like for -- I imagine that there is a significant cost to the city to do that and is -- is the city prepared to do that. It sounds like they have -- you -- the staff has already had discussions about in the past. Should that be a factor for our consideration? Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, not necessarily. I mean all the changes that were already in this staff report -- so, I have done them. The applicant has Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 1, 2018 – Page 53 of 137 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 18, 2018 Page 51 of 59 paid a fee for us to do that work and -- and we have done that work. So, all those sections have been addressed in the staff report. But, again, if it's your desire to hold off or wait, you certainly have that as part of your purview tonight. You can approve a portion of it, deny all of it, continue it, whatever you need to do in order to make a decision on application. There is -- there is plenty of options for you this evening. Just let us know how you want it -- how you want us to guide you and we will get you on the right path. Perreault: Okay. The applicant had mentioned that they had had discussions with staff about the PUD process and it being complicated for these specific items with the private roads and the common driveways and had indicated that maybe the staff perhaps agreed that that is a complicated process for those specific items. Is -- is that the case and can you shed some more light on that and is there possibly another process or could that process be made more streamlined without agreeing to do -- to make the code change in this way? Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, we talked about multiple options. We talked about a variance. We talked about a planned unit development. We talked about them modifying their plat and losing lots, so that they could fit the homes on the parcels. We talked about them attaching the homes and having zero lot lines and, then, a lot of these setbacks don't come into play and we can -- we can get it to work with the current code. Again, you heard from the applicant. It is their desire to have a detached product on these lots and so in their minds this seemed to be the least path of resistance for them to get -- for the result they were going after this evening. I agree with the applicant, we don't do a lot of planning of developments, because a lot of times developers can fit their developments within the context of our code. The planned unit development is to have something innovative and creative and flex -- and provide that flexibility to the developer, not necessarily to be used to get out of dimensional standards of the zoning district in which they are applying for, it does come with more open space, more amenities. It comes with a mix of unit types that you need to be as part of the development. So, there -- there are some challenges and some hurdles to that ordinance that we didn't fully vet and say whether or not their Movado Village or their Eastwich project would fit within the context of a PUD, but we did talk about that and, again, this was -- seemed to be the logical conclusion that we came to is you can process a change and see if there is an appetite for that. Now, I will point out to you that the Comprehensive Plan -- I don't -- going back to Commissioner Yearsley's comment, I don't see us changing our land use designation in the Comprehensive Plan. That discussion's never come up -- at least on any knowledge to me as I'm aware of. So, I don't -- again, I don't see that being out of context with the zoning ordinance when -- if and when that goes into effect. But it does go to the point of the neighbor saying let's -- let's pause, let's look and see what's going on and I bring that to your attention, because, you know, we take it serious and I -- I don't want the community to feel that they don't have a voice and they do and that's why I'm glad they are here this evening. I want it to be transparent and I want you guys to make the best decision. So, that's why in my analysis of this zoning change I tried to put it all in context with you, that there is other things that need to be considered here than just what the applicant's proposing. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 1, 2018 – Page 54 of 137 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 18, 2018 Page 52 of 59 And so staff has not contacted the assessor's office and let them know this was coming. What will happen is if it's approved an ordinance gets sent to them and they get in their system and they do a quick query in GIS and they change the zoning, what residents may not understand is when they get their tax assessments or they have a zoning on their parcel they are going to say what does R-LD mean now? I had R-4 before. And so that -- that's why I bring that up to your attention. It's not that it's a hard process to do it, it just -- it could add some confusion and complicate things if it's not rolled out properly. That's why I bring that to your attention. But going back to your point, the drainage -- again, the drainage and the grading ordinance, we just don't have it and I can tell you from my experience with it it continues to be an issue for the city and it's -- it's not a good feeling to tell someone when they call you that you don't have a code to protect them or just to help them in that. It's a civil matter, not a city issue. It's not a fun thing to communicate to -- to our residents. So, it's something that -- and this is things -- this is something that we discussed as they were considering this proposed amendment and so they were asked to try to share -- shed some light and least explain to you on how they would address drainage and grading for this particular development. Yearsley: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: Just a follow up to that, Bill. As the applicant talked about is they have had this design, the drainage is incorporated into the design, which it needs to be, because of the -- the zero lot lines. But based on the ordinance it says nothing about storm drainage, you know, how do we accommodate, you know, that -- that -- and that's my concern about the dimensional standards is it doesn't speak to any of that and -- and ultimately my concern is -- is -- is how do we have enough teeth that somebody else doesn't come in and just build this without actually doing their due diligence to make sure that, you know, they -- they have accommodated for a lot of this. Is -- is there a way, I guess, that we can accommodate that and everything? Parsons: Madam Chair, Commissioner Yearsley, in a typical subdivision -- so, let me elaborate a little bit more on the code. There are requirements in the code that says you need to retain drainage on your property. Provide adequate area for drainage. That's all it says in code. And, then, in the subdivision ordinance -- section of our ordinance it speaks to providing facility and drainage easements along property boundaries to try to convey or capture that drainage. Beyond that that's what we have in the UDC and, then, all of it -- the rest of it falls to the building code, which I think the applicant, in my discussions with them, they were comfortable with just allowing the building code to speak to those requirements. As part of this amendment if you look at node number three here in front of you, we asked the applicant to go to the county surveyor and see if we could just have some kind of blanket drainage easement across the developments and if that could suffice for their need as part of their development and this is some of the language that they proposed. Keep in mind as Laren pointed out in his testimony -- can't say one hundred, but most of the time these standards would apply for private street -- in a private street is -- the drainage, right, it's not a Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 1, 2018 – Page 55 of 137 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 18, 2018 Page 53 of 59 public system, so they are going to have to design that entire development on a private draining system, because none of it's going to be public. But how that works I'm not -- I don't have the expertise to tell you how that works or what -- what safeguards we need to put in place for that. Yearsley: Well -- and I read that -- that drainage easement, but, you know, for me personally as an engineer, trying to drain -- if you're in the center of that property and trying to get water from there to where you want that to be conveyed to, that's a lot of slope that you're having to drop and you're having a lot of exposed concrete or it's going to look really kind of funny without actually proper piping and associated with that, which this says nothing to that and that's -- that's my concern with what they are -- what they are asking for is -- is -- I guess I'm just struggling of -- of how to make sure we protect the public, because, like I said, I live in a large subdivision and we see it all the time that, you know, we have got ponding as the two properties come together, there is kind of a low spot and water doesn't go anywhere and so, you know, this can be a lot worse if someone just puts downspouts in the corner there and you have four downspouts coming in at one spot and all of a sudden you have got a mess and so those are some of my concerns. And -- and maybe, you know, personally -- if we continue it, you know, for a little bit, allow the applicant to show what he's proposing, you know, in a larger scale than just the little map, I may have a better feel, may have a better comfort and we can maybe work out something that's more agreeable to everybody. I -- I personally feel that these two applications should be separated, because they are totally talking about two different items and -- and, you know, at this point I would potentially -- if I had more comfort on the dimensional standards I would be more comfortable approving that and having maybe the naming convention come out as more of -- as part of the Comprehensive Plan. So, you know, that's kind of where I'm leaning is is I don't feel like I'm comfortable with both of these applications combined. Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, right now they are married together, but we can certainly open up the public hearing and see if the applicant's willing to give you -- see what's the more important issue for them. Is it getting the setbacks, the dimensional standards approved, or the naming convention approved at this point. They have the ability to withdraw that request and you can continue the other portion to get more information and, then, it could go forward. I don't know if they have an appetite for that or not or if that's something you want to entertain, but certainly you can have further discussions or just continue it all and we can get you some more answers to it and -- at a later date. Yearsley: Well -- and my personal opinion is -- is we can deny the one and approve the other as part of our motion, too. So, we have those options and so my -- my -- my -- my thinking, my -- you know, at least my thought process is is maybe continue it out to a certain point to allow the applicant to put together a presentation to show how this -- in a more larger scale might work to get some level of comfort and maybe talk through that a little bit better and, then, we can decide how we want to move forward at that point is -- is my thought, at least on the dimensional standards, because my opinion -- my guess is he's trying to build something that he can't build right now, because he doesn't have Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 1, 2018 – Page 56 of 137 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 18, 2018 Page 54 of 59 the -- the correct dimensional standards for what he's wanting to build and -- is my opinion, which, you know, if we can figure out some way to make that work I'm -- I'm happy to do that. Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: You know, the point that was made a little bit earlier, too, about adding in some language about private streets and common driveways might encourage some of those developments to continue moving forward. We might see more of those kind of applications. I don't know if there is something we can do to put in there that there is a case-by-case analysis on private driveways or -- or private streets or common driveways, if that's something we can consider in the future, but I feel much more comfortable evaluating on a case-by-case basis with each project and what their merits are. Parsons: Commissioner Holland, you bring up a good point and I did want to go on the record just to let you know that typically in the code common driveways aren't allowed -- are prohibited off of private streets. In this particular case the applicant did receive alternative compliance, which is the case-by-case scenario that you're speaking to and the director did approve of that. So, yes, we have that latitude in code. So, just because you got it approved -- again, the alternate compliance process is case by case whether or not it's in the best interest to do something like that. So, I did want to just go on the record and let you know that it's not ideal to have common driveways off a private streets and the code doesn't -- unless you go through that alternate compliance process. Perreault: So, Commissioner Holland, are you asking -- is there a way -- I think what you're saying is you would like -- you would like a way for that to be filtered out before it gets -- the applicant has to go -- come to us to say we don't really like this overall design, is -- is there a way to start that a little bit earlier in their discussions with staff so that they are not -- is that what you're saying? Holland: Yeah. That's definitely part of it. Perreault: Okay. And that goes along with Commissioner Yearsley's comments about having teeth in -- a way to protect the public and -- without necessarily having to go through a PUD process. Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, you know, every time we -- we pre-app with applicants, so before it even gets in front of you we are -- we are letting them know if we like the design, if we can support what they are proposing, so -- and if we can't we tell them that and, then, tell them to come back. I can -- the recent example that I can share with you was Rockbury Townhomes. I don't know how many versions we looked at that, but they came back multiple times and we finally landed on Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 1, 2018 – Page 57 of 137 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 18, 2018 Page 55 of 59 something that we could support. I think this Commission did support this developer's applications when they came through. And the comp plan supports diversity in our community. I think even the residents of Meridian support housing diversity in our community, just not all the developments have to be the same and they have to be in the right and appropriate locations. So, in my opinion, I think we do have flexibility already in the code to do it on a case-by-case basis just on what I testified on previously. So, I don't -- I don't think we need to add anything further, but we can certainly -- if you need more comfort level than that I'm open to ideas or suggestions. But now it sounds like Commission is leaning towards a continuance to get more information. Perreault: So, as far as the name changes, you were talking about whether we continue to get more information or whether we deny -- and we could make a motion, I suppose, for one of -- you know, or a recommendation to City Council to recommend one and deny the other. But as far as the name changes go, it sounds like we are pretty much in agreement that we think that's best for the public, understanding to roll that out after the comp plan or at the same time and so then -- I mean we would -- we would need to deny it, because we don't know the time frame. Wilson: And I'm good with that, unless we are just thinking to continue to -- you know, we might -- yeah, I think that -- I mean that's where we want to go. I think. I mean in terms of not undermining the process of the comp plan and the education of the comp plan and sort of -- I think that that makes a lot of sense. Yearsley: And I do, too, but I -- you know, I think -- you know, I -- you know, at this point I don't know if we need to make a motion to deny. My thought was maybe let's dive into this a little bit better and make sure we feel like we understand at least -- the dimensional standards at least at this point and, then, maybe we can -- in the motion we can approve this portion and, then, deny the next, you know. Or if the applicant wishes he -- maybe he can withdraw his -- that portion of the application. So, there are -- there are options without just a flat out denial. Like I said, I don't -- I don't feel comfortable moving this until I at least have a better feel of how this would actually look in -- in a real kind of life environment. So, I would be amenable to at least giving the applicant some time to -- if he would -- if he's interested to bring back some more information to try to show examples or -- or how this would actually fit in a certain situation. Perreault: So, Bill -- Holland: Madam Chair, one more comment, too. I think with the -- the naming conventions I would almost feel better if we continued it to the point where the applicant could talk about it with the Comprehensive Plan committee and they could come up with a consensus on what they want those naming conventions to look like. Perreault: Okay. Bill, as far as -- when -- when we are making a motion on this do we need to specifically go through each -- each change that the applicant is proposing? I know we don't need to address each one, but -- but if we have changes that need to be Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 1, 2018 – Page 58 of 137 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 18, 2018 Page 56 of 59 made -- like say to number three, number four, do we need to specifically go through in the motion and state those on each particular case, each particular issue or is it just to recommend approval, denial, continuance. Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, this is a little unusual circumstance, because there are really no conditions, right, to amend or -- Perreault: Right. Parsons: -- change. Either you support staff's changes or if you don't, then, you say you want that modification based on some of the ideas that you're having this evening. Perreault: Okay. Parsons: You will have to go through each individual one and address that -- just address the things that you think you want -- you want modified before it gets to Council. Holland: Madam Chair? Parsons: If you're going to be specific as to why you're continuing it and for what reason. Perreault: Okay. And it sounds like we may need to reopen and ask the applicant if they are willing to continue if that motion is made. Parsons: I -- Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, I just asked the applicant and he sounds like he has a lot of the information that you requested already prepared. He feels confident he could have something for you for the November 1st hearing, if you would be willing to entertain that. Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: So, looking at the second half of this application, the -- the only thing I would want to spend some more time on -- and I'm leaning towards continuing to see what other cities have in their code on what they -- what they put in there related to private streets, common driveways, rear setbacks for their R-15 or their multi-family developments, just so we could kind of have something to compare apples to apples and see what other communities are doing. Maybe do a little bit more best practice research. Perreault: Commissioner Holland, is that something you would want the applicant to go do or are you suggesting the staff or we -- or everyone? Had a great question. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 1, 2018 – Page 59 of 137 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 18, 2018 Page 57 of 59 Holland: I think I would like to see more information. I don't know -- I would be happy to do some research on my own, but if the applicant or staff had any recommendations there of what they have seen in other places I would be open to hearing that. Perreault: Okay. Pogue: Madam Chair, I would recommend you direct staff and/or the applicant to do that research and bring it back, because we are in a public hearing. Perreault: Okay. Thank you. Are we at the point where we are ready for a motion? Yearsley: Well, I was just looking at this. If -- if we -- if we do ask staff to go look, I don't think the November 1st hearing date would actually be appropriate. You know, it's going to give them a very short window to actually go and look at the other stuff or even the applicant to look at what the other entities are doing and, then, also there are five applications already on the November 1st, so maybe the November 15th might be a more appropriate window. Wilson: I think that makes sense, particularly thinking there might be some public interest I think this time around and we just want to make sure there is that room. Yearsley: So, if you -- you actually had more interest in some other stuff, so if you wanted to make that motion I would support that. Holland: Trying to figure out how to say the motion. Would it be of our best interest to have the applicant put together more information about what other cities have done or should we have the staff research that for us? Yearsley: I would actually think that might be something more appropriate for staff, to give a more unbiased opinion of what other entities do and, then, actually ask the applicant to provide more of a detailed situation in that respect. I think it might be a -- a better way. Perreault: I agree. Holland: And, then, what did we think -- what did we decide on the first part of this? Do we want to continue the same conversation to that date? Maybe it would be the whole file number -- Yearsley: Well, it's -- it's the entire file. Holland: Right. Yearsley: So, the big question is -- is if we -- we continue it only for this reason, we are not going to hear -- you know, the intent is we wouldn't hear more testimony in regard to Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 1, 2018 – Page 60 of 137 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 18, 2018 Page 58 of 59 the naming convention is the only thing. You know, we would be continuing it only for the purpose of this portion of it, not the naming convention. And so -- unless there is something that -- if you want to leave it open to allow public testimony on the naming convention we can -- you can add that in there as well, which would that open it to pretty much -- Holland: So, one more question for staff or for Andrea here. If -- in this motion is it possible, since we have all kind of talked about postponing the change of naming, to be more time with the Comprehensive Plan update. Can we make that in -- that suggestion in this motion to continue that piece of it and separate -- and separate it out from this application or does it still need to stay combined? Does it make sense what I am asking? Pogue: Combined. Yeah. That's what I'm thinking, too, Bill. Parsons: Yeah. Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, it's -- it's one application at this point. You can't just bifurcated it now and move one piece ahead or continue a portion of it and, then, continue a piece of it. Perreault: The challenge with continuing is that -- that gives the impression that the applicant can spend time with staff, come back with some name change ideas and, then, we are going to vote on that when, really, that's not what we are intending. The intention is to -- to wait until the Comprehensive Plan is -- or -- I mean the discussions can be had, but to really wait to make the final decision on the name changes until closer to when the comp plan is complete. So, I don't -- I don't know how to handle that from a timing standpoint. Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, as I have -- as I have testified earlier, is your motion just has to say what you want to discuss on that hearing. So, what I heard is you want staff to do more research on setbacks for R-15 developments or medium high density residential developments. Have a comparison between what the applicant's proposing and what other jurisdictions are doing. And, then, you also want the applicant to show a bigger -- a site plan showing how this works in a bigger context and how they are going to address the drainage. Perreault: Thanks, Bill. Holland: All right. With that I move to continue file number H-2018-0091 to the hearing date of November 15th for the following reasons: That staff would come back with more detail on what other cities have done related to setbacks, specifically an R-15 or medium high density residential zones. Pogue: Commissioner Holland, I hate to interrupt, but we have to first move to open the hearing for the purpose of continue and, then, give your motion. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 1, 2018 – Page 61 of 137 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 18, 2018 Page 59 of 59 Yearsley: And I think the file number is 59 instead of 91. Holland: Sorry. I'm reading off the wrong one. Sorry. Thank you for that correction. Yearsley: Madam Chair, I move we open the public hearing for file number H-2018- 0059. Wilson: Second. Perreault: It has been moved and seconded to reopen the public hearing for H-2018- 0059 for the purpose of continuing the hearing until November 15th, 2018. All in favor say aye. None opposed. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Holland: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I move to continue file number H-2018-009 to the hearing date of November 15th for the following reasons: That we would ask staff to do some research and provide additional information on what best practices are around setbacks in R-15 and high density residential developments and that the applicant would come forward with some additional information and site plans on how the proposed changes would look and appear and address that to the -- to the Commission and we would only be opening up the public hearing for the second half of this application. Yearsley: Second. Perreault: It has been moved and seconded to continue the public hearing for H-2018- 0059 for the stated reasons. All those in favor? None opposed. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Yearsley: Madam Chair? Perreault: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: Barring no other comment, I move that we adjourn. Wilson: Second. Perreault: It has been moved and seconded to adjourn the public hearing for October 18th, 2018. All those in favor say aye. None opposed. Motion carries. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 1, 2018 – Page 62 of 137 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 18, 2018 Page 60 of 59 MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:19 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED S CA PE AU -AC INGCHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST:, C. JAY COLE CITY CLERK i' Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda Meeting Date: October 18, 2018 Agenda Item Number: 3 A Project File Number: Item Title: Approve Minutes Approve Minutes of October 4, 2018 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Meeting Notes: I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 3.A . Presenter: Estimated Time f or P resentation: Title of I tem - Approve M inutes of O ctober 4, 2018 Planning and Zoning Commission M eeting AT TAC HM E NT S: Description Type Upload D ate Minutes Minutes 10/9/2018 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 3 of 194 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 4, 2018 Page 44 of 44 McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli, please do. Cassinelli: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval -- is it recommend or just approval with a CUP? Okay. I move to approve file number H-2018-0101 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date October 4th, 2018, with the following modification: Strike 1.4.2 and 1.4.3 and add in -- well, and order, then, alternative compliance -- to seek alternative compliance in the CZC for landscape. Beach: I think you're meaning to say that the landscape buffer along Linder Road meet UDC requirements. Cassinelli: Correct. McCarvel: That works. Cassinelli: That works. Fitzgerald: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to -- to approve Item No. H-2018-0101 with modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. McCarvel: Who would like the honors of the last motion? Perreault: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: I move that we close the public hearing for the date of October 4th, 2018. Cassinelli: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:50 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) // APPROVE : - 0 1 1 lF RMON'DA-M0 CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED -e 'Ott ccs PoI ett Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 4, 2018 Page 45 of 44 ATTEST: C. JAY C( Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda Meeting Date: October 18, 2018 Agenda Item Number: 3 B Project File Number: H-2018-0071 Item Title: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law — Verasso Village Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Verasso Village North (H-2018-0071) by Chad Olsen Located at 3561 E. Tecate Lane Meeting Notes: I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 3.B . Presenter: Estimated Time f or P resentation: Title of I tem - F indings of F act, C onclusions of L aw for Verraso Village North (H-2018-0071) by C had Olsen, L ocated at 3561 E . Tecate L ane AT TAC HM E NT S: Description Type Upload D ate F indings Cover Memo 10/5/2018 E xhibit A Cover Memo 10/5/2018 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 49 of 194 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2018-0071 Page 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER In the Matter of the Request for Conditional Use Permit for a Multi-Family Development Conisting of (56) Dwelling Units on 1.7 Acres of Land in the C-G Zoning District, Located at 3471, 3513, 3543 and 3561 E. Tecate Ln., by Chad Olson. Case No(s). H-2018-0071 For the Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: October 4, 2018 (Findings on October 18, 2018) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of October 4, 2018, incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of October 4, 2018, incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of October 4, 2018, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of October 4, 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 October 18, 2018 – Page 50 of 194 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2018-0071 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 October 4, 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 conditional use permit is hereby approved in accord with the conditions of approval in the staff report for the hearing date of October 4, 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 October 4, 2018 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 51 of 194 Baction of the Planning & Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the U 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 A COMMISSIONER WILLIAM CASSINELLI VOTED COMMISSIONER JESSICA PERREAULT VOTED ..�� ;rChairman Attest: /�O., j — P-,- . -ay Cole ty Clerk 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: rrw byu- C.QJ Dated: " l City Clerk's Office CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2018-0071 Verfk5 O Page 3 Verraso Village North - CUP (H-2018-0071) PAGE 1 STAFF REPORT HEARING DATE: October 4, 2018 (Continued from: August 16, 2018) TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Sonya Allen, Associate City Planner 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: Verraso Village North – CUP (H-2018-0071) I. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant, Chad Olsen, has applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) for a multi-family development consisting of 64 56 dwelling units on 1.7 acres of land in the C-G zoning district as required by UDC Table 11-2B-2. This is the 4th phase of the Verraso Village development. See Section VIII, Analysis, for more information. Note: Since the original application submittal, the applicant submitted revised plans that reduced the total number of units from 68 to 64. 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 of the Staff Report. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission heard this item on [date]. At the public hearing, the Commission moved to approve the subject [app] request. a. Summary of Commission Public Hearing: i. In favor: Chad Olson ii. In opposition: None iii. Commenting: None iv. Written testimony: None v. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen vi. Other staff commenting on application: None b. Key Issues of Public Testimony: i. None c. Key Issues of Discussion by Commission: i. In favor of proposed re-design and quality of development. 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- 0071 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 4, 2018, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications.) I further recommend Staff to prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law & Order for the hearing date of October 18, 2018. EXHIBIT A Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 53 of 194 Verraso Village North - CUP (H-2018-0071) PAGE 2 Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2018-0071, as presented during the hearing on October 4, 2018, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial.) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2018-0071 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) IV. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS A. Site Address/Location: The subject property is located at 3471, 3513, 3543 and 3561 E. Tecate Ln., in the northwest ¼ of Section 4, Township 3 North, Range 1 East. B. Applicant: Chad Olsen 12790 W. Telemark Street Boise, ID 83713 C. Owner: Una Mas, LLC 1717 E. Chisholm Drive Nampa, ID 83687 D. Representative: Same as applicant E. Applicant's Statement/Justification: Please see applicant’s narrative for this information. V. PROCESS FACTS A. The subject application is for a conditional use permit which requires a public hearing before the Planning & Zoning Commission, consistent with Meridian City Code Title 11, Chapter 5. B. Newspaper notifications published on: July 27, 2018 C. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: July 20, 2018 D. Posted on Next Door: July 24, 2018 E. Applicant posted notice on site by: August 3, 2018 VI. LAND USE A. Existing Land Use(s) & Zoning: This site consists of vacant/undeveloped land, zoned C-G. B. Character of Surrounding Area and Adjacent Land Use and Zoning: North: Commercial property (Culver’s restaurant and Les Schwab Tires), zoned C-G South: Multi-family (Verasso Village No. 3), zoned C-G East: Church, zoned R-8 West: Developed commercial property, zoned C-G C. History of Previous Actions: Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 54 of 194 Verraso Village North - CUP (H-2018-0071) PAGE 3  The subject property was annexed (AZ-05-061, Ord. #06-1251) in 2005 with a C-G zoning district. A development agreement was recorded as a provision of annexation (Instrument No. 106137048).  A preliminary plat (PP-08-007) was approved in 2008 for Una Mas Subdivision.  A final plat (FP-09-002) was approved in 2009 for Una Mas Subdivision and was later recorded in 2011 (Bk. 103, Pg. 13894). The subject property was included in the plat as a portion of Lots 4-7, Block 1.  A modification to the development agreement (H-2015-0016, Inst. #2016-106279) for Una Mas subdivision was approved by City Council in 2015 that removed the requirement for future structures within the development to comply with the building elevations previously approved by Council with the annexation and only requires future buildings to obtain design review approval.  A property boundary adjustment (A-2016-0287, ROS #10612) was approved in 2016 that reconfigured the southern boundary of this property.  A modification to the previous development agreement (H-2016-0132, Inst. #2017-056982) was approved for Una Mas subdivision in 2017 to allow a reduced buffer width from 25 to 5 feet on the C-G zoned property to residential uses. D. Utilities: Location of sewer: A sanitary sewer main intended to serve the subject site currently exists in E. Tecate Lane. Location of water: A water main intended to serve the subject site currently exists in E. Tecate Lane. Issues or concerns: None E. Physical Features: 1. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: Staff is unaware of any open ditches that cross this site. 2. Hazards: Staff is unaware of any hazards that may exist on this site. 3. Flood Plain: This property does not lie within the floodplain or flood way. VII. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS This site is designated Mixed Use – Regional (MU-R) on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map (FLUM). 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. Fox example, an employment center should have support retail uses; a retail center should have supporting residential uses as well as support retail uses; a retail center should have supporting residential uses as well as supportive neighborhood and community services. The standards for the MU-R designation provide an incentive for larger public and quasi-public uses where they provide a meaningful and appropriate mix to the developments. The developments are encouraged to be designed according to the conceptual MU-R plan depicted in Figure 3-5 of the Comprehensive Plan. This site is proposed to develop with high-density multi-family residential uses at a gross density of Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 55 of 194 Verraso Village North - CUP (H-2018-0071) PAGE 4 37.65 33 dwelling units per acre (d.u./acre). The proposed development consists of 64 56 dwelling units on 1.7 acres of land; the structure is proposed to be 3 or 4 stories in height. The proposed multi- family development should contribute to the mix of uses in this area adjacent to retail, employment and restaurant uses near major intersections (Eagle & Ustick Roads and Eagle & Fairview Roads), consistent with the plan for MU-R designated areas. Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this property and apply to the proposed use (staff analysis in italics):  “Provide for a wide diversity of housing types (single-family, modular, mobile homes and multi-family arrangements) and choices between ownership and rental dwelling units for all income groups in a variety of locations suitable for residential development.” (3.07.03B, pg. 56) The proposed multi-family units will contribute to the variety of rental options available within the City.  “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, pg. 45) City services will be provided and extended with development of this site.  “Require appropriate landscaping and buffers along transportation corridor (setback, vegetation, low walls, berms, etc.) A 20-foot wide landscaped street buffer is required along N. Records Avenue, a collector street.  “Protect existing residential properties from incompatible land use development on adjacent parcels.” (3.06.01F, pg. 53) The proposed multi-family development should be compatible with existing multi-family residential units to the south.  “Restrict private curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets.” (3.06.02D) Access is proposed via E. Tecate Ln., a previously approved private street along the site’s north boundary.  “Locate high-density development, where possible, near open space corridors or other permanent major open space and park facilities, Old Town, and near major access thoroughfares.” (3.07.02, pg. 55) The proposed high-density development is located near major access thoroughfares [N. Eagle Road (State Highway 55) and E. Ustick Road & E. Fairview Ave. (both arterial streets)] and is within walking distance of Kleiner Park, a 60 acre City park, and The Village at Meridian shopping center to the south. VIII. ANALYSIS A. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP): A conditional use permit is requested for a multi-family development consisting of 64 56 dwelling units on 1.7 acres of land in the C-G zoning district in accord with UDC Table 11-2B-2. This is the 4th phase of the Verraso Village multi-family development. The development is proposed to consist of (14) 1-bedroom and (50) (56) 2-bedroom units. The gross density for the development is 37.65 33 units per acre consistent with that desired in MU-R designated areas. The applicant would like the flexibility to construct either a 3- or 4-story Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 56 of 194 Verraso Village North - CUP (H-2018-0071) PAGE 5 structure; the number of units would stay the same either way – the amount of common area would increase if a 4-story structure is built. The structures is proposed to be 3 stories in height. The property consists of 4 lots in Una Mas Subdivision. A property boundary adjustment application should be submitted prior to submittal of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance application to combine the lots into one property. Specific Use Standards: The specific use standards for multi-family developments listed in UDC 11-4-3-27 apply to development of this site as follows:  A minimum of 80 square feet (s.f.) of private useable open space is required to be provided for each unit. Private patios or balconies are proposed for each unit that meets this requirement.  Development with 20 units or more are required to provide a property management office, maintenance storage area, central mailbox location (including provisions for parcel mail) that provides safe pedestrian and/or vehicular access, and a directory and map of the development at an entrance or convenient location for those entering the development. The main property management and leasing office and maintenance storage area is located within the first phase of development to the south of this site; an additional property management office is proposed in this phase. A central mailbox location is depicted on the site plan in the parking area; The site plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application should depict the location(s) of the directory & map of the development.  At a minimum, 250 square feet (s.f.) of outdoor common open space is required for each unit containing more than 500 and up to 1,200 s.f. of living area. All of the proposed units are within this range. Therefore, a minimum of 16,000 14,000 s.f. (or 0.37 0.32 of an acre) of common open space is required in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11- 4-3-27C. The applicant proposes an internal courtyard on the 2nd floor an open courtyard/veranda on the 2nd floor; common area with grass-crete along the west boundary for a pet area, which also doubles as an emergency access; open grassy area along the south side of the building, and common area along Tecate Lane consisting of a total of 16,146 16,277 square feet (or 0.37 of an acre) in accord with this requirement.  For multi-family developments between 20 and 75 units, three (3) amenities are required to be provided with at least one from each category listed in UDC 11-4-3-27D.1. A total of 64 56 units are proposed, which requires a minimum of 3 amenities to be provided. The applicant proposes a pedestrian walkway and fountains through the interior courtyard on the 2nd story (1st floor living area); 5’ x 5’ storage spaces in the center of the parking area, an office and a recreation room a 20’ x 100’ pet area at the west end of the building, a pet parlor on the 1st floor, and an open courtyard/veranda with landscaping and fountains which qualify as quality of life, open space and recreation amenities. A clubhouse/meeting area with a veranda was provided with the first phase of development and serves this overall development, which qualifies as a quality of life amenity. These amenities satisfy this requirement. Note: Staff is concerned about the lack of visibility of the 3’ wide walkway area between the 5’ x 5’ storage spaces; the applicant should consider an alternative design that would allow more visibility of the walkway from the parking area.  Landscaping is required to comply with UDC 11-4-3-27E. All street facing elevations shall have landscaping along their foundations as follows: the landscaped area shall be at least 3-feet wide and have an evergreen shrub with a minimum mature height of 24 inches for every 3 linear feet of foundation. The remainder of Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 57 of 194 Verraso Village North - CUP (H-2018-0071) PAGE 6 the area shall be landscaped with ground cover plans. Landscaping is required in accord with this requirement and should be depicted on the landscape plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application.  The development is required to record legally binding documents that state the maintenance and ownership responsibilities for the management of the development, including, but not limited to, structures, parking, common areas, and other development features. The applicant shall submit documentation of compliance with this requirement with submittal of the Certificate of Zoning Compliance. Dimensional Standards: The proposed development is required to comply with the dimensional standards of the C-G zoning district listed in UDC Table 11-2B-3 and for multi-family developments listed in 11-4-3-27. The setbacks for the C-G district are 0; however, the 20-foot required street buffer along Records Way will serve as a setback on the east side of the development. UDC 11-4-3-27B.1 requires a minimum building setback of 10 feet unless a greater setback is otherwise required. The building setback along the southern boundary of the site is only 5 feet; the site/landscape plans submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance should be revised accordingly - or, a property boundary adjustment application could be submitted to shift the property line to the south to accommodate the setback. Access: Access is depicted on the site plan via E. Tecate Ln., a private street; no access via N. Records Ave., a collector street, is proposed or approved. Parking: The UDC requires off-street vehicle parking to be provided on the site in accord with the standards listed in Table 11-3C-6 for multi-family developments. Based on (14) 1-bedroom units and (50 56) 2-bedroom units, a minimum of 64 56 covered and 57 56 uncovered (or covered) spaces are required for a total of 121 112 spaces; a total of 145 123 covered vehicle spaces are proposed on the 1st floor under the dwelling units for a total of 24 11 additional spaces beyond those required for guest parking. The number of proposed parking spaces complies with UDC standards. Compact stalls are discouraged but may be used for any parking above the number of required parking spaces; compact stalls may be reduced in depth by 2’ (i.e. 17’); there are a few compact stalls depicted that are under 17’ in depth that must be revised. The UDC (Table 11-3C-5) requires one-way drive aisles with 90-degree parking spaces to be a minimum of 25-feet wide; the site plan should be revised accordingly (note: 45-degree spaces only require a 13’ wide drive aisle and 60-degree spaces require a 17’ wide drive aisle). The site/landscape plan should be revised consistent with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-5. One bicycle parking space is required to be provided for every 25 proposed vehicle spaces or portion thereof, per UDC 11-3C-6G. Based on a total of 145 123 proposed parking spaces, a minimum of 6 5 bicycle parking spaces should be provided for the development. The site plan depicts a 13’ x 17’ 16’ x 20’ area for bicycle parking at the northeast corner of the building; if this is exclusively for residents, a bicycle rack for visitors should also be provided. Multi-Use Pathway: There is not a multi-use pathway designated on this site in the Master Pathways Plan. Landscaping: A minimum 20-foot wide landscaped street buffer is required (as proposed) along N. Records Avenue, a collector street, landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 58 of 194 Verraso Village North - CUP (H-2018-0071) PAGE 7 Common Open Space & Site Amenities: Because this site is below 5 acres in size and in a commercial district, the open space and site amenity requirements listed in UDC 11-3G-3 are not applicable. However, common open space and site amenities are required per the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27 as noted above. Sidewalks/Pathways: A five-foot wide detached sidewalk exists on this site along N. Records Avenue in accord with UDC 11-3A-17. Lighting: All outdoor lighting shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-11. A lighting plan for the parking area should be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application to ensure lighting is adequate for safety. Fencing: All fencing constructed on the site is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. Waterways: There are no open waterways on this site. Building Elevations: The applicant submitted conceptual elevations for the proposed structure (see Exhibit A.4). Building materials are proposed to consist of stucco with either cement or wood siding and metal accents. Final design of the multi-family structure is required to comply with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and the Architectural Standards Manual, and the conditions listed in Exhibit B of this report. The applicant would like the flexibility to construct a 3- or 4-story building on this site to be determined in the future. Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC): A CZC application is required to be submitted for approval of the new use and to ensure that all construction complies with the provisions of the UDC and the conditions contained in this report listed in Exhibit B. Design Review (DES): An Administrative Design Review application is required to be submitted for approval of the proposed structure, per UDC 11-5B-8. Development should comply with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and the Architectural Standards Manual or any updated provisions thereof. The DES and CZC application(s) may be submitted concurrently. Staff recommends approval of the proposed CUP with the conditions included in Exhibit B. IX. EXHIBITS A. Drawings/Other 1. Vicinity/Zoning Map 2. Proposed Site Plan/Floor Plans (dated: 8/13/18 10/04/18) 3. Proposed Landscape Plan (dated: 8/10/18 9/27/18) 4. Conceptual Building Elevations - REVISED B. Agency & Department Comments/Conditions C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 59 of 194 Verraso Village North - CUP (H-2018-0071) PAGE 8 Exhibit A.1: Vicinity/Zoning Map Kleiner Park The Village Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 60 of 194 Verraso Village North - CUP (H-2018-0071) PAGE 9 Exhibit A.2: Proposed Site Plan/Floor Plans (dated: 8/13/18 10/04/18) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 61 of 194 Verraso Village North - CUP (H-2018-0071) PAGE 10 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 62 of 194 Verraso Village North - CUP (H-2018-0071) PAGE 11 Exhibit A.3: Proposed Landscape Plan (dated: 8/10/18 9/27/18) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 63 of 194 Verraso Village North - CUP (H-2018-0071) PAGE 12 Exhibit A.4: Conceptual Building Elevations - REVISED Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 64 of 194 Verraso Village North - CUP (H-2018-0071) PAGE 13 B. Agency & Department Comments/Conditions 1. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1.1 Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1.1 Development of the site shall substantially comply with the site plan, landscape plan, and conceptual building elevations included in Exhibit A, the conditions of approval listed herein, the provisions of the development agreement (Inst. #106137048) and amended development agreements (H-2015-0016, Inst. #2016-106279; H-2016-0132, Inst. #2017-056982). If a 4-story structure is proposed with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application, it shall be deemed to be in substantial compliance with the elevations shown in Exhibit A.4. 1.1.2 The architectural character of the proposed structure shall comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. 1.1.3 The developer shall comply with the specific use standards for multi-family developments listed in UDC 11-4-3-27, including but not limited to the following: a. All on-site service areas, outdoor storage areas, waste storage, disposal facilities, and transformer and utility vaults shall be located in an area not visible from a public str eet, or shall be fully screened from view from a public street. b. The development is required to record legally binding documents that state the maintenance and ownership responsibilities for the management of the development, including, but not limited to, structures, parking, common areas, and other development features. The applicant shall submit documentation of compliance with this requirement with submittal of the Certificate of Zoning Compliance. 1.1.4 A minimum of 16,000 14,000 s.f. (or 0.37 of an acre) of common open space is required to be provided within the development in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27C as proposed. 1.1.5 The applicant shall provide amenities as proposed in accord with UDC 11-4-3-27D, including an interior courtyard/plaza with pedestrian walkways open courtyard/veranda with landscaping and fountains, an office and recreation room a 20’ x 100’ pet area and pet parlor. A clubhouse with a veranda was provided with the first phase of development which will be used by this phase. 1.1.6 Any fencing constructed on the site shall be consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11- 3A-7. 1.1.7 The parking area shall comply with the required stall and drive aisle dimensions listed in UDC Table 11-3C-5. 1.1.8 Submit a request for alternative compliance to the parking lot landscaping requirements listed in UDC 11-3B-8C as set forth in UDC 11-5B-5, with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. 1.1.9 The site plan included in Exhibit A.2 shall be revised with submittal of the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application as follows: a. Depict the location(s) of the directory and map of the development at an entrance or convenient location for those entering the development in accord with UDC 11-4-3-27B.7. b. Depict bicycle parking as set forth in UDC 11-3C-6G in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C; a minimum of 6 5 bicycle parking spaces should be provided for the development. If the bicycle parking area depicted on the plan is only for residents, a bicycle rack should be provided for visitor parking. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 65 of 194 Verraso Village North - CUP (H-2018-0071) PAGE 14 c. A minimum setback of 10’ is required unless a greater setback is otherwise required per UDC 11-4-3-27B.1; the building needs to be shifted in 10’ along the southern boundary of the site – or, a property boundary adjustment application may be submitted to shift the southern property line to the south to accommodate the required setback. d. Staff is concerned about the lack of visibility of the 3’ wide walkway area between the 5’ x 5’ storage spaces; the applicant should consider an alternative design that would allow more visibility of the walkway from the parking area for surveillance purposes. e. The internal drive-aisles/parking is required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-5. The electronic plan needs to be set to scale in order for Staff to verify the proposed plan complies with these standards but it appears to. f. Compact parking stalls are required to be a minimum of 9’ x 17’. g. The grass-crete area along the west boundary of the site shall be a minimum of 20-feet wide. 1.1.10 The landscape plan included in Exhibit A.3 shall be revised with submittal of the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application as follows: a. Landscaping is required along the east side of the building foundation facing N. Records Ave. as follows: the landscaped area shall be at least 3-feet wide and have an evergreen shrub with a minimum mature height of 24 inches for every 3 linear feet of foundation. The remainder of the area shall be landscaped with ground cover plants (UDC 11-4-3-27E). Spirea magic carpet and day lilies are is not an evergreen shrubs. b. Include a calculations table that demonstrates compliance with UDC standards per the Certificate of Zoning Compliance checklist. c. Revise the plan consistent with the changes required above in condition #1.1.9. 1.1.11 A property boundary adjustment application shall be submitted prior to submittal of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance application to combine Lots 4-7, Block 1, Una Mas Subdivision, into one property. 1.1.12 A lighting plan for the parking area shall be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application to ensure lighting is adequate for safety. 1.2 General Conditions of Approval 1.2.1 Comply with all bulk, use, and development standards of the applicable district listed in UDC Chapter 2 District regulations. 1.2.2 Comply with the provisions for irrigation ditches, laterals, canals and/or drainage courses, as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6. 1.2.3 Install lighting consistent with the provisions as set forth in UDC 11-3A-11. 1.2.4 Provide a pressurized irrigation system consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A- 15, UDC 11-3B-6 and MCC 9-1-28. 1.2.5 Comply with the sidewalk standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-17. 1.2.6 Install all utilities consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-21 and 11-3B-5J. 1.2.7 Construct all off-street parking areas consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3B-5I, 11-3B-8C, and Chapter 3 Article C. 1.2.8 Construct the required landscape buffers consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3B- 7C (streets). Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 66 of 194 Verraso Village North - CUP (H-2018-0071) PAGE 15 1.2.9 Construct storm water integration facilities that meet the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3B- 11C. 1.2.10 Protect any existing trees on the subject property that are greater than four-inch caliper and/or mitigate for the loss of such trees as set forth in UDC 11-3B-10. 1.2.11 Bicycle parking spaces shall be consistent with the design standards set forth in UDC 11-3C-5C. 1.2.12 Comply with the outdoor service and equipment area standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-12. 1.2.13 Construct all required landscape areas used for storm water integration consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3B-11C. 1.2.14 Comply with the structure and site design standards, as set forth in UDC 11-3A-19 and the guidelines set forth in the City of Meridian Design Manual. 1.2.15 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 conditional use may only be transferred or modified consistent with the provisions as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6G. The applicant shall contact Planning Division staff regarding any proposed modification and/or transfer of ownership. 1.3.2 The applicant and/or property owner shall have an ongoing obligation to prune all trees to a minimum height of six feet above the ground or sidewalk surface to afford greater visibility of the area. 1.4 Process Conditions of Approval 1.4.1 No signs are approved with this application. Prior to installing any signs on the property, the applicant shall submit a sign permit application consistent with the standards in UDC Chapter 3 Article D and receive approval for such signs. 1.4.2 The conditional use approval shall be null and void if the applicant fails to 1) commence the use within two years as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6F1 or 2) gain approval of a time extension as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6F4. 1.4.3 The applicant shall submit and obtain approval of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance application and Design Review from the Planning Division, prior to submittal of building permit application(s). 2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2.1 SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 2.1.1 A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. The plan will need to include the installation of Type 1 lighting along Records Road. 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. 2.1.2 The adequacy of available fire hydrants will be evaluated during the building permit review process. In the event that it is determined that additional hydrants are necessary to provide fire protection, the applicant shall be responsible for their installation. 2.1.3 This site is currently provided with multiple water mainline stubs. Any stubs that are not utilized for this project will need to be properly abandoned per Meridian Public Works Department Standards. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 67 of 194 Verraso Village North - CUP (H-2018-0071) PAGE 16 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. 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. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 68 of 194 Verraso Village North - CUP (H-2018-0071) PAGE 17 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 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. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 69 of 194 Verraso Village North - CUP (H-2018-0071) PAGE 18 3. POLICE DEPARTMENT 3.1 Submit a lighting plan for the parking garage with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. 4. FIRE DEPARTMENT 4.1 Based on the size of new construction and the location of the sprinkler room in relation to the address side of the structure, the AHJ may require separate Fire Department key box locations. One being at the main, address side entrance and the other at the entrance to the sprinkler riser room. Knox Boxes can be ordered from www.knoxbox.com. 4.2 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 October 18, 2018 – Page 70 of 194 Verraso Village North - CUP (H-2018-0071) PAGE 19 4.3 Acceptance of the water supply for fire protection will be by the Meridian Fire Department and water quality by the Meridian Water Department for bacteria testing. 4.4 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. 4.5 Where a portion of the facility or building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction is more than 400 feet (122 m) from a hydrant on a fire apparatus access road, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building, on- site fire hydrants and mains shall be provided where required by the code official as set forth in International Fire Code Section 507.5.1. For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2 the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183). a. For Group R-3 and Group U occupancies, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m). b. For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m). 4.6 There shall be a fire hydrant within 100’ of all fire department connections as set forth in local amendment to the International Fire Code 10-4-1. 4.7 All entrances, internal roads, drive aisles, and alleys shall have a turning radius of 28’ inside and 48’ outside, per International Fire Code Section 503.2.4. 4.8 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. 4.9 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. 4.10 Provide a Fire Department Key box entry system for the complex prior to occupancy as set forth in International Fire Code Section 506. 4.11 The first digit of the Apartment/Office Suite shall correspond to the floor level as set forth in International Fire Code Section 505.1 and Meridian Amendment 10-4-1. 4.12 The applicant shall work with Public Works and Planning Department staff to provide an address identification plan and a sign which meets the requirements of the City of Meridian sign ordinance and is placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 71 of 194 Verraso Village North - CUP (H-2018-0071) PAGE 20 the street or road fronting the property, as set forth in International Fire Code Section 505.1 and Meridian Amendment 104-4-1. 4.13 All portions of the buildings located on this project must be within 150’ of a paved surface as measured around the perimeter of the building as set forth in International Fire Code Section 503.1.1. 4.14 All R-2 occupancies with 3 or more units shall be required to be fire sprinkled as set forth in International Fire Code Section 903.2.8. 4.15 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. 4.16 As set forth in International Fire Code Section 504.1, multi-family and commercial projects shall be required to provide an additional sixty inches (60”) wide access point to the building from the fire lane to allow for the movement of manual fire suppression equipment and gurney operations. The unobstructed breaks in the parking stalls shall be provided so that building access is provided in such a manner that the most remote part of a building can be reached with a length of 150' fire hose as measured around the perimeter of the building from the fire lane. Code compliant handicap parking stalls may be included to assist meeting this requirement. Contact the Meridian Fire Department for details. 5. PARKS DEPARTMENT 5.1 The Parks Department has no comments on this application. 6. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 72 of 194 Verraso Village North - CUP (H-2018-0071) PAGE 21 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 73 of 194 Verraso Village North - CUP (H-2018-0071) PAGE 22 C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: The Commission and Council shall review the particular facts and circumstances of each proposed conditional use in terms of the following, and may approve a conditional use permit if they shall find evidence presented at the hearing(s) is adequate to establish: 1. 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 if the site is designed in accord with the site plan in Exhibit A and the conditions of approval in Exhibit B, the site will be large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet the dimensional and development regulations of the C-G zoning district and the specific use standards for multi-family developments. 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in accord with the requirements of this Title. The Commission finds that the proposed multi-family development in the C-G zone meets the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and UDC. 3. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. The Commission finds that the general design, construction, operation and maintenance of the multi-family development will be compatible with other residential and commercial uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing and intended character of the vicinity and will not adversely change the character of the area. 4. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. The Commission finds that the proposed development should not adversely affect other property in the vicinity if the applicant complies with all conditions of approval listed in Exhibit B of this staff report and constructs all improvements and operates the use in accordance with the UDC standards. 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools, parks, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, and sewer. The Commission finds that sanitary sewer, domestic water and irrigation can be made available to the subject property. Please refer to comments prepared by the Public Works Department, Fire Department, Police Department and other agencies. 6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. The Commission finds that the applicant will pay to extend the sanitary sewer and water mains into the site. No additional capital facility costs are expected from the City. The applicant and/or future property owners will be required to pay impact fees. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 74 of 194 7. 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 that the proposed development will not involve uses that will crea te nuisances that would be detrimental to the general welfare of the surrounding area. The Commission recognizes the fact that traffic and noise will increase with the approval of this development; however, whenever undeveloped property is developed the amount of traffic generation does increase. 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. The Commission finds that the proposed development will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural feature(s) of major importance. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 75 of 194 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda Meeting Date: October 18, 2018 Agenda Item Number: 3 C Project File Number: H-2018-0081 Item Title: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law — EEG Office for EEG Office Building (H-2018-0081) by Chad Slichter, Located at 551 SW 5th Ave. Meeting Notes: I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 3.C. Presenter: Estimated Time f or P resentation: Title of I tem - F indings of F act, C onclusion of L aw for E E G Office B uilding (H-2018-0081) by C had S lichter, L ocated at 551 S W 5th Ave. AT TAC HM E NT S: Description Type Upload D ate F indings Findings/Orders 10/12/2018 E xhibit A E xhibit 10/12/2018 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 76 of 194 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). [H-2018-0081] Page 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER In the Matter of the Request for a conditional use permit for an office building and an accessory storage building in an L-O zoning district for EEG Office Building, Located at 551 SW 5th Avenue in the L-O Zoning District, by Chad Slichter. Case No(s). H-2018-0081 For the Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: October 4, 2018 (Findings on October 18, 2018) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of October 4, 2018, incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of October 4, 2018, incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of October 4, 2018, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of October 4, 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 October 18, 2018 – Page 77 of 194 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). [H-2018-0081] 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 October 4, 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 conditional use permit is hereby approved in accord with the conditions of approval in the staff report for the hearing date of October 4, 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 October 4, 2018 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 78 of 194 BBaction of the Planning & Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the day of 0{, 2018. COMMISSIONER RHONDA MCCARVEL, CHAIRMAN VOTED COMMISSIONER RYAN FITZGERALD, VICE CHAIRMAN VOTED \ COMMISSIONER STEVEN YEARSLEY VOTED—A-;ZE COMMISSIONER GREGORY WILSON VOTED I� COMMISSIONER LISA HOLLAND VOTED COMMISSIONER WILLIAM CASSINELLI VOTED COMMISSIONER JESSICA PERREAULT VOTED 1.0 E4i I W2. wt !�4191 Attest: ay Cole ity Clerk 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: "Am W Dated: 1,0-1 19 City Clerk's Office kA CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). [H-2018-0081] /:—: F/1 Page 3 Exhibit A EEG Office Building – CUP H-2018-0081 PAGE 1 STAFF REPORT Hearing Date: October 4, 2018 (Continued from Sept. 6 and 20, 2018) TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Josh Beach, Associate City Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: EEG Office Building – CUP (H-2018-0081) I. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant, Chad Slichter, has applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) for an office building and accessory outdoor storage on 0.993 of an acre of land in the L-O zoning district as required per the recorded development agreement (Instrument Number 97044077) for Troutner Business Park. 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 & Zoning Commission heard these items on October 4th, 2018. At the public hearing, the Commission approved of the subject conditional use permit request. a. Summary of Commission Public Hearing: i. In favor: Chad Slichter ii. In opposition: None iii. Commenting: None iv. Written testimony: None v. Staff presenting application: Josh Beach vi. Other staff commenting on application: Bill Parsons b. Key issue(s) of Public Testimony: i. None c. Key Issues of Discussion by Commission: i. Architecure of the structure and whether it complies with the ASM. d. Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation: i. None e. Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: i. None III. PROPOSED MOTION Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2018- 0081 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of September 6, 2018, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications.) I further move to direct Staff to prepare an appropriate findings document to be considered at the next Planning and Zoning Commission hearing on September 20, 2018. Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2018-0081 as presented during the hearing on September 6, 2018, for the following reasons: (You should state Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 80 of 194 Exhibit A EEG Office Building – CUP H-2018-0081 PAGE 2 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-2018-0081 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) IV. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS A. Site Address/Location: The subject property is located at 551 SW 5th Ave., in the NE ¼ of Section 13, Township 3 North, Range 1 West. B. Owner(s): James Keller 587 E. Kingsford Drive Meridian, ID 83642 C. Applicant: Chad Slichter 415 S. 13th Street Boise, ID 83702 D. Representative: Same as Applicant 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 8, 2018 VI. LAND USE A. Existing Land Use(s) and Zoning: The subject property consists of vacant/undeveloped land, zoned L-O. B. Character of Surrounding Area and Adjacent Land Use and Zoning: North: Multi-tenant office buildings, zoned L-O West: Single-family homes in the Franklin Square Subdivision, zoned R-8 South: Vacant/undeveloped land, zoned C-G and W. Corporate Drive East: Vacant/undeveloped land, zoned C-G and SW 5th Avenue C. History of Previous Actions:  The subject property was annexed into the city in 1995 as Troutner Business Park (Instrument Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 81 of 194 Exhibit A EEG Office Building – CUP H-2018-0081 PAGE 3 # 97044077), was granted preliminary plat approval in 1996 as Ballantyne-Troutner Business Park and granted final plat approval in 1997 as Troutner Business Park. The recoreded development agreement requires detailed CUP approval to develop any parcel within the subdivision. D. Utilities: 1. Public Works: a. Location of sewer: Sewer service was provided to this lot with the development of the subdivision. b. Location of water: Water service was provided to this lot with the development of the subdivision. c. Issues or concerns: None E. Physical Features: 1. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: None 2. Hazards: Staff is not aware of any hazards that exist on this property. 3. Flood Plain: This property does not lie within the floodplain or floodway. VII. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS This property is designated “Commercial” on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. The purpose of this designation is to provide a full range of commercial and retail to serve area residents and visitors. Uses may include retail, wholesale, service and office uses, multi-family residential, as well as appropriate public uses such as government offices. Within this land use category, specific zones may be created to focus commercial activities unique to their locations. These zones may include neighborhood commercial uses focusing on specialized service for residential areas adjacent to that zone. The applicant proposes to develop this 0.993 of an acre site with a 9,950 square foot office building with an associate 2,875 square foot covered parking area, consistent with the Commercial 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 all commercial and industrial businesses to install and maintain landscaping (2.01.03B, Chapter 2, pg. 14). Currently, a 35-foot wide landscape buffer exists along the west boundary and will remain undisturbed with the development of the site. The applicant is required to provide a 20-foot wide landscape buffer adjacent to SW 5th Avenue. The current landscape plan proposes a 10- foot landscape buffer; however a 20-foot buffer is required adjacent to a commercial collector roadway as required per UDC 11-2B-3. The applicant is also proposing internal landscaping consistent with the landscape standards set forth in UDC 11-3B-7C and UDC 11-3B-8C. Maintenance of the landscaping is required as set forth in UDC 11-3B-13.  Protect existing residential properties from incompatible land use development on adjacent parcels.” (3.06.01F, pg. 53) Staff finds that this project acts as a good buffer between the commercial uses on the east side of SW 5th Avenue and the existing single-family residential development to the west. A Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 82 of 194 Exhibit A EEG Office Building – CUP H-2018-0081 PAGE 4 condition of the Troutner Subdivision required a 35-foot landscape buffer along the east boundary.  Encourage infill development in vacant/undeveloped areas within the City over fringe area development to halt the outward progression of urban development.:” (5.01.02B, pg. 69) The proposed development is an infill project consistent with this objective.  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, pg. 45) City services are stubbed to the property and will be extended with the development of this site.  Plan for a variety of commercial and retail opportunities within the Impact Area (3.05.01J, Chapter 3, pg. 51). Staff believes that the proposed office uses will contribute to the variety of uses in this area and will be compatible with the existing residences to the west.  Restrict private curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets. (3.06.02D, pg. 56) The applicant’s proposal is to have two connections to SW 5th Avenue which is a designated commercial collector roadway. Staff does not believe that the second connection is necessary for the development, and indeed the comprehensive plan requires limiting private access points to collector roadways. For the above-stated reasons, staff is of the opinion the proposed development is consistent with the applicable comprehensive plan policies and is appropriate in this location. VIII. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE A. Purpose Statement of Zone: The purpose of the commercial districts is to provide for the retail and service needs of the community in accordance with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. The following districts are designated which differ in the size and scale of commercial structures accommodated in the district, the scale and mix of allowed commercial uses, and the location of the district in proximity to streets and highways. B. Schedule of Use: Unified Development Code (UDC) 11-2B-2 lists the permitted, accessory, conditional, and prohibited uses in the L-O zoning district. An office for professional services is listed as a permitted use in the L-O district; however the development agreement for the property requires a conditional use permit for any new lot development. C. Dimensional Standards: The dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2B-3 for the L-O zoning district apply to development of this site. E. Landscaping: Landscaping is required to be provided on the site in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B as applicable. F. Off-Street Parking: Off-street parking is required in accord with UDC Table 11-3C-6B for non- residential uses. G. Structure and Site Design Standards: The proposed commercial 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: Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 83 of 194 Exhibit A EEG Office Building – CUP H-2018-0081 PAGE 5 The applicant has submitted an application for a conditional use permit (CUP) for a 9,950+/- square foot office building and accessory outdoor storage on 0.993 of an acre of land in the L-O zoning district, as required by UDC Table 11-2B-2. Site Plan: A site plan is included in Exhibit A.2 that depicts how the site is proposed to develop with a 9,950+/- square foot structure, parking, drive-aisles, access, storage yard and internal parking lot landscaping. Outdoor Storage: The applicant is proposing to have an outdoor storage area as part of the development. This requires the applicant to comply with UDC 11-3A-14 in regards to Outdoor Storage as an Accessory Use which reads as follows “For properties in commercial and/or traditional districts, outdoor storage of materials, equipment, inventory, and/or supplies shall be incorporated into the overall design of buildings and site landscaping so that the visual impacts of these functions are fully contained and screened from view of adjacent properties, the railway corridor, and public streets by a solid fence or wall with a minimum height of six feet (6'). Such fence and/or wall shall be constructed of complementary or of similar design and materials of the primary structure.” With the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application, the applicant shall provide details of the required closed vision fencing and gate. Storage Yard: Per UDC 11-3C-5, the storage area to the west of the building shall be paved with asphalt. Access: Access is proposed to this site via two driveways from SW 5th Avenue. Per UDC 11-3A- 3 direct access to collector roadways shall be limited in order to accommodate the flow of traffic. In this case, staff recommends only a single access to SW 5th Avenue. The site plan should be modified with the submittal of a certificate of zoning compliance application. UDC 11-3A-19 requires individual properties to provide cross-access to adjacent properties; however when the Troutner Business Park was subdivided, the adjacent properties were not required to do so. At the time of subdivision approval SW 5th was designated as a local street, but has since been re-classified as a collector which requires the limitation on the number of access points. The property to the north was not required to provide a cross- access to the subject property, so requiring this property to provide cross access to the north would do little to provide connectivity. Additionally, the property to the south is so small (and there is some questions as to whether it is even a legal parcel), that once the required landscape buffers are installed, there will be little developable land left. Parking: Off-street parking is required to be provided on the site in accord with UDC Table 11- 3C-6B. The number of spaces required is one space for every 500 square feet of gross floor area. Based on the square footage of the proposed building (i.e. 9,950 square feet), a minimum of 20 parking spaces are required to be provided based on one space per 500 square feet of gross floor area. A total of 22 spaces are proposed for the property. Bicycle Parking: 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 22 vehicle parking spaces, a minimum of 1 bicycle parking space is required. The applicant is proposing to install a bike rack that can accommodate four bicycles. Internal Pedestrian Walkway: Per UDC 11-3A-19, the applicant is required to provide a 5-foot pedestrian walkway from the main entrance of the proposed building to the perimeter sidewalk along SW 5th Avenue. This code section also requires that the walkway to be distinguished from the drive surface through the use of pavers, bricks or scored concrete. With the submittal of the Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 84 of 194 Exhibit A EEG Office Building – CUP H-2018-0081 PAGE 6 certificate of zoning compliance application, the applicant should depict the required pedestrian walkway. Landscaping: Landscaping is required to be installed on the site in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B. A 20-foot wide street buffer is required along SW 5th Ave., a commercial collector roadway, as set forth in UDC Table 11-2B-3, landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B- 7C. Parking lot landscaping is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C. The applicant shall modify the landscape plan prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission. The deficiencies in the plan are as follows: a. UDC 11-3B-8C.2 requires that an internal planter island be installed at the end of each row of parking. The plan as proposed omits several of these islands. b. UDC 11-2B-3 requires a 20 foot landscape buffer along SW 5th Avenue. The plan as proposed shows a 10 foot buffer. The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to show the required 20 foot landscape buffer along SW 5th Avenue. UDC 11-2B-3 requires a 20 foot landscape buffer between property zoned R-8 and properties zoned L-O. In this case, the development agreement for the Troutner Business Park requires that a 35-foot buffer be installed between the existing residential properties and the proposed development. The applicant is proposing a 35 foot landscape buffer which exceeds the requirements of the UDC. Trash Enclosure: A trash enclosure is depicted on the site plan on the south side of the building. 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. Sidewalk: A 5-foot wide attached sidewalk exists along the frontage of this property on SW 5th Avenue. Per UDC 11-3A-17, a 5-foot wide detached sidewalk is required along collector roadways. Because the sidewalk was installed at the time that SW 5th Ave. was designated a local street, staff does not recommend that the applicant replace the existing facility. Building Elevations: Conceptual building elevations were submitted with this application that demonstrate what the future building may look like (see Exhibit A.4). The structure is proposed to be 2 stories in height with building materials that appear to consist of an aluminum store front, aluminum clad wall panels and architectural metal wall panels. As proposed, the applicant is proposing more metal siding than what is allowed by the Architectural Design Manual (ASM). Therefore, staff recommends that the elevations as proposed not be approved with the subject application. Staff is confident that the applicant can design a building to comply with the ASM. The future structures constructed on the site are required to comply with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and the Architectural Standards Manual. Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC): The applicant is required to submit a CZC application for approval of the proposed use, site layout and building elevations from the Planning Division prior to submittal of a building permit application. Design Review: The applicant is required to submit a Design Review application concurrent with the CZC application for final approval of the site layout and building elevations. The proposed site layout and structure is required to comply with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and the Architectural Standards Manual. The conceptual elevations provided by the applicant do not meet the standards as set forth in the City of Meridian Architectural Standards Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 85 of 194 Exhibit A EEG Office Building – CUP H-2018-0081 PAGE 7 Manual (ASM) for commercial construction. The ASM does not allow for prefabricated steel panels to be used as field materials. Standard 5.1I reads as follows “Un-textured concrete panels and prefabricated steel panels are prohibited as field materials for building façades, except when used with a minimum of two other qualifying field materials and meeting all other standard fenestration and material requirements.” Prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission, the applicant shall revise the architectural elevations to comply with the City of Meridian 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. Site Plan (dated: 6/19/2018 3. Landscape Plan (dated: 6/19/18) 4. Conceptual Building Elevations (NOT APPROVED) B. Conditions of Approval C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 86 of 194 Exhibit A EEG Office Building – CUP H-2018-0081 PAGE 8 Exhibit A.1: Vicinity/Zoning Map Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 87 of 194 Exhibit A EEG Office Building – CUP H-2018-0081 PAGE 9 Exhibit A.2: Site Plan (dated: 6/19/18) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 88 of 194 Exhibit A EEG Office Building – CUP H-2018-0081 PAGE 10 Exhibit A.3: Landscape Plan (dated: 6/19/18) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 89 of 194 Exhibit A EEG Office Building – CUP H-2018-0081 PAGE 11 Exhibit A.4: Conceptual Building Elevations (Not Approved) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 90 of 194 Exhibit A EEG Office Building – CUP H-2018-0081 PAGE 12 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 91 of 194 Exhibit A EEG Office Building – CUP H-2018-0081 PAGE 13 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, the conditions of approval listed herein, and the provisions of the recorded development agreement. 1.2 The site plan, dated 6/19/18, 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 20-foot wide buffer required along SW 5th Ave. The buffer shall be measured from the back of the sidewalk per UDC 11-3B-7. b. The applicant shall provide a pedestrian walkway from the main entrance of the building out to the existing sidewalk along SW 5th Avenue. The Internal Pedestrian Walkway shall meet the requirements of UDC 11-3A-19. c. The applicant shall comply with UDC 11-3A-14 in regards to Outdoor Storage as an Accessory Use. d. With the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application, the applicant shall provide details of the required closed vision fencing and gate. e. Per UDC 11-3C-5, all parking, storage or vehicle travel areas shall be paved with asphalt. f. The applicant shall reduce the number of accesses to the property from two (2) to one (1). 1.3 Parking lot landscaping is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C. The applicant shall modify the landscape plan prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission. The deficiencies in the plan are as follows: a. UDC 11-3B-8C.2 requires that an internal planter island be installed at the end of each row of parking. The plan as proposed omits several of these islands. b. UDC 11-2B-3 requires a 20 foot landscape buffer along SW 5th Avenue. The plan as proposed shows a 10 foot buffer. The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to show the required 20 foot landscape buffer along SW 5th Avenue. 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. 1.6 Staff’s failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or terms of the approved conditional use does not relieve the applicant of responsibility for compliance. 1.7 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. 1.8 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. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 92 of 194 Exhibit A EEG Office Building – CUP H-2018-0081 PAGE 14 1.9 Prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing, the applicant shall provide revised elevations that comply to the standards set forth in the City of Meridian Architectural Standards Manual. 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. 2.2 General Conditions of Approval 2.2.1 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.2.2 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. 2.2.3 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. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 93 of 194 Exhibit A EEG Office Building – CUP H-2018-0081 PAGE 15 3. FIRE DEPARTMENT Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 94 of 194 Exhibit A EEG Office Building – CUP H-2018-0081 PAGE 16 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 95 of 194 Exhibit A EEG Office Building – CUP H-2018-0081 PAGE 17 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 96 of 194 Exhibit A EEG Office Building – CUP H-2018-0081 PAGE 18 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 The Parks Department has no comments on this application. 7. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT 1. At the time of this report, no comments had been received from the Ada County Highway District. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 97 of 194 Exhibit A EEG Office Building – CUP H-2018-0081 PAGE 19 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. Commission finds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and the dimensional & development regulations of the L-O 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. Commission finds that the proposed use is consistent and harmonious with the UDC and Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designation of Commercial for this site 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. Commission finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the proposed use 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 October 18, 2018 – Page 98 of 194 Exhibit A EEG Office Building – CUP H-2018-0081 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. 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. 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 October 18, 2018 – Page 99 of 194 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda Meeting Date: October 18, 2018 Agenda Item Number: 3 D Project File Number: H-2018-0101 Item Title: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law — Meridain High School Auditorium for Meridian High School Auditorium (H-2018-0101) by LCA Architects, Located at 1900 W. Pine Ave. Meeting Notes: I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 3.D. Presenter: Estimated Time f or P resentation: Title of I tem - F indings of F act, C onclusion of L aw for M eridian High S chool Auditorium (H- 2018-0101) by L C A Architects, L ocated at 1900 W. P ine Ave. AT TAC HM E NT S: Description Type Upload D ate F indings Findings/Orders 10/12/2018 E xhibit A E xhibit 10/12/2018 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 100 of 194 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). [H-2018-0081] Page 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER In the Matter of the Request for a conditional use permit to construct a new 31,922 square foot auditorium addition to the existing Meridian High School and another conditional use permit to extend the use of the non-conforming parking area along W. Pine Avenue in an R-4 zoning district for Meridian High School Auditorium, Located at 1900 W. Pine Avenue, by Scott Hanson. Case No(s). H-2018-0101 For the Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: October 4, 2018 (Findings on October 18, 2018) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of October 4, 2018, incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of October 4, 2018, incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of October 4, 2018, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of October 4, 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 October 18, 2018 – Page 101 of 194 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). [H-2018-0081] 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 October 4, 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 conditional use permit is hereby approved in accord with the conditions of approval in the staff report for the hearing date of October 4, 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 October 4, 2018 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 102 of 194 Baction of the Planning & Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the day of 2018. COMMISSIONER RHONDA MCCARVEL, CHAIRMAN VOTED�� COMMISSIONER RYAN FITZGERALD, VICE CHAIRMAN VOTED COMMISSIONER STEVEN YEARSLEY VOTED COMMISSIONER GREGORY WILSON VOTED Aye COMMISSIONER LISA HOLLAND VOTED COMMISSIONER WILLIAM CASSINELLI VOTED COMMISSIONER JESSICA PERREAULT VOTED mel-, Chairman rt�&7M s cc" Attest: poo &-Jay Col , ity Clerk 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:0�W-UIN Dated: City lerk's Office CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). [H -2018 -*"41 0101 hperi diem l- qh 2t,-A� Page 3 Exhibit A Meridian High School Auditorium – H-2018-0101 PAGE 1 STAFF REPORT Hearing Date: October 4, 2018 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Josh Beach, Associate City Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: Meridian High School Auditorium – H-2018-0101 I. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant, LCA Architects, has applied for two (2) conditional use permits (CUP) for the following: 1) construct a new 31,922 square foot auditorium addition to the existing Meridian High School in an R-4 zoning district and 2) extend the use of the non-conforming parking area along W. Pine Ave. See Section IX Analysis for more information. II. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposed CUP applications with the conditions listed in Exhibit B, based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in Exhibit C. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission heard this item on October 4, 2018. At the public hearing, the Commission moved to approve the subject conditional use permit requests. a. Summary of Commission Public Hearing: i. In favor: Scott Hansen ii. In opposition: None iii. Commenting: None iv. Written testimony: None v. Staff presenting application: vi. Other staff commenting on application: Bill Parsons b. Key Issues of Public Testimony: i. None c. Key Issues of Discussion by Commission: i. The location of the additional landscaping proposed by the applicant. d. Key Commission Changes to Staff Recommendation: i. Remove conditions 1.4.2 and 1.4.3 III. PROPOSED MOTION Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2018- 0101, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 4, 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-2018-0101, as presented during the hearing on October 4, 2018, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial.) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 104 of 194 Exhibit A Meridian High School Auditorium – H-2018-0101 PAGE 2 Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2018-0101 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: 1900 W. Pine Avenue (Parcel No. S1211141841) Located in the northeast ¼ of Section 11, Township 3 North, Range 1 West B. Owner(s): Meridian Joint School District No. 2 2301 E. Lanark Street Meridian, ID 83642 C. Applicant/Representative: Scott Henson, LCA Architects 1221 Shoreline LN. Boise, ID 83702 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: September 14, 2018 C. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: September 7, 2018 D. Posted to Next Door: September 10, 2018 E. Applicant posted notice on site(s) on: September 20, 2018 VI. LAND USE A. Existing Land Use(s) and Zoning: The site is currently zoned R-4 and is developed with a public high school. B. Character of Surrounding Area and Adjacent Land Use and Zoning: This is a school site that is surrounded by residential properties. North: Baseball field and residential properties in Vineyards Subdivision, zoned R-4 West: Rural residential/agricultural property, zoned RUT in Ada County South: School property, Pine Avenue, & residential properties in Merrywood Subdivision, zoned R-8 East: School property, zoned R-4 C. History of Previous Actions: Over the years multiple applications have been approved for the site. Below are the more recent applications regarding the property: 1. CZC-01-009 – Meridian High School Cafeteria and classroom addition; 2. AZ-05-059, CUP-05-053 and VAR-06-003 – Annexation and conditional use permit to Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 105 of 194 Exhibit A Meridian High School Auditorium – H-2018-0101 PAGE 3 develop the Tech Center. This building was constructed on a separate parcel owned by the school district. 3. CZC-06-022 –Meridian High Tech Center (59,279 sf). 4. CUP-12-015/MCU 15-002 – Meridian High School building expansion (51,855 sf). 5. CZC-12-035 – Meridian High School Tennis Facility (167 sf). 6. CZC-12-054 – Meridian High School Central Plant Addition (2,056 sf). 7. CZC-14-025 – Meridian High School Class room Addition (10,511 sf). 8. A-2017-0048 – The school was approved for a parking lot expansion. 9. A-2018-0084 – Meridian High School Diesel Addition (3,220 sf). D. Utilities: 1. Public Works: a. Location of sewer: Existing utilities are located on site. b. Location of water: Existing utilities are located on site. c. Issues or concerns: None E. Physical Features: 1. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: The Rutledge Lateral runs across this site but is tiled. The Nine Mile Creek transverses the north boundary. 2. Hazards: Staff is not aware of any hazards that exist on this property. 3. Flood Plain: This property is not within the floodplain. VII. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS The subject property is designated “Civic” on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. Per the Comprehensive Plan (page 34), these areas are designated to provide areas throughout the Area of Impact which provide educational opportunities, community gathering places, and green space. Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this property and apply to the proposed use (staff analysis in italics):  Encourage compatibility of schools uses with neighborhoods and adjacent land uses (Chapter 3, pg. 46). Since the school use of the site is not changing, staff is of the opinion that the expansion should have minimal impact on the surrounding residential uses. The proposed addition is internal to the site.  Ensure that facilities and services keep up with growth (Chapter 3, pg. 46). The property is currently developed with a public high school. The proposed addition is needed to provide additional classroom space to meet the educational needs of the school.  Permit new development only where urban services can be reasonably provided at the time of final approval and development is contiguous to the City. (Chapter 3, pg. 45) The site is already connected to city services. The building addition should not impact the services being provided to this site. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 106 of 194 Exhibit A Meridian High School Auditorium – H-2018-0101 PAGE 4  Encourage Infill Development. (Chapter 3, pg. 50) The proposal is an expansion of the existing Meridian High School Campus. The site is 33 acres in size and accommodates the proposed expansion. VIII. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE A. Schedule of Use: Unified Development Code (UDC) Table 11-2A-2 lists the permitted, accessory, conditional, and prohibited uses in the R-4 zoning district. Expanding the footprint of the building requires obtaining a conditional use permit. B. Dimensional Standards: The dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-5 for the R-4 zoning district apply to this site. IX. ANALYSIS A. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation: The applicant requests conditional use approval to construct a new 31,922 square foot building addition to Meridian High School. The proposed addition will be placed in the existing courtyard and will consist of an auditorium, a new lobby, new restrooms, a prop shop, dressing/make-up rooms and a new band room. Because the education facility is expanding, the UDC requires the approval of a conditional use permit. Per UDC Table 11-2A-2, a CUP is required for the proposed addition to the Public Education Institution, subject to specific use standards listed 11-4-3-14, in the R-4 zoning district. 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. Non-conforming use: As noted below, Meridian High School has had several additions and improvements made to the site over many years; some pre-date the adoption of the UDC. Due to the number of improvements after the adoption of the UDC, the landscape ordinance requires some of the site to be brought up to meet current landscape standards. Specifically, UDC 11-3B-2D requires compliance with the landscape ordinance if the building on the site expands beyond certain thresholds. Because of the number of additions after 2005 is Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 107 of 194 Exhibit A Meridian High School Auditorium – H-2018-0101 PAGE 5 approximately 49% of the existing structures on the site (114,354/230,363 square feet), perimeter and right of way landscaping is required to be installed. With several of the expansions to the site, the applicant has incrementally increased landscaping to the site to comply with UDC standards. The two (2) areas that don’t currently meet UDC standards is a portion of the parking area along Pine Ave. and a portion of the site on the east boundary, north of the bus access along Linder Road. Per UDC 11-1B-4, the applicant has submitted a conditional use permit to allow the school to extend the use of the non-conforming parking lot along Pine Ave. to maintain the current parking stalls constructed on the site. As an alternative, the applicant is recommending the following improvements to the site: 1. Construct a new 25 foot wide buffer with (39) 2 inch caliper trees along N. Linder Road. 2. Construct a new 5 foot wide landscape buffer between the parking lot and the adjoining property to the west (the Seminary) with (8) 2 inch caliper trees. 3. The new trees planted around the new auditorium will include 5 inch caliper trees where possible for a total of 52 new caliper inches. 4. Because the applicant is proposing to add additional landscaping to the site, staff is supportive of the alternative landscape improvements as noted above. Staff highly recommends once this parking are is scheduled for replacement that the School District reconstruct this parking area in accord with UDC standards. Tree Mitigation: Due to the proposed building expansion, several of the mature trees in front of the school may be relocated or removed. The applicant is coordinating with the City Arborist to determine which trees need to be mitigated. The submitted landscape plan must detail the mitigation plan coordinated with the City Arborist and demonstrate compliance with the tree mitigation standards in accord with UDC 11-3B-10. Parking: The applicant has provided a parking analysis to ensure the site has adequate parking in accord with the parking standards in the UDC. Under the UDC, non-residential uses require 1 stall per 500 square feet of gross floor area. Currently, the site is developed with 894 parking stalls which exceed the minimum of 746 parking stalls required by code. Multi-use Pathway: The City’s pathways Master Plan has had a multi-use pathway designated along the south side of the Nine Mile Creek since at least 2010 when the Meridian Pathways Master plan was adopted. Since that time, several CZC’s have been approved for the site and no improvements have been made in terms of constructing the multi-use pathway. Staff is of the opinion that requiring the pathway and associated landscaping may not be feasible with this application, but that obtaining a pathway easement will set up the construction of the pathway with a future Certificate of Zoning Compliance. Building Elevations: The primary building material of the existing school is brick. The applicant is proposing a more contemporary design that includes horizontal metal paneling, decorative metal screening panels and glass. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed addition will add a modern touch to the existing building and complement other structures (tech building to the west) developed near the site. Certificate of Zoning Compliance: The applicant is required to submit an application for Certificate of Zoning Compliance for the proposed use prior to establishment of the new use in accord with UDC 11-5B-1. Design Review: The applicant is required to submit an application for Design Review concurrent with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application in accord with UDC 11-5B-8. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 108 of 194 Exhibit A Meridian High School Auditorium – H-2018-0101 PAGE 6 Staff recommends approval of the applicant’s request subject to the conditions of approval listed in Exhibit B. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 109 of 194 Exhibit A Meridian High School Auditorium – H-2018-0101 PAGE 7 X. EXHIBITS A. Drawings 1. Vicinity/Zoning & Aerial Map (dated 8/22/2018) 2. Proposed Site Plan (dated 8/22/2018) 3. Landscape Plan (dated 8/22/2018) 4. Proposed Elevations (dated 8/22/2018) B. Conditions of Approval 1. Planning Division 2. Public Works Department 3. Fire Department 4. Police Department 5. Sanitary Service Company 6. Ada County Highway District 7. Parks Department C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 110 of 194 Exhibit A Meridian High School Auditorium – H-2018-0101 PAGE 8 Exhibit A.1: Vicinity & Aerial Map (dated 8/22/2018) W Willard St NW 1 1 t h S t W Sheryl St W Sonoma Dr W Forecast St NW 1 2 t h A v e W Carlton Ave W Camellia Ln NW 1 3 t h P l NW 7 t h S t W Carlton St W Snyder Dr W Jayton Dr W S u n n y Slope Dr NW 1 0 t h S t W State St N W 1 5 t h S t N W a r d A v e W S anta Clara Dr W Taylor Ave NW 8 t h S t W Elm Pl W Maple Ave W Snyder S t W Leonard St N O c e a n A v e W S l a t o n Dr NW 7 t h A v e W Marcon Ln W Washington Dr N W 9 t h A v e N L e i s u r e L n N T i n a M a r i e A v e NW 1 3 t h A v e NW 1 5 t h A v e W North Gate Ave W Wave Ct W Rebecca W a y N S i l v e r a d o P l N T a l l P i n e P l W Elm Ct W Clarinda St NW 1 4 t h A v e W Lucerne St N R o t a n A v e N Y a k i m a W a y N M a u r a P l W Leroy Ct NW 7 t h S t W Wave Ct W Santa Clara Dr W State StNW 1 5 t h A v e W Pine Ave W Cherry Ln N L i n d e r R d W Franklin Rd NW 8 t h S t R-4 I-L I-L R-8 R-8 L-O RUT R-15 C-N C-C R-8 C-G L-O R-15 L-O R1 R-8 R-8 L-O C-C L-O L-O L-O RUT L-O L-O L-O R-40 RUT L-O R-15 R-15 L-O L-O L-O R1 R1 C-G C-C R-8 L-O R1 C-NR-15 L-O L-O R-4 RUT W State St W Snyder Dr NW 1 5 t h S t W Jayton Dr W Maple Ave N T i d w e l l W a y W Sl a t o n D r W Santa Clara Dr W Carlton St W Washington St NW 1 5 t h A v e N T a l l P i n e P l NW 1 3 t h A v e N M i n e r a l W e l l s A v e NW 1 4 t h A v e W Biddick StN R o t a n A v e W Idaho Ct NW 1 5 t h A v e W Santa Clara Dr NW 1 3 t h A v e N R o t a n A v e W Pine Ave N L i n d e r R d 1900 531 1351 2090 21 5 0 1 6 8 0 1155 16 6 5 1 7 8 5 17 2 5 20 4 0 112 1 1514 165 5 8 2 0 1 4 0 5 739 1616 2 3 1 3 1 9 0 3 17 0 5 696 1 6 2 5 73 1 1007 1017 1027 1527 1528 830 77 5 753 740 988 78422752175 1908 7 6 1 761 1998 691 694 222 5 13 0 9 660 221 7 20 8 1 21 9 9 568 814 712 728 754 788 772 12 7 1 690 1 5 0 4 740 21 7 3 1775 17 0 2 13 2 0 14 3 6 980 585 20 4 3 15 3 3 1443 14011115 17 4 7 17 1 3 18 4 9 17 9 3 17 7 5 18 2 3 573 705 585597 1104 609 778 625643 749 20 9 5 21 5 9 21 2 1 1036 20 7 1 20 1 5 689 673 659 631 593617 674 834 860 698 720 742 795 857 841 823 716 18 5 8 586 772 753 732 757 1282 721 13 5 0 713 745 13 5 5 15 1 5 15 0 1 14 2 7 14 0 9 14 0 2 13 8 6 13 6 4 13 4 2 13 8 9 15 3 0 15 3 0 15 3 0 13 4 3 13 2 2 20 6 5 15 2 3 15 0 7 14 3 5 14 1 9 20 7 3 21 5 9 21 1 5 20 8 7 21 3 7 20 9 9 19 6 7 20 1 9 20 0 1 19 4 5 19 8 9 20 4 3 19 5 4 13 0 6 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 111 of 194 Exhibit A Meridian High School Auditorium – H-2018-0101 PAGE 9 Exhibit A.2: Proposed Site Plan (dated 8/22/2018) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 112 of 194 Exhibit A Meridian High School Auditorium – H-2018-0101 PAGE 10 Exhibit A.3: Landscape Plan (dated 8/22/2018) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 113 of 194 Exhibit A Meridian High School Auditorium – H-2018-0101 PAGE 11 Exhibit A.4: Elevations (dated 8/22/2018) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 114 of 194 Exhibit A Meridian High School Auditorium – H-2018-0101 PAGE 12 B. Conditions of Approval 1. PLANNING DIVISION 1.1 The site plan, landscape plan and building elevations prepared by LCA Architects (dated 8/22/2018) contained in Exhibit A are approved with the comments and conditions in this report. 1.2 The applicant shall have the continuing obligation to meet the specific use standards for the approved education institution use as set forth in UDC 11-4-3-14. 1.3 The existing trees that are proposed to be removed on the site plan shall comply with the standards for mitigation listed in UDC 11-3B-10C.5. 1.4 The applicant is not required to install the 25-foot wide landscape buffer along Pine Ave, if the Commission approves conditional use permit to allow the extension of the non-conforming parking area. The applicant shall install the following landscaping as part of their project : 1. Construct a new 25 foot wide buffer with (39) 2 inch caliper trees along N. Linder Road. 2. Construct a new 5 foot wide landscape buffer between the parking lot and the adjoining property to the west (the Seminary) with (8) 2 inch caliper trees. 3. The new trees planted around the new auditorium will include 5 inch caliper trees where possible for a total of 52 new caliper inches. 1.5 The applicant shall submit an application for Certificate of Zoning Compliance for the proposed use prior to establishment of the new use in accord with UDC 11-5B-1. 1.6 The applicant shall submit an application for Design Review concurrent with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application in accord with UDC 11-5B-8. 1.7 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 time extension may be requested in accord with UDC 11-5B-6F prior to expiration. If a time extension is not requested or granted and the CUP expires, a new conditional use permit must be obtained. 1.8 Staff’s failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or terms of the approved conditional use does not relieve the applicant of responsibility for compliance. 1.9 Comply with all bulk, use, and development standards of the R-4 zoning district listed in UDC 11-2-A-5.1.10 The applicant shall coordinate with the Parks Department on the desired location of a pedestrian pathway easement on the south side of the Nine Mile Creek and prior to obtaining a certificate of occupancy for the addition, shall record a pedestrian pathway easement. 2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2.1 Sanitary sewer and water service for this proposed expansion will come from existing mains located on site. Record drawings will be required prior to a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. 3. FIRE DEPARTMENT 3.1 The Fire Department did not submit comments on this application. 4. POLICE DEPARTMENT 4.1 The Police Department did not submit comments on this application. 5. REPUBLIC SERVICES Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 115 of 194 Exhibit A Meridian High School Auditorium – H-2018-0101 PAGE 13 5.1 Republic Services has no comments related to this application. 6. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT 7. PARKS DEPARTMENT 7.1 The Parks Department has no comments related to this application. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 116 of 194 Exhibit A Meridian High School Auditorium – H-2018-0101 PAGE 14 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. Commission finds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and dimensional and development regulations of the R-4 district. (see Analysis Section IX for more information). b. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in accord with the requirements of this Title. Commission finds that the proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation of Civic for this site. Further, Commission finds the proposed use of the site is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that the proposed addition of the school facility will assist in keeping up with growth in the City. 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. Commission finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the expansion of the use should be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing and intended character of the area. d. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Commission finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the expansion of the use will not adversely affect other properties in the area. The Commission relied upon any public testimony provided to determine if the development would adversely affect other properties in the vicinity. 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. Commission finds that the expansion of the 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 the expansion of the use. 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 October 18, 2018 – Page 117 of 194 Exhibit A Meridian High School Auditorium – H-2018-0101 PAGE 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. Commission finds the expansion of the use will not involve any of the above listed activities or processes that would be detrimental to 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. Commission finds the expansion of the use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural, scenic or historic feature. i. That the proposed nonconforming use does not encourage or set a precedent for additional nonconforming uses within the area; and The Commission finds the expansion of the building without bringing the parking lot into compliance will not set a precedent for additional non-conforming uses in the area because the applicant has submitted a large number of applications over the last ten years and with each, staff has required the site to be brought closer to full compliance. j. That the proposed nonconforming use is developed to a similar or greater level of conformity with the development standards as set forth in this title as compared to the level of development of the surrounding properties. The Commission finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the existing non-conforming use and expansion will be developed to a similar or greater level of conformity with the development standards as set forth in this title as compared to the level of development of the surrounding properties. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 118 of 194 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting October 4, 2018 Site/Landscape Plan Conceptual Building Elevations Site Plan Landscape Plan Conceptual Elevations Tot Lot Images Preliminary Plat Site/Landscape Plan Conceptual Elevations Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2018 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda Meeting Date: October 18, 2018 Agenda Item Number: 4 A Project File Number: H-2018-0103 Item Title: Meeting Notes: Public Hearing for Alturas Rezone by Travis Barney, Alturas 1550 Tech Lane, LLC, Located at 1550 S. Tech Ln. Request: Rezone of 7.24 acres from I -L to C -G zone Coo+hued I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 4.A . Presenter: Estimated Time f or P resentation: Title of I tem - Public Hearing for Alturas Rezone (H-2018-0105) by T r avis B arney, Alturas 1550 Tech L ane, L L C, L ocated at 1550 S . Tech L n C lic k Here for Applic ation Materials Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 119 of 194 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda Meeting Date: October 18, 2018 Agenda Item Number: 4 B Project File Number: H-2018-0106 Item Title: Public Hearing for Del Taco Meeting Notes: by Tom Lennon, Located at 1617 W. Island Green Dr. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a drive-through establishment within 300 feet of a residential district and existing residences in a C -C zoning district Ccone() uPd To 1 w - 18-- I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 4.B . Presenter: Estimated Time f or P resentation: Title of I tem - Public Hearing for D el Taco (H-2018-0106) by Tom L ennon, L ocated at 1617 W. Island Green Dr. C lic k Here for Applic ation Materials Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 120 of 194 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda Meeting Date: October 18, 2018 Agenda Item Number: 4 C Project File Number: H-2018-0108 Item Title: Public Hearing for The Goddard School by Richard Antl, Located at 2009 S. Wells Avenue Request: Conditional Use Permit for a daycare center for up to 150 children on 1.131 acres in the C -G zoning district Meeting 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 T he Goddard School (H-2018-0108) by Richard Antl, L ocated at 2009 S . Wells Avenue 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 10/11/2018 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 121 of 194 City of Meridian - Public Hearing Sign In Form Tools Details and Signatures For Public Hearing Hearing Date: 10/18/2018 Hearing Type: PZ Item Number: 4-C Project Name: The Goddard School Project No.: H-2018-0108 Active: 0 Page 1 of 1 Signature Name Address City -State- Zip For Against Neutral I Wish To Testify Sign In Date/Time Glenn 135 W. 22135Slo Meridian, 10/18/2018 Nielsen Sunny pe Idaho 83642 X 3:15:29 PM Drive Amanda K. 510 E Meridian, ID 10/18/2018 X McMillen Baldwin St. 83646 5:14:25 PM Go Back To List Export To Excel © 2018 - City of Meridian, Idaho http://internalapps/SIGNINFORMTOOLS/SignInFormDetails?id=85 10/18/2018 Changes to Agenda: • Item #4A: Alturas Rezone (H-2018.0105) — Applicant requests continuance to November 1St because they could not be in attendance at tonight's hearing. • Item #46: Del Taco (H-2018.0106) — Applicant requests continuance to November 11t because the site wasn't posted with a public hearing notice within the time frame required prior to the hearing. Item #4C: The Goddard School (H-2018.0108) Application(s): ➢ Conditional Use Permit Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 1.13 acres of land, zoned C -G, located at 2009 S. Wells Ave. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: North and West: Vacant properties (zoned C -G) South: Future townhome development (zoned C -G) East: The Fields apartment complex (zoned R-40) History: In 2006, this property was included in the annexation & a preliminary plat for Kenai Subdivision. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MU -RG Summary of Request: A CUP is requested for a 10,000 sf Daycare Center for up to 160 children, 6 weeks to 6 years old, in the C -G district. The site plan depicts how the site is proposed to develop with 2 access points - the north driveway is to be accessed via a common drive aisle shared with the property to the north; the south driveway is to be accessed from E. Goldstone St. Cross -access is provided to the adjacent property to the north and . is required to be improved with asphalt and curbing. A minimum of 20 parking spaces are required, the applicant is proposing 35 spaces in excess of UDC standards. A landscaped street buffer and multi -use pathway exists along S. Wells Ave and E. Goldstone St. A minimum 5 -foot wide pedestrian walkway is required to be provided from the perimeter sidewalk to the entrance of the building. Parking lot landscaping is required to be installed in accord with UDC 11-36-8C. There are two proposed play areas, one at the north and one at the south of the site. Both are proposed to be enclosed with 6 -foot non - scalable fencing in accord with UDC standards. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the daycare center. The proposed building is single -story, materials consist of stucco and brick with metal seam awnings. The future structure is required to comply with the design standards listed in the UDC & ASM. Written Testimony: None Staff Recommendation: Approval with conditions in report. Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2018-0108, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 18, 2018, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2018-0108, as presented during the hearing on October 18, 2018, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2018-0108 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Page 1 STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: October 18, 2018 TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Stephanie Leonard, Associate Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2018-0108 The Goddard School PROPERTY LOCATION: 2009 S. Wells Ave. South side of E. Overland Rd., midway between S. Locust Grove Rd. & S. Eagle Rd., in the NE ¼ of Section 20, Township 3N, Range 1E. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Conditional use permit for a daycare center for up to 160 children on 1.131 acres in the C-G zoning district. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Details Page Acreage 1.131 Future Land Use Designation MU-R Existing Land Use Vacant Proposed Land Use(s) Daycare Center Current Zoning C-G Proposed Zoning C-G Physical Features (waterways, hazards, flood plain, hillside) None History (previous approvals) AZ-06-021; PP-06-019 B. Community Metrics Details Page ACHD report (yes/no)  Requires ACHD Commission Action (yes/no) No Access (Arterial/Collectors/State Local street access only 4 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 122 of 194 Page 2 Details Page Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) Distance to nearest City Park (+ size) 380 feet from Gordon Harris Park (11 acres) Distance to Schools (elem, ms, hs)  Capacity of schools  # of students enrolled 600 ft. to Mountain View High School Less than 1 mile (4,700 ft.) to Siena Elementary School C. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Zoning Map Planned Development Map III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant/Owner: Richard Antl Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 123 of 194 Page 3 B. Representative: Jon Chatfield, Chatfield Architecture IV. NOTICING A. Newspaper notification published on: September 28, 2018 B. Radius notice mailed to properties within 300 feet on: September 21, 2018 C. Applicant posted notice on site on: October 6, 2018 D. Next door posting: September 25, 2018 E. Neighbor meeting date and # of attendees: September 7, 2018; 2 attendees (applicants) V. STAFF ANALYSIS The applicant requests a conditional use permit to operate a daycare center for up to 160 children, ages 6 weeks to 6 years old, in the C-G zoning district as required by UDC Table 11-2B-2. A conditional use permit is required for a daycare center for 12 or more children, subject to specific use standards listed below. The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designates this site as Mixed Use Regional (MU-R). The purpose of MU-R designated areas is to provide a mix of employment, retail and residential dwellings and public uses near major arterial intersections. This daycare will be within walking distance of a large number of multi-family and single family residences, a mix of employment in the surrounding area, will provide a needed service to surrounding residences and will add to the diversity of the area. Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this property and apply to the proposed use:  “Provide a walkable community through good design” (2.01.01A)  “Plan for and encourage services like health care, daycare, grocery stores and recreational areas to be built within walking and biking distance of residential dwellings.” (2.01.01C)  “Require all commercial and industrial businesses to install and maintain landscaping.” (2.01.03B)  “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)  “Reduce the number of existing access points onto arterial streets by using methods such as cross- access agreements, access management, and frontage / backage roads.” (3.03.02N)  “Restrict private curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets.” (3.06.02D)  “Require pedestrian access in all new development to link subdivisions together and promote neighborhood connectivity.” (3.07.02C)  “Implement the City’s Pathways Master Plan.” (5.03.01A) Specific Use Standards: The proposed use is subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-9, Daycare Facility. A. General standards for all child daycare and adult care uses, including the classifications of daycare center; daycare, family; and daycare, group: 1. In determining the type of daycare facility, the total number of children at the facility at one time is the determining factor. The applicant proposes to care for up to 160 children at any one time and therefore is classified as a daycare center. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 124 of 194 Page 4 2. On site vehicle pick up, parking and turnaround areas shall be provided to ensure safe discharge and pick up of clients. A specific drop-off area has not been proposed, however the proposed facility will have 35 parking spots and a two-way 26’ wide drive aisle to provide for a safe discharge and pick-up area for children. 3. The decision making body shall specify the maximum number of allowable clients and hours of operation as conditions of approval. The applicant is requesting to care for approximately 160 children at any one time. The proposed hours of operation are from 6:00 am to 6:00 pm. However, the specific use standards allow the facility to operate between the hours of 6:00 am to 11:00 pm, unless otherwise restricted by the Commission. 4. The applicant or owner shall provide proof of criminal background checks and fire inspection certificates as required by title 39, chapter 11, Idaho Code. Said proof shall be provided prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy. The applicant or owner shall comply with all State of Idaho and Department of Health and Welfare requirements for daycare facilities. The applicant shall submit a copy of a background check and complete an inspection with the Fire Department prior to daycare operation. 5. In residential districts or uses adjoining an adjacent residence, the hours of operation shall be between six o'clock (6:00) A.M. and eleven o'clock (11:00) P.M. This standard may be modified through approval of a conditional use permit. The applicant only proposes to operate the facility between the hours of 6:00 am and 6:00 pm; at no time should the hours extend beyond 6:00 am to 11:00 pm. 6. Prior to submittal of an application for an accessory daycare facility in a residential district, the applicant or owner shall hold a neighborhood meeting in accord with subsection 11-5A-4B of this title. Notice of the neighborhood meeting shall be provided to all property owners of record within one hundred feet (100') of the exterior boundary of the subject property. This standard is not applicable to this application. The applicant shall not exceed the maximum number of clients as stated in the approved permit or as stated in this title, whichever is more restrictive. The applicant requests to care for up to 160 children, unless otherwise restricted by Commission. B. Additional standards for daycare facilities that serve children: 1. All outdoor play areas shall be completely enclosed by minimum six foot (6') non-scalable fences to secure against exit/entry by small children and to screen abutting properties. The applicant is proposing to enclose the play areas in the north and south yards with a six-foot non-scalable metal tubular/wrought iron fence. Access: Two points of access are proposed for the site. The north driveway is to be accessed via a common drive aisle shared with the property owner to the north. The driveway to the south is proposed to be accessed from E. Goldstone St. Access points will provide for effective site circulation and will alleviate direct access onto S. Wells Ave. Per the recorded plat a cross-access/egress easement has been provided to the driveway abutting the property to the north in accord with UDC 11-3A-3A.2, which requires cross-access easements to be granted to adjacent properties when access via a local street isn’t available; and Comprehensive Plan action item #3.06.02D, “Restrict private curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets.” Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 125 of 194 Page 5 Parking: Off-street parking is required to be provided for the proposed use in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-6B. Based on the proposed square footage of the structure (i.e. 10,000 square feet), a minimum of 20 parking spaces are required; a total of 35 spaces are proposed in excess of UDC standards. Bicycle parking is required to be provided on the site per UDC 11-3C-6G in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. Landscaping: Street buffer landscaping was installed with the subdivision along S. Wells Ave. and E. Goldstone St. on this site in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C and in accord with Comprehensive Plan action item #2.01.03B, “Require all commercial and industrial businesses to install and maintain landscaping.” Internal parking lot landscaping is required to be installed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C and Comprehensive Plan action item #2.01.04B, “Require all new and reconstructed parking lots to provide landscaping in internal islands and along streets, and to positively influence the physical and visual environment through screening, paving materials, and other landscape techniques.” Site Plan: Staff has reviewed the submitted site plan dated August 27, 2018. The following changes shall be required prior to submittal of the certificate of zoning compliance (CZC) application: 1. There is an existing sidewalk along the south and east boundaries of the site in accord with UDC 11- 3A-17. A minimum 5-foot wide pedestrian walkway is required to be provided from the perimeter sidewalk to the main building entrance; internal pedestrian walkways shall be distinguished from the vehicular driving surface through the use of pavers, colored or scored concrete, or bricks as set forth in UDC 11-3A-19B.4. 2. The applicant shall extend and improve the shared street to the north of the site with curbing and asphalt, per UDC 11-3A-19B-2 and in accord with Comprehensive Plan action item #2.01.02A, “Implement community design ordinances, and complete streets policies.” 3. There is an existing City of Meridian water easement located in the southwest part of the site. Staff has confirmed this easement contains no infrastructure. In discussions with the applicant, it is their intention to use this part of the site as additional play area. If this easement is not necessary as part of this project, staff recommends that the applicant vacate the easement per UDC table 11-5A-2, prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy. Multi-use Pathway: A ten-foot multi-use pathway was provided with the construction of the subdivision in accord with Comprehensive Plan action items #3.03.03B, “Require pedestrian access connectors in all new development to link subdivisions together to promote neighborhood connectivity as part of a community pathway system” and #5.03.01A, “Implement the City’s Pathways Master Plan.” The multi-use pathway will support a needed service in close proximity to residences, businesses and services, in accord with Comprehensive Plan action items #2.01.01A, “Provide a walkable community through good design” and #2.01.01C, “Plan for and encourage services like health care, daycare, grocery stores and recreational areas to be built within walking and biking distance of residential dwellings.” Trash Enclosure: A trash enclosure is depicted on the site plan on the north side of the parking lot. The applicant shall coordinate with Republic Services on the design and location of the enclosure. A detail of the enclosure shall be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. Building Elevations: The applicant has submitted conceptual elevations of the proposed building included in Exhibit VII.D. Building materials consist of stucco and brick with standing metal seam awnings. The final design of the structure is required to comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) and Design Review (DES): A CZC and DES application is required to be submitted and approved prior to application for building permits. The applicant must comply with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and in the Architectural Standards Manual. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 126 of 194 Page 6 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 subject CUP application. VI. DECISION Staff recommends approval of the proposed conditional use permit application in accord with the Findings in Section IX per the provisions in Section VIII. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 127 of 194 Page 7 VII. EXHIBITS A. Site Plan (Dated: August 27, 2018) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 128 of 194 Page 8 B. Landscape Plan (Dated: September 5, 2018) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 129 of 194 Page 9 C. Floor Plan (Dated: September 12, 2018) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 130 of 194 Page 10 D. Elevations (Dated: September 12, 2018) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 131 of 194 Page 11 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS 1. PLANNING DIVISION 1. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of previous approvals (AZ-06-021, Development Agreement Instrument No. 106141056; and PP-06-019). 2. The applicant shall comply with the Specific Use Standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-9, Daycare Facility. 3. The site plan, included in Exhibit VII.A, dated August 27, 2018 shall be revised as follows: a. Depict a minimum 5-foot wide pedestrian walkway from the perimeter sidewalk to the main building entrance; internal pedestrian walkways shall be distinguished from the vehicular driving surface through the use of pavers, colored or scored concrete, or bricks as set forth in UDC 11-3A-19B.4. b. Depict a bicycle rack on the site in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. c. The applicant shall extend and improve the shared street to the north of the site with curbing and asphalt in accord with UDC 11-3A-19B-2. 4. The landscape plan included in Exhibit VII.B, dated September 5, 2018, shall be revised as follows: a. Depict a minimum 5-foot wide pedestrian walkway from the perimeter sidewalk to the main building entrance; internal pedestrian walkways shall be distinguished from the vehicular driving surface through the use of pavers, colored or scored concrete, or bricks as set forth in UDC 11-3A-19B.4. b. Planter size of interior parking lot landscaping shall comply with UDC 11-3B-8C-2a. 5. Development of this site shall substantially comply with the site plan, landscape plan and building elevations included in Exhibit VII 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 daycare 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. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 132 of 194 Page 12 2. PUBLIC WORKS 1. The site plan submitted for this project shows an existing water service within an easement in the southwest part of the site. If this service is not intended to be used, the applicant shall be required to abandon the service back to the mainline in E. Goldstone Street per Meridian Public Works Department Standards. As part of the abandonment, the easement will need to be released by the City. 3. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (DEQ) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/155931/Page1.aspx 4. IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT (ITD) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/156161/Page1.aspx 5. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT (CDHD) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/155578/Page1.aspx Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 133 of 194 Page 13 IX. FINDINGS 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 daycare center 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 repor t, 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 October 18, 2018 – Page 134 of 194 Page 14 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 October 18, 2018 – Page 135 of 194 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda Meeting Date: October 18, 2018 Agenda Item Number: 4 D Project File Number: H-2018-0100 Item Title: Public Hearing for Jocelyn Park Subdivision Meeting Notes: by Jarron Langston, Located at the Southwest Corner of W. Victory Rd. and S. Meridian Rd. Request: Preliminary Plat for a Preliminary Plat consisting of 23 building lots and 2 common lots on 13.32 acres of land in an R-8 Zoning District omm 'A�r ( w/ Modiezation `-o City CovnG SC�e. 'Ie I l - ZD - /L,?,- I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 4.D. Presenter: Estimated Time f or P resentation: Title of I tem - Public Hearing for J ocelyn P ark Subdivision (H-2018-0100) by J arron L angston, L ocated at the Southwest Corner of W. Victory Rd. and S . M eridian 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 10/12/2018 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 136 of 194 City of Meridian - Public Hearing Sign In Form Tools Details and Signatures For Public Hearing Hearing Date: 10/18/2018 Hearing Type: PZ Item Number: 4-D Project Name: Jocelyn Park Subdivision Project No.: H-2018-0100 Active: 0 Page 1 of 1 Signature City -State- I Wish To Sign In Address For Against Neutral Name Zip Testify Date/Time Glenn 135 W. 22135Slo Meridian, 10/18/2018 Sunny pe X Nielsen Idaho 83642 3:14:48 PM Drive Kimberly 5527 N 10/18/2018 Meridian X X Juarez Beaham Ave 4:20:07 PM 355 w victory Meridian, id 10/18/2018 Schmidt rd 83642 X 6:00:34 PM Jarron 10/18/2018 X Langston 6:10:36 PM Go Back To List Export To Excel © 2018 - City of Meridian, Idaho http://internalapps/SIGNINFORMTOOLS/SignInFormDetails?id=86 10/18/2018 Item #4D: Jocelyn Park Subdivision (H-2018-0100) Application(s): ➢ Preliminary Plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 13.32 acres of land, zoned R-8, located near the southwest corner of W. Victory Road and S. Meridian Road. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: The property is surrounded by residential single-family homes zoned R-8 and R-4. History: The property was annexed in 2013 as part of the Victory South Annexation. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MDR Summary of Request: The applicant proposes to develop the site with 23 single-family residential lots and 2 common lots. The gross density of the proposed plat is 1.73 d.u. per acre with a net density of 2.62 d.u. per acre, which falls within the target density of the MDR designation. The average lot size is greater thanl5,000 square feet. All of the proposed lots comply with the dimensional standards of the UDC. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed density is appropriate for the area and compatible with adjacent uses and zoning. All adjacent residential uses are zoned RUT (in Ada County), R-8 and R-4, and the proposed zone would be consistent not only with the surrounding neighborhoods, but also with the comprehensive plan. Block Length: The plat is required to comply with the block length standards listed in UDC 11 -6C -3F. Staff has reviewed the proposed plat and found that the west side of Cumberland Way exceeds the 750 feet as limited by code. That section of the project does not have a stub street or a pedestrian connection from the Timberline Subdivision to the west, so compliance with the 750 foot maximum is difficult. The applicant will need to request Council approval to exceed the 750 foot maximum; staff supports this request. Access: Vehicular access is proposed for this site via one access to W. Winnipeg Street to the east and one to the west (W. Cumberland Drive). The applicant is also proposing one additional stub street to the parcel to the north east (parcel # S1225110160) for future connectivity and to limit direct access to W. Victory Road in accord with UDC standards and Comp. Plan policy 3.03.02N. Staff supports the proposed access plan. Sidewalks: Sidewalks are required along all public streets as set forth in UDC 11-3A-17. The applicant proposes to construct 5 -foot wide attached sidewalk along internal streets. The applicant is also required to install a 5 -foot detached sidewalk along the entire frontage of W. Victory Road in accord with UDC standards and Comp. Plan policy 3.07.02C. Fencing: Any existing and proposed fencing for the development shall be included on either a site plan or landscape plan and shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11 -3A -6B and 11-3A-7. Lot 1, Block 3 and Lot 1, Block 1 shall comply with the requirements of the above named UDC section in terms of fencing on common lots and adjacent to irrigation facilities. Open Space: A minimum of 10% qualified open space is required to be provided for this development in accord with UDC 11 -3G -3A.1. Based on the area of the preliminary plat (13.32 acres), a minimum of 1.33 acres of qualified open space are required to be provided as set forth in UDC 11 -3A -3B and Comp. Plan policy 3.07.02A. The applicant has proposed 19.9% open space for the development, or 2.65 acres of land. Site Amenities: All developments consisting of five acres of more are required to provide a minimum of one site amenity; one additional site amenity is required for each additional 20 acres per UDC 11 -3G -3A.2, in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3G- 3C.Based on the area of the preliminary plat (13.32 acres), a minimum of 1 qualified site amenity is required to be provided. The applicant proposes to provide a tot lot, and a gazebo as amenities for the subdivision. Staff is generally supportive of the proposed amenities. However more details on the tot lot are needed. A detail of the play equipment for the tot lot should be submitted with the final plat application. Building Elevations: The applicant is proposing to construct single-family detached homes. The applicant has submitted conceptual sample building elevations for future homes in this development. Building materials appear to consist of a mix of variety of wood siding, cultured stone and stucco with architectural shingles. The homes will not require design review, but should constructed generally consistent with the submitted elevations and materials. Written Testimony: None Staff Recommendation: Approval Why? [The applicant has provided significantly more open space than is required by code and he project will fit nicely with the surrounding area. 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- 2018-0100, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 18, 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- 0100, as presented during the hearing on October 18, 2018, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2018-0100 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Page 1 STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: October 18, 2018 TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Josh Beach, Associate Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2018-0100 Jocelyn Park Subdivision PROPERTY LOCATION: The site is located near the southwest corner of W. Victory Road and S. Meridian Road. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Preliminary plat (PP) consisting of twenty-three (23) residential buildable lots and two (2) common lots on 13.32 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Details Page Acreage 13.32 Future Land Use Designation MDR Medium Density Residential (3-8 DU/Acre) (Applicant is requesting a “Step Down” in Density) Existing Land Use Vacant (previously a sewage lagoon) Proposed Land Use(s) Single-family homes Current Zoning R-8 Proposed Zoning R-8 Lots (# and type; bldg/common) 23 Buildable, 2 common Density (gross & net) 1.73 Gross/2.62 Net Open Space 2.65 acres, at 19.9% Amenities Tot Lot, Gazebo Physical Features (waterways, hazards, flood plain, hillside) The Ridenbaugh Canal crosses the property just south of W. Victory Road. History (previous approvals) Annexed in 2013 as part of the Victory South Annexation (AZ- 13-014) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 137 of 194 Page 2 B. Community Metrics Details Page ACHD report (yes/no)  Requires ACHD Commission Action (yes/no) No report received to date No Access (Arterial/Collectors/State Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) One (1) access to the west via a stub (W. Cumberland Drive), One (1) access to the east (W. Winnipeg Street) Traffic Level of Service Unknown Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross Access One (1) stub to the northeast to parcel # S1225110160 Distance to Fire Station  Fire response time  Resource reliability  Risk identification  Accessibility  Specialty/resource needs  Water supply Not Provided 7 minutes 63% 1 Meets requirements Meets requirement 1000 gallons per minute Distance to Police Station  Police response time  Calls for service  % of calls for service split by priority  Accessibility  Specialty/resource needs  Crimes  Crashes 3 miles 3 minutes 181 calls within 1 mile of the site P3-1.1%, P-2 50.3%, P1-47.5%, P0-1.1 Accessibility is not an issue None 33 7 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 138 of 194 Page 3 C. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Zoning Map Planned Development Map III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant/Representative: Jarron Langston 9563 W. Harness Drive Boise, ID 83709 B. Owner: Epic Enterprises 9563 W. Harness Drive Boise, ID 83709 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 139 of 194 Page 4 IV. NOTICING A. Newspaper notification published on: September 28, 2018 B. Radius notice mailed to properties within 300 feet on: September 21, 2018 C. Applicant posted notice on site on: October 8, 2018 D. Next door posting: September 25, 2018 E. Neighbor meeting date and # of attendees: July 26, 2018 with 10 residents plus the applicant being present. V. STAFF ANALYSIS This property is designated Medium Density Residential (MDR) on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The MDR designation allows smaller lots for residential purposes within City limits. Uses may include single-family homes at densities of 3 to 8 dwelling units (d.u.) per acre. The Comprehensive Plan allows the applicant to request a “step down” in density to justify the 1.73 gross density. The applicant is in fact requesting that “step down” from Council. The applicant proposes to develop the site with 23 single-family residential lots and 2 common lots. The gross density of the proposed plat is 1.73 d.u. per acre with a net density of 2.62 d.u. per acre, which falls within the target density of the MDR designation. The average lot size is greater than15,000 square feet. All of the proposed lots comply with the dimensional standards of the UDC. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed density is appropriate for the area and compatible with adjacent uses and zoning. All adjacent residential uses are zoned RUT (in Ada County), R-8 and R-4, and the proposed zone would be consistent not only with the surrounding neighborhoods, but also with the comprehensive plan. Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this property and apply to the proposed use: 1. “Provide for a wide diversity of housing types (single-family, modular, mobile homes and multi- family arrangements) and choices between ownership and rental dwelling units for all income groups in a variety of locations suitable for residential development.” (3.07.03B) 2. ”Require usable open space to be incorporated into new residential subdivision plats.” (3.07.02A) 3. “Require pedestrian access in all new development to link subdivisions together and promote neighborhood connectivity.” (3.07.02C) 4. “Permit new development only where urban services can be reasonably provided at the time of final approval and development is contiguous to the City.” (3.01.01F) 5. “Provide housing options close to employment and shopping centers.” (3.07.02D) 6. “Encourage infill development.” (3.04.02B) 7. “Reduce the number of existing access points onto arterial streets by using methods such as cross- access agreements, access management, and frontage / backage roads.” (3.03.02N) Dimensional Standards: Development of this site is required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC 11-2A-6 for the R-8 district. Staff has reviewed the proposed plat and found it to be in compliance with the R-8 dimensional standards. Block Length: The plat is required to comply with the block length standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3F. Staff has reviewed the proposed plat and found that the west side of Cumberland Way exceeds the 750 feet as limited by code. That section of the project does not have a stub street or a pedestrian connection Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 140 of 194 Page 5 from the Timberline Subdivision to the west, so compliance with the 750 foot maximum is difficult. The applicant will need to request Council approval to exceed the 750 foot maximum; staff supports this request. Access: Vehicular access is proposed for this site via one access to W. Winnipeg Street to the east and one to the west (W. Cumberland Drive). The applicant is also proposing one additional stub street to the parcel to the north east (parcel # S1225110160) for future connectivity and to limit direct access to W. Victory Road in accord with UDC standards and Comp. Plan policy 3.03.02N. Staff supports the proposed access plan. Streets: The proposed internal streets depicted on the plat are public streets. A total of 50-feet of right-of-way is proposed for the internal streets. Staff supports the proposed street layout (see Block Length above). Sidewalks: Sidewalks are required along all public streets as set forth in UDC 11-3A-17. The applicant proposes to construct 5-foot wide attached sidewalk along internal streets. The applicant is also required to install a 5-foot detached sidewalk along the entire frontage of W. Victory Road in accord with UDC standards and Comp. Plan policy 3.07.02C. Fencing: Any existing and proposed fencing for the development shall be included on either a site plan or landscape plan and shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-6B and 11-3A-7. Lot 1, Block 3 and Lot 1, Block 1 shall comply with the requirements of the above named UDC section in terms of fencing on common lots and adjacent to irrigation facilities. Easements: There are several lots that are encumbered by an existing easement. Any existing utility mains crossing this property that are no longer in use or needed, must be abandoned, and any associated easements will need to be released/relinquished. Open Space: A minimum of 10% qualified open space is required to be provided for this development in accord with UDC 11-3G-3A.1. Based on the area of the preliminary plat (13.32 acres), a minimum of 1.33 acres of qualified open space are required to be provided as set forth in UDC 11-3A-3B and Comp. Plan policy 3.07.02A. The applicant has proposed 19.9% open space for the development, or 2.65 acres of land. Site Amenities: All developments consisting of five acres of more are required to provide a minimum of one site amenity; one additional site amenity is required for each additional 20 acres per UDC 11-3G-3A.2, in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3C.Based on the area of the preliminary plat (13.32 acres), a minimum of 1 qualified site amenity is required to be provided. The applicant proposes to provide a tot lot, and a gazebo as amenities for the subdivision. Staff is generally supportive of the proposed amenities. However more details on the tot lot are needed. A detail of the play equipment for the tot lot should be submitted with the final plat application. Pressurized Irrigation (PI): An underground PI system is required to be provided to each lot in the subdivision as proposed in accord with UDC 11-3A-15. Building Elevations: The applicant is proposing to construct single-family detached homes. The applicant has submitted conceptual sample building elevations for future homes in this development, included in section VIII. Building materials appear to consist of a mix of variety of wood siding, cultured stone and stucco with architectural shingles. The homes will not require design review, but should constructed generally consistent with the submitted elevations and materials. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 141 of 194 Page 6 VI. RECOMMENDATION Staff finds that the subject preliminary plat exceeds the minimum requirements of the UDC and recommends approval of the proposed preliminary plat application in accord with the Findings in Section IX subject to the provisions in Section VIII. VII. EXHIBITS 1. Proposed Preliminary Plat (dated: 7/25/2018) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 142 of 194 Page 7 2. Proposed Landscape Plan (dated: 8/9/2018) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 143 of 194 Page 8 3. Conceptual Building Elevations Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 144 of 194 Page 9 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 145 of 194 Page 10 4. Legal Description and Exhibit Map Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 146 of 194 Page 11 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 147 of 194 Page 12 VIII. CONDITIONS & MITIGATION MEASURES 1. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1.1 Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1.1 Applicant shall meet all terms of the approved annexation (AZ-13-014, DA Instrument # 114007668). 1.1.2 The preliminary plat included in Section VII, dated 7/25/2018, shall be revised as follows: a. The site shall comply with UDC 11-6C-3F in terms of block length, unless Council allows it to exceed 750 feet. 1.1.3 The landscape plan included in Exhibit A.3, dated 8/9/2018, shall be revised as follows: a. Fencing in compliance with UDC 11-3A-6B and 11-3A-7 shall be located on all common lots and against the Ridenbaugh Canal. b. A detail of the play equipment for the tot lot shall be submitted with the final plat application. 1.1.4 If there are any existing trees on the site that are to be removed, the applicant should contact Elroy Huff, City Arborist, at 888-3579 to schedule an appointment to confirm mitigation requirements prior to removal of any trees on the site. Any existing trees proposed to be retained on-site shall be noted on the landscape plan submitted with a final plat application. 1.1.5 Direct lot access to W. Victory Road, an arterial street, is prohibited in accord with UDC 11-3A-3. 1.1.6 Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the preliminary plat and building elevations depicted in Section VII and the revisions noted in the staff report. 1.1.7 The applicant shall construct the entire landscape buffer and sidewalk along W. Victory Road with the first phase of development. 1.1.8 The applicant shall provide a master grading and drainage plan for the site with the first final plat application. 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- 2-A-5. 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 the required landscape buffers consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3B-7C. 1.2.8 Construct storm water integration facilities that meet the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3B-11C. 1.2.9 Comply with all subdivision design and improvement standards as set forth in UDC 11-6C-3, including but not limited to cul-de-sacs, driveways, common driveways, easements, blocks, street buffers, and mailbox placement. 1.2.10 Comply with all provisions of UDC 11-3A-3 with regard to maintaining the clear vision triangle. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 148 of 194 Page 13 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. 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. 1.3.6 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. 2. PUBLIC WORKS 2.1 SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 2.1.1 A street lighting plan will be required with the submittal of development plans. Plan requirements can be found in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting at http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272 2.1.2 There are existing sanitary sewer and water mainlines crossing the subject property. Applicant shall be responsible for the preservation of these mainlines, and incorporating into their design at a minimum 14- foot wide compacted gravel maintenance access roads over said utilities. 2.1.3 The preliminary plat shows what we are assuming is an easement that bisects the site from the southeastern corner to the north boundary. It is believed that there are also easements along the western side of the property that were in place for power and sewer facilities when this property functioned as the sewage lagoons for the Meridian Heights Water and Sewer District. Please identify all existing easements of record, and your plan for the vacation of these easements. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 149 of 194 Page 14 2.1.4 Due to the amount of engineered fill material that must be placed within this property as part of the sewage lagoon reclamation process, the applicant shall be required to engage the services of a geotechnical engineer to review and oversee the filling and compaction operations. Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Public Works inspector on-site prior to any sewer or water infrastructure being installed, and to the Building Department for all areas within building pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material. 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. 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. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 150 of 194 Page 15 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 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. 2.2.18 The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 2.2.19 At the completion of the project, the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 2.2.20 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. 2.2.21 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the amount of 125% of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer, water and reuse infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 2.2.22 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20% of the total construction cost for all completed sewer, water and reuse infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 3. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (DEQ) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?dbid=0&id=154806&page=1& Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 151 of 194 Page 16 4. IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT (ITD) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?id=156163&dbid=0 5. NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/155960/Page1.aspx http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/155961/Page1.aspx Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 152 of 194 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda Meeting Date: October 18, 2018 Agenda Item Number: 4 E Project File Number: H-2018-0091 Item Title: Public Hearing for Rockbury Townhomes Meeting Notes: by Michael Nigh, Located North of W. Chinden Blvd. on the West side on N. Tree Farm Way Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 47 residential lots and 8 common lots on 6.23 acres of land in an R-15 zoning district w CA [[-2-7 ' I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 4.E . Presenter: Estimated Time f or P resentation: Title of I tem - Public Hearing for Rockbury Townhomes (H-2018-0091) by M ichael Nigh, L ocated North of W. Chinden Blvd. on the West side on N. T ree F ar m 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 10/12/2018 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 154 of 194 City of Meridian - Public Hearing Sign In Form Tools Details and Signatures For Public Hearing Hearing Date: 10/18/2018 Hearing Type: PZ Item Number: 4-E Project Name: Rockbury Townhomes Project No.: H-2018-0091 Active: ❑q - Page 1 of 2 Go Back To List I Export To Excel http://internalapps/SIGNINFORMTOOLS/SignInFormDetails?id=87 10/18/2018 I WishSign Signature In Address City -State -Zip For Against Neutral To Name Date/Time Testify Kristin 5338S 10/15/2018 Meridian X Beaufort Tindaris PI 12:39:44 PM Carma 2080 W. 10/18/2018 Marten Creek Meridian X Wallace 1:51:48 PM Drive Glenn 2135 W. Meridian, 10/18/2018 SunnySlope pe X Nielsen Idaho 83642 3:13:56 PM Drive Kimberly 5527 N 10/18/2018 Meridian X X Juarez Beaham Ave 4:20:15 PM Karen A. 4184 West Meridian, 10/18/2018 Highland Fall X Stagg Idaho 83646 4:49:52 PM Ct Amanda K. 510 E Meridian,ID 10/18/2018 X McMillen Baldwin St. 83646 5:13:45 PM 6628 N. Meridian, ID 10/18/2018 Jane Albert Salvia Way 83646 X 6:03:48 PM Go Back To List I Export To Excel http://internalapps/SIGNINFORMTOOLS/SignInFormDetails?id=87 10/18/2018 Item #4E: Rockbury Townhomes (H-2018-0091) Application(s): ➢ Preliminary Plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 6.23 acres of land, zoned R-15, located at 4373 W. Tree Crest Drive, Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: The property is surrounded by residential uses to the west, north and east and a future church to the south. History: The property was annexed into the City in 2006 as Tree Far m Subdivision and received preliminary plat approval in 2017. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MDR Summary of Request: The applicant proposes to develop the site with 47 single-family residential lots and 8 common lots. The gross density of the proposed plat is 5.8 d.u. per acre with a net density of 12.4 d.u. per acre, which falls within the target density of the MDR designation. The gross density for the subdivision is 5.8 d.u./acre. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed density is appropriate for the area and compatible with adjacent uses and zoning. All adjacent residential uses are zoned R-8, R-4 and R-15, and this project would be consistent not only with the surrounding neighborhoods, but also with the comprehensive plan designation. Dimensional Standards: Development of this site is required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC 11-2A-7 for the R-15 district. The average lot size is 3,527 square feet. All of the proposed lots comply with the dimensional standards of the UDC. Staff has reviewed the proposed plat and found it to be in compliance with the R-15 dimensional standards. Access: Vehicular access is proposed for this site via one access to N. Tree Farm Way to the east and an emergency access to the north (W. Tree Crest Drive). Streets: The applicant is proposing to construct a private street to provide access and circulation within this development. The UDC requires private streets to be constructed within an easement and have a travel lane width of 24' or 26' with no allowed parking as determined by the Fire Marshal. The proposed private streets are all internal to the development and are to be constructed as a combination of 25 and 27 -foot street sections. The applicant is proposing to share the private street with pedestrians and vehicles. Staff has concerns about the shared nature of the roadway and recommends that the applicant provide a 4 -foot sidewalk along one side of the private street to accommodate pedestrian travel. Typically private streets are not intended for single-family developments. In this case the applicant had multiple discussions with ACHD and with City staff and determined that a public street for the development would only serve the residents of this subdivision and ACHD determined that there was "No public benefit" in constructing public streets for this project. This determination from ACHD led the applicant to design a private street as part of their project. The applicant has submitted a Private Street application as required by UDC 11-317-3. With the requirement that a 4 -foot sidewalk be constructed on one side of the sidewalk, staff is supportive of the applicants request and has conditioned as such in section VIII. Parking: The widths of the proposed private streets and the layout of the proposed subdivision only allows for limited parking in the subdivision. Per the fire department, the private street shall be marked as "No Parking, Fire Lane", this severely limits the ability of any guests for the owners. In order to accommodate additional parking within the development, the applicant should provide guest parking within the development but shall maintain the required open space. Sidewalks: Sidewalks are not required along private streets; however the applicant is proposing to construct a 5 foot shared bicycle/pedestrian/drive aisle throughout the development. A detached sidewalk exists along N. Tree Haven Way and W. Tree Crest Drive Fencing: Any existing and proposed fencing for the development shall be included on either a site plan or landscape plan and shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11 -3A -6B and 11-3A-7. Fencing is required adjacent to all common lots. Open Space: A minimum of 10% qualified open space is required to be provided for this development in accord with UDC 11 -3G -3A.1. Based on the area of the preliminary plat (6.23 acres), a minimum of 0.62 acres of qualified open space are required to be provided as set forth in UDC 11 -3A -3B and Comp. Plan policy 3.07.02A. The applicant has proposed 11% open space for the development, or 0.66 acres of land. Site Amenities: All developments consisting of five acres of more are required to provide a minimum of one site amenity; one additional site amenity is required for each additional 20 acres per UDC 11 -3G -3A.2, in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11 -3G - 3C. Based on the area of the preliminary plat (6.23 acres), a minimum of 1 qualified site amenity is required to be provided. The applicant proposes to provide a 50X100 grassy area, a plaza and a water feature as amenities for the subdivision. Building Elevations: The applicant is proposing to construct single-family attached homes. The applicant has submitted conceptual sample building elevations for future homes in this development. Building materials appear to consist of a mix of variety of wood siding with architectural shingles. Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC): The applicant will be required to submit a certificate of zoning compliance application for the required parking lot, The parking lot will be required to comply with any applicable UDC provisions as part of the approval. Administrative Design Review (DES): Any attached single-family homes will be required to receive administrative design review approval prior to obtaining a building permit. Written Testimony: None Staff Recommendation: Approval Why? The subject plat meets the requirements of the UDC, and complies with the Comprehensive Plan. Additionally, the use is compliant with the original concept plan for the parcel as approved in the 2006 annexation. 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- 2018-0091, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 18, 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- 0091, as presented during the hearing on October 18, 2018, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2018-0091 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Page 17 IX. FINDINGS 1. 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 substantial compliance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan in regard to land use, transportation, and circulation. 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. 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; Staff recommends the Commission and Council rely upon comments from the public service providers (i.e., Police, Fire, ACHD, etc.) to determine this finding. 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 and/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. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 153 of 194 Page 1 STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: October 18, 2018 TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Josh Beach, Associate Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2018-0091 Rockbury Townhomes Subdivision PROPERTY LOCATION: The site is located near the northwest corner of W. Chinden Blvd and N. Tree Farm Way. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Preliminary plat (PP) consisting of forty-seven (47) residential buildable lots and eight (8) common lots on 6.23 acres of land in the R-15 zoning district. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Details Page Acreage 6.23 Future Land Use Designation MDR Medium Density Residential (3-8 DU/Acre) Existing Land Use Vacant Proposed Land Use(s) Attached single-family Current Zoning R-15 Proposed Zoning R-15 Lots (# and type; bldg/common) 47 single-family buildable and 8 common lots Density (gross & net) 5.8 Gross/12.4 Net Open Space 0.66 acres, at 11% Amenities 50X100 grassy area, plaza and water feature Physical Features (waterways, hazards, flood plain, hillside) None History (previous approvals) Annexed in 2006 as Tree Farm Annexation (AZ-06-004), Preliminary Plat in 2017 as Rockbury Subdivision (H-2018- 0018) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 155 of 194 Page 2 B. Community Metrics Details Page ACHD report (yes/no)  Requires ACHD Commission Action (yes/no) No report as of print deadline Unknown Access (Arterial/Collectors/State Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) One (1) access to the east (Tree Haven Way), One (1) emergency access to the north (Tree Crest Way) Traffic Level of Service Distance to Fire Station  Fire response time  Resource reliability  Risk identification  Accessibility   Specialty/resource needs  Water supply Not provided 5 minutes 77% 1 Meets requirements, however no overflow parking is provided. Meets requirement 1000 gallons per minute Distance to Police Station  Police response time  Calls for service  % of calls for service split by priority  Accessibility  Specialty/resource needs  Crimes  Crashes 8 miles 8 minutes 74 calls within 1 mile of the site P3-1.4%, P-2 58.8%, P1-40.5%, P0-1.4% Accessibility is not an issue None 15 10 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 156 of 194 Page 3 C. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Zoning Map Planned Development Map III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant/Owner: Michael Nigh 904 Madrid Avenue Torrance, CA 90501 B. Representative: Jon Breckon, Breckon Land Design 6661 N. Glenwood Street Boise, ID 83714 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 157 of 194 Page 4 IV. NOTICING A. Newspaper notification published on: September 28, 2018 B. Radius notice mailed to properties within 300 feet on: September 21, 2018 C. Applicant posted notice on site on: October 8, 2018 D. Next door posting: September 25, 2018 E. Neighbor meeting date and number of attendees: June 14, 2018 with 24 residents plus the applicant being present. V. STAFF ANALYSIS This property is designated Medium Density Residential (MDR) on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The MDR designation allows smaller lots for residential purposes within City limits. Uses may include single-family homes at densities of 3 to 8 dwelling units (d.u.) per acre. The applicant proposes to develop the site with 47 single-family residential lots and 8 common lots. The gross density of the proposed plat is 5.8 d.u. per acre with a net density of 12.4 d.u. per acre, which falls within the target density of the MDR designation. The gross density for the subdivision is 5.8 d.u./acre. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed density is appropriate for the area and compatible with adjacent uses and zoning. All adjacent residential uses are zoned R-8, R-4 and R-15, and this project would be consistent not only with the surrounding neighborhoods, but also with the comprehensive plan designation. Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this property and apply to the proposed use (staff analysis in italics): 1. “Provide for a wide diversity of housing types (single-family, modular, mobile homes and multi- family arrangements) and choices between ownership and rental dwelling units for all income groups in a variety of locations suitable for residential development.” (3.07.03B) 2. ”Require usable open space to be incorporated into new residential subdivision plats.” (3.07.02A) 3. “Require pedestrian access in all new development to link subdivisions together and promote neighborhood connectivity.” (3.07.02C) 4. “Permit new development only where urban services can be reasonably provided at the time of final approval and development is contiguous to the City.” (3.01.01F) 5. “Provide housing options close to employment and shopping centers.” (3.07.02D) 6. “Encourage infill development.” (3.04.02B) Dimensional Standards: Development of this site is required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC 11-2A-7 for the R-15 district. The average lot size is 3,527 square feet. All of the proposed lots comply with the dimensional standards of the UDC. Staff has reviewed the proposed plat and found it to be in compliance with the R-15 dimensional standards. Access: Vehicular access is proposed for this site via one access to N. Tree Farm Way to the east and an emergency access to the north (W. Tree Crest Drive). Streets: The applicant is proposing to construct a private street to provide access and circulation within this development. The UDC requires private streets to be constructed within an easement and have a travel lane width of 24’ or 26’ with no allowed parking as determined by the Fire Marshal. The proposed private streets are all internal to the development and are to be constructed as a combination of 25 and 27-foot street sections. The applicant is proposing to share the private street with pedestrians and vehicles. Staff has Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 158 of 194 Page 5 concerns about the shared nature of the roadway and recommends that the applicant provide a 4-foot sidewalk along one side of the private street to accommodate pedestrian travel. Typically private streets are not intended for single-family developments. In this case the applicant had multiple discussions with ACHD and with City staff and determined that a public street for the development would only serve the residents of this subdivision and ACHD determined that there was “No public benefit” in constructing public streets for this project. This determination from ACHD led the applicant to design a private street as part of their project. The applicant has submitted a Private Street application as required by UDC 11-3F-3. With the requirement that a 4-foot sidewalk be constructed on one side of the sidewalk, staff is supportive of the applicants request and has conditioned as such in section VIII. Gates: The applicant is proposing to install a gate to restrict vehicular movement to the private street to those who live within that area of the development. UDC 11-3F-4 allows gates to be installed, subject to the following standards: a. The proposed development shall be for residential uses. b. The proposed development shall have no more than fifty (50) dwelling units. c. The proposed development shall not restrict pedestrian and bicycle access along the private street. The proposed development shall provide unrestricted access to pedestrians and bicycles at a minimum of two (2) additional points within the proposed development. d. The proposed development shall not restrict access to existing or planned multiuse pathways as shown in chapter 3 of the Meridian pathways master plan. e. The applicant shall provide access to the gate for emergency vehicles as determined and approved by the Meridian fire department and public works department. f. To allow sufficient stacking distance, the gate shall be located a minimum of fifty feet (50') back from the ultimate edge of right of way to the connecting public street. Parking: The widths of the proposed private streets and the layout of the proposed subdivision only allows for limited parking in the subdivision. Per the fire department, the private street shall be marked as “No Parking, Fire Lane”, this severely limits the ability of any guests for the owners. In order to accommodate additional parking within the development, the applicant should provide guest parking within the development but shall maintain the required open space. Sidewalks: Sidewalks are not required along private streets, however the applicant is proposing to construct a 5 foot shared bicycle/pedestrian/drive aisle throughout the development. A detached sidewalk exists along N. Tree Haven Way and W. Tree Crest Drive Fencing: Any existing and proposed fencing for the development shall be included on either a site plan or landscape plan and shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-6B and 11-3A-7. Fencing is required adjacent to all common lots. The applicant will need to revise the landscape plan to show the required fencing. Open Space: A minimum of 10% qualified open space is required to be provided for this development in accord with UDC 11-3G-3A.1. Based on the area of the preliminary plat (6.23 acres), a minimum of 0.62 acres of qualified open space are required to be provided as set forth in UDC 11-3A-3B and Comp. Plan policy 3.07.02A. The applicant has proposed 11% open space for the development, or 0.66 acres of land. Site Amenities: All developments consisting of five acres of more are required to provide a minimum of one site amenity; one additional site amenity is required for each additional 20 acres per UDC 11-3G-3A.2, in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3C. Based on the area of the preliminary plat (6.23 acres), a minimum of 1 qualified site amenity is required to be provided. The applicant proposes to provide a 50X100 grassy area, a plaza and a water feature as amenities Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 159 of 194 Page 6 for the subdivision. With the number of proposed lots within the development, staff is of the opinion that the applicant should provide a more useable amenity within the central open space area. Pressurized Irrigation (PI): An underground PI system is required to be provided to each lot in the subdivision as proposed in accord with UDC 11-3A-15. Building Elevations: The applicant is proposing to construct single-family detached homes. The applicant has submitted conceptual sample building elevations for future homes in this development, included in section VII. Building materials appear to consist of a mix of variety of wood siding with architectural shingles. Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC): The applicant will be required to submit a certificate of zoning compliance application for the required parking lot. The parking lot will be required to comply with any applicable UDC provisions as part of the approval. Administrative Design Review (DES): Any attached single-family homes will be required to receive administrative design review approval prior to obtaining a building permit. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 160 of 194 Page 7 VI. DECISION Staff finds that the subject preliminary plat exceeds the minimum requirements of the UDC and recommends approval of the proposed preliminary plat application in accord with the Findings in Section IX per the provisions in Section VIII. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 161 of 194 Page 8 VII. EXHIBITS 1. Proposed Preliminary Plat (dated: 9/1/2018) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 162 of 194 Page 9 2. Proposed Landscape Plan (dated: 4/3/2018) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 163 of 194 Page 10 3. Conceptual Building Elevations Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 164 of 194 Page 11 4. Legal Description and Exhibit Map Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 165 of 194 Page 12 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 166 of 194 Page 13 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 167 of 194 Page 14 VIII. CONDITIONS & MITIGATION MEASURES 1. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1.1 Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1.1 Applicant shall meet all terms of the approved annexation (AZ-13-014, DA Instrument # 114007668). 1.1.2 The preliminary plat included in section VII, dated 7/25/2018, shall be revised as follows: a. The applicant shall provide a 4-foot sidewalk along one side of the private streets within the development tin order to provide pedestrian access to the parcels and central open space. b. The proposed development shall provide unrestricted access to pedestrians and bicycles at a minimum of two (2) additional points within the proposed development. c. The applicant shall provide a more useable amenity within the central open space area in accord with UDC 11-3G-3. d. Prior to the Commission hearing the applicant shall provide a revised plan that shows guest parking within the development. The applicant shall maintain compliance with UDC 11-3G-3 in accord with open space requirements. 1.1.3 The landscape plan included in Exhibit A.3, dated 8/9/2018, shall be revised as follows: a. Fencing in compliance with UDC 11-3A-6B and 11-3A-7 shall be located on all common lots. Prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission, the applicant shall revise the landscape plan to show the required fencing. 1.1.4 If there are any existing trees on the site that are to be removed, the applicant should contact Elroy Huff, City Arborist, at 888-3579 to schedule an appointment to confirm mitigation requirements prior to removal of any trees on the site. Any existing trees proposed to be retained on-site shall be noted on the landscape plan submitted with a final plat application. 1.1.5 Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the preliminary plat and building elevations depicted in Exhibit A and the revisions noted in the staff report. 1.1.6 The applicant shall submit a certificate of zoning compliance application for the required parking lot. The parking lot will be required to comply with any applicable UDC provisions as part of the approval. 1.1.7 The applicant shall receive administrative design review approval for any attached single-family dwellings prior to obtaining a building permit. 1.1.8 Off-street parking is required on each residential lot in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-6. Parking is prohibited on all private streets in the development. Per ACHD and the Fire Department, signage should be installed accordingly. 1.1.9 The private streets shall comply with all standards set forth in UDC 11-3F-4. 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- 2-A-5. 1.2.2 Comply with all provisions of 11-3A-3 with regard to access to streets. 1.2.3 Comply with all provisions of UDC 11-3A-3 with regard to maintaining the clear vision triangle. 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. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 168 of 194 Page 15 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 the required landscape buffers consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3B-7C. 1.2.8 Construct storm water integration facilities that meet the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3B-11C. 1.2.9 Comply with all subdivision design and improvement standards as set forth in UDC 11-6C-3, including but not limited to cul-de-sacs, driveways, common driveways, easements, blocks, street buffers, and mailbox placement. 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. 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. 1.3.6 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. 2. PUBLIC WORKS 2.1 SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 2.1.1 A street lighting plan will be required with the submittal of development plans. Plan requirements can be found in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting at http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 169 of 194 Page 16 2.1.2 Water service to this development will be from Sueze North America. Sewer service will be from the City of Meridian. 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 sewer mains outside of public right of way. The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide. 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. 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. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 170 of 194 Page 17 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 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 887-2211. 3. IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT (ITD) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?id=156202&dbid=0 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 171 of 194 Page 18 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 172 of 194 Page 19 IX. FINDINGS 1. 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 substantial compliance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan in regard to land use, transportation, and circulation. b. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Staff finds that public services can be provided to the subject property upon development. 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; Staff recommends the Commission and Council rely upon comments from the public service providers (i.e., Police, Fire, ACHD, etc.) to determine this finding. 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 and/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. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 173 of 194 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda Meeting Date: October 18, 2018 Agenda Item Number: 4 F Project File Number: H-2018-0059 Item Title: Public Hearing for Residential District Naming Convention Meeting Notes: Convention Text Amendment (H-2018-0059) by DevCo Development LLC Request: A Text Amendment to Change the Naming Convention of the Residential Districts of R-2, R-4, R-8, R-15 and R-40 to R -A, R -B, R -C, R -D, R -D and R -E, and Modify Other Related Sections in Chapters 1- 3 of the Unified Development Code (UDC) to Coincide with the Proposed Naming Convention 1SCV0 0le �(- ii-z77-ice I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 4.F. Presenter: Estimated Time f or P resentation: Title of I tem - Public Hearing for Residential D istrict Naming Convention Text Amendment (H- 2018-0059) by DevC o Development L L C 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 10/17/2018 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 174 of 194 City of Meridian - Public Hearing Sign In Form Tools Details and Signatures For Public Hearing Hearing Date: 10/18/2018 Hearing Type: PZ Item Number: 4-F Project Name: Residential District Naming Convention Text Amendment ZOA Project No.: H-2018-0059 Active: ❑ Page 1 of 10 http://internalapps/SIGNINFORMTOOLS/SignInFormDetails?id=60 10/22/2018 I WishSign Signature City -State- In Address For Against Neutral To Name Zip Date/Time Testify 10/15/2018 Gregory L Meridian, 2061, E. Taconic Dr. X 12:36:52 Wells MD ID 83642 PM 10/15/2018 Kristin Meridian, 5338 S Tindaris PI X 12:38:18 Beaufort ID 83642 PM 10/15/2018 Elizabeth 781 S. Thornwood Way Meridian X 12:42:22 Boone PM 10/15/2018 Tracy 2206 E. Lodge Trail Ct. Meridian X 12:48:32 Hopkins PM Andrea and 10/15/2018 Laddie 5866 S Graphite Way Meridian X 2:17:42 Tlucek PM 10/17/2018 Douglas Meridian, 2402 East Taconic Dr. X 9:06:28 Wheeler ID 83642 AM 10/17/2018 Susan 5556 S Graphite Way ID X X 10:09:52 Karnes AM 10/17/2018 Christie herwyc@gmail.com 83642 X 12:19:04 Herwy PM http://internalapps/SIGNINFORMTOOLS/SignInFormDetails?id=60 10/22/2018 City of Meridian - Public Hearing Sign In Form Tools Page 2 of 10 http://internalapps/SIGNINFORMTOOLS/SignInFormDetails?id=60 10/22/2018 10/18/2018 Richard 3332 E Rock Hampton St Meridian X 8:01:58 Clark AM 10/18/2018 Sharron 3332 E Rock Hampton St Meridian X 8:02:34 Clark AM 10/18/2018 James 395 w Heston court Meridian X 10:05:52 Elton AM 10/18/2018 Farrah 886 W Archerfield Dr Meridian X 10:06:23 Storli AM 10/18/2018 Sharon Meridian, 840 E Kaibab Trail Dr X 10:10:19 Cooney Id 83646 AM 10/18/2018 Julie Duran 542 W Ramsbrook St MERIDIAN X 10:10:50 AM 10/18/2018 Karen 2650 W Ditch Creek Dr Meridian X 10:22:04 Vachon AM 10/18/2018 Meridian, Dan Adams 2204 N. Astaire Way X 10:22:27 ID 83646 AM 10/18/2018 Amanda AmandaLSchweiger@gmaiI.com 83646 X 10:23:39 Schweiger AM Meridian, 10/18/2018 Patrick 5558 N. Mitchum Ave. Idaho X 10:25:53 Brown 83646 AM 10/18/2018 Michael Meridian, 972 West Bacall St. X 10:30:59 Arnold ID 83646 AM 10/18/2018 Aaron 3824 North Frandon Avenue Meridian X 10:31:34 Hutchings AM 10/18/2018 Linda Meridian, 972 West Bacall St. X 10:31:37 Arnold ID 83646 AM http://internalapps/SIGNINFORMTOOLS/SignInFormDetails?id=60 10/22/2018 City of Meridian - Public Hearing Sign In Form Tools Page 3 of 10 http://internalapps/SIGNINFORMTOOLS/SignInFormDetails?id=60 10/22/2018 10/18/2018 Amy Meridian, 236 W Broderick Dr X 10:39:15 Thompson ID 83646 AM 10/18/2018 Alyson Boise, ID 6086 N Bennington Way X 10:40:51 Hodges g 83713 AM 10/18/2018 Geraldine X 10:55:59 Fenn AM 10/18/2018 Catherine Meridian ID 2303 w Grand Teton Drive X 11:16:47 Golden 83646 AM 10/18/2018 Shelley Meridian X 11:27:43 Lupher 83646 AM Meridian, 10/18/2018 Greg 1166 W Bacall St Idaho X X 11:31:15 Reynolds 83646 AM 10/18/2018 Rhiannon X 12:15:45 Hess PM 10/18/2018 Cathrine Meridian, 2970 NW 8th Ave X 12:34:14 Garcia ID 83646 PM 10/18/2018 Carrie 5488 W. Lesina Street Meridian X 12:40:08 Hovey PM 10/18/2018 Heather Meridian, X 12:48:16 Marie Dill ID 83646 PM 10/18/2018 Meridian, MM83646 David Dill 1135 w white sands dr X 12:52:00 PM 10/18/2018 ROBIN 2060 W WAPOOT DRIVE ID X 1:09:35 HOWARD PM Meridian, 10/18/2018 Annemarie 2590 W quintale Dr Idaho, X 1:11:32 Paschal 83646 PM http://internalapps/SIGNINFORMTOOLS/SignInFormDetails?id=60 10/22/2018 City of Meridian - Public Hearing Sign In Form Tools Page 4 of 10 http://internalapps/SIGNINFORMTOOLS/SignInFormDetails?id=60 10/22/2018 10/18/2018 Traci Meridian, 702 E Havasupai St X 1:12:55 Wright ID 83646 PM 10/18/2018 Jennifer X 1:13:25 Harmony PM 10/18/2018 Rebecca Meridian, 1105 W Woodbury Dr X 1:26:08 Christensen ID 83646 PM 10/18/2018 Andrew X 1:28:17 Christensen PM 10/18/2018 Darlene X 1:28:58 Woodland PM 10/18/2018 Rick X 1:29:20 Woodland PM 10/18/2018 Brad Bauer 445 Creekview Dr Meridian X 1:36:18 PM 10/18/2018 Carma 2080 W. Marten Creek Drive Meridian X 1:50:57 Wallace PM Meridian, 10/18/2018 Jeff Wright 702 E. Havasupai St. Idaho X 2:04:27 83646 PM 10/18/2018 Crystal Meridian, 1791 E Comisky St X 2:21:51 Ikebe ID 83646 PM 10/18/2018 Michele Meridian, 1271 W Bacall Street X 2:36:41 Hutchison ID 83646 PM Meridian 10/18/2018 Richelle 5855 N Channing Way Idaho X 2:48:05 White 83646 PM 10/18/2018 Susan Meridian, 2968 N Fairglen Ave X 2:53:31 Littlefield ID 83646 PM http://internalapps/SIGNINFORMTOOLS/SignInFormDetails?id=60 10/22/2018 City of Meridian - Public Hearing Sign In Form Tools Page 5 of 10 http://internalapps/SIGNINFORMTOOLS/SignInFormDetails?id=60 10/22/2018 10/18/2018 Jesse Meridian, kongl03@gmail.com X 2:56:26 McGuire ID, 83646 PM Meridian, 10/18/2018 Glenn 2135 W. Sunny Slope Drive Idaho X 3:13:00 Nielsen 83642 PM 10/18/2018 Tishra Meridian ID 5509 N Beaham Ave X 3:17:00 murra y 83646 PM 10/18/2018 DaNeal 817 W. Newport st. Meridian X 3:18:47 Leishman PM 10/18/2018 Jennifer A Meridian ID jpedrali@gmail.com X 3:20:46 Pedrali 83646 PM 10/18/2018 Linda Meridian, 4633 N Stream PL X 3:37:49 Jenkins ID 83646 PM 10/18/2018 Lisa 83646 X 3:38:04 Mitchell PM 10/18/2018 Steve 2325 E. Comisky St. Meridian X 3:40:53 Delnista PM 10/18/2018 Leticia Meridian, 512 w valentino st X 3:45:38 Shindelar ID 83646 PM 10/18/2018 Janell 3403 South Tiempo Place ID X 3:50:35 Burgess PM 10/18/2018 Aimee 3403 South Tiempo Place ID X 3:50:58 Brooks PM 10/18/2018 Christine Meridian 443 E. Addeson St X 3:58:50 Lopez p 83646 PM 10/18/2018 James Meridian. 469 E. Baldwin St X 4:00:51 Miller ID 83646 PM http://internalapps/SIGNINFORMTOOLS/SignInFormDetails?id=60 10/22/2018 City of Meridian - Public Hearing Sign In Form Tools Page 6 of 10 http://internalapps/SIGNINFORMTOOLS/SignInFormDetails?id=60 10/22/2018 10/18/2018 Denise 83646 X 4:16:11 Grayson PM 10/18/2018 Kimberly 5527 N Beaham Ave Meridian X X 4:24:06 Juarez PM 10/18/2018 Kelli Meridian, 4519 N Stampede Way X 4:25:42 Scimeca ID 83646 PM 10/18/2018 Jason Meridian, 5488 w. Lesina street X 4:32:24 Hovey ID 83646 PM 10/18/2018 Brandi 614 E Senita Canyon St Meridian X 4:34:51 Black PM 10/18/2018 Kyle Black 614 E Senita Canyon St Meridian X 4:35:12 PM 10/18/2018 Julie X 4:37:08 Edwards PM 10/18/2018 leonard Meridian, 5965 N. Arliss Ave X 4:39:01 badigian ID 83646 PM 10/18/2018 Barbara Meridian, 5965 N. Arliss Ave X 4:39:47 Badigian ID 83646 PM 10/18/2018 Luke Meridian, BechtelIuke@gmail.com X 4:45:32 Bechtel ID 83646 PM Meridian, 10/18/2018 Thomas 2215 W Andrew Creek Street Idaho X 4:47:15 Spencer 83656 PM Meridian, 10/18/2018 Sharese 5315 N Debussy Way Idaho X 4:48:35 83646 PM 10/18/2018 Ka Karen A. M Meridian, 4184 West Highland Fall Court X 4:49:06 Stagg 83646 PM http://internalapps/SIGNINFORMTOOLS/SignInFormDetails?id=60 10/22/2018 City of Meridian - Public Hearing Sign In Form Tools Page 7 of 10 http://internalapps/SIGNINFORMTOOLS/SignInFormDetails?id=60 10/22/2018 10/18/2018 Micki Meridian, Maxie PI X 4:49:24 Phipps ID PM 10/18/2018 Jessica Meridian, X 4:49:57 Phipps ID 83646 PM 10/18/2018 Rhonda Meridian ID 4787 N Stream PI X 4:55:51 Melbinger 83646 PM 10/18/2018 Jami Meridian, 6164 N Demille Ave X 4:57:48 Wardle ID. 83646 PM 10/18/2018 Scott Hill 1037 West Lowry St. IDAHO X 4:57:52 PM 10/18/2018 Melodee Meridian ID 1350 W Legarreta Dr X 4:59:21 Norton 83646 PM Meridian 10/18/2018 Laddie 5866 S Graphite Way Idaho X 5:02:14 Tlucek 83642 PM 10/18/2018 Amanda K. Meridian,ID 510 E Baldwin St. X 5:13:15 McMillen 84646 PM 10/18/2018 Kaitlyn meridian, 2498 E Cyanite Dr X 5:16:23 Shelton ID 83642 PM Meridian, 10/18/2018 Andrea 2498 E Cyanite Drive Idaho. X 5:16:24 Shelton 83642 PM 10/18/2018 Ben Meridian, 2498 E Cyanite Dr X 5:17:20 Shelton ID 83642 PM 10/18/2018 Bennett Meridian, 1388 E Tuttle St X 5:22:10 Todd ID 83646 PM Meridian, 10/18/2018 Amanda 2050 W Teano Drive Idaho, X 5:38:25 Ryan 83646 PM http://internalapps/SIGNINFORMTOOLS/SignInFormDetails?id=60 10/22/2018 City of Meridian - Public Hearing Sign In Form Tools Page 8 of 10 http://internalapps/SIGNINFORMTOOLS/SignInFormDetails?id=60 10/22/2018 10/18/2018 Jenn Healy 83646 X 5:42:53 PM 10/18/2018 Dawnice Meridian, X 5:46:14 Murray I'd PM 10/18/2018 Seth Meridian, X 5:47:08PM Murray ID 10/18/2018 Sally Meridian 1166 W Bacall St X X 5:49:09 Reynolds 83646 PM 10/18/2018 Robert Meridian, 3508 E Quin Drive X X 5:51:05 Neilson ID 83642 PM 10/18/2018 Meridian, Jane Albert 6628 N. Salvia Way X 6:02:48 ID 83646 PM Meridian, 10/18/2018 Diane 2981 NW 11th Ave. Idaho X 6:06:57 Ryssel 83646 PM 10/18/2018 Tricia Meridian 3334 Cooper X 6:22:23 dildine 83646 PM Stephanie 10/18/2018 Meridian, Pratt 1572 W. Loretta St. X 6:31:13 ID Ledwich PM 10/18/2018 Wendy 2299 E Lodge Trail Meridian X 6:33:02 Webb PM 10/18/2018 Charles N. 2299 E Lodge Trail Meridian X 6:35:25 Webb PM 10/18/2018 Cliff and 2269 Hyper Dr. E Meridian X 6:37:11 Pat Looney PM 10/18/2018 Melissa Meridian, 3540 W Sugar Creek Dr X 6:40:16 Carroll ID 83646 PM http://internalapps/SIGNINFORMTOOLS/SignInFormDetails?id=60 10/22/2018 City of Meridian - Public Hearing Sign In Form Tools Page 9 of 10 http://internalapps/SIGNINFORMTOOLS/SignInFormDetails?id=60 10/22/2018 10/18/2018 Jenniffer 6031 N Booth Ave 83646 X 6:40:33 Card PM Meridian, 10/18/2018 Hilary 1360 W Great Basin Dr Idaho X 6:53:02 Scofield 83646 PM Meridian, 10/18/2018 Paul 1360 W Great Basin Dr Idaho X 6:54:51 Scofield 83646 PM 10/18/2018 Meridian, Robin Card 6031 N Booth Avenue X 6:56:19 ID 83646 PM 10/18/2018 Dorothy Meridian, 2058 E Roaring Creek St X 6:58:26 Epperson ID 83646 PM 10/18/2018 Robert Meridian, 2389 E. Taconic Drive X 7:00:36 Brain ID 83642 PM 10/18/2018 Debbie Meridian, 2389 E. Taconic Drive X 7:01:47 Brain ID 83642 PM 10/18/2018 Michelle C 6109 S Tarrega Ln Meridian X 7:09:21 Burk PM 10/18/2018 Roman 6109 S Tarrega Ln Meridian X 7:09:43 Burk PM 10/18/2018 Mason Burk 6109 S Tarrega Ln Meridian X 7:10:17 PM 10/18/2018 Spencer 6109 S Tarrega Ln Meridian X 7:10:36 Burk PM 10/18/2018 Braden 6109 S Tarrega Ln Meridian X 7:10:53 Burk PM 10/18/2018 Brinley 6109 S Tarrega Ln Meridian X 7:11:25 Burk PM http://internalapps/SIGNINFORMTOOLS/SignInFormDetails?id=60 10/22/2018 City of Meridian - Public Hearing Sign In Form Tools Page 10 of 10 Go Back To List I Export To Excel © 2018 - City of Meridian, Idaho http://internalapps/SIGNINFORMTOOLS/SignInFormDetails?id=60 10/22/2018 10/18/2018 Becky 5304 N Lange Ave ID X 7:12:21 Licari PM 10/18/2018 Anthony 5304 N Lange Ave ID X 7:12:58 Licari PM 10/18/2018 Mary L 6519 S Raap Ranch Ln Meridian X 7:13:10 Affleck PM 10/18/2018 Bridgety 2115 E Lodge Trail Ct ID X 7:13:25 Belokas PM Brian 10/18/2018 Dawson 6519 S Raap Ranch Lane Meridian X 7:13:27 Affleck PM 10/18/2018 Bryanne 6519 S Raap Ranch Ln Meridian X 7:13:51 Robison PM 10/18/2018 Shawn 6519 S Raap Ranch Lane Meridian X 7:14:11 Robison PM 2115 E lodge trail 10/18/2018 Patrick Belokas ct. X 7:14:54 Meridian PM Idaho Go Back To List I Export To Excel © 2018 - City of Meridian, Idaho http://internalapps/SIGNINFORMTOOLS/SignInFormDetails?id=60 10/22/2018 0) Ln O O i W ci O N i Q) .Q E D z U a) O i1 m Q) N U Ln Q) Q) E m CD 00 N W 1� lD m m r -i N Ln LD O O N N m Ln O r -i r -i m O Ln tD M M lzh �t r -i O O ri O O O O r1 ri N N.. m m m M Iq m ri N N N N rn O N 60 00 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 ri ri ri r -i ri ri W ci ri Lo 00 ri ci r-1 ci r -i ci ci ci r -i ri r -I r -i c -I r -i ci 00 00 00 00 00 ri 00 00 ri ci 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r -i r-1 r1 ci ri O c --I ri O O ri -1 c-1 r -I r -i r -i r -i r-1 ci c -I ri r -i r -i c -i ri O O O O O N O O N N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N \ N N \ \ N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Ln Ln m Ln Ln ri I-, r� r -i ri 00 00 00 w 00 00 00 W W 00 W 00 00 00 00 \ \ \ \ \ O \ \ O O \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ O O O O O ri O O r -i ri O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O r -I c -I r -I r -I c -i c -I ci c -i c --I r -I r -I ri c --I c -I r -I c -I r -I r -I ri ci c-1 a -I X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X N N N M7T 00 lD M 00 M00 lD CD 1p LD t 7t It 1p M I'Dt.p m M rn "� o lD M Co M l0 M M LD M 00 00 00 00 00 00 -1 00 -O p p p m p 00 c c c s= c c c c c s= Q c c c c c c c c co rB in raLD co ro v L m m co co «3 co p Lo -o _0 _0 -0 -o -a -o p •� •L •� •� a •L •L v a •� .L .L .i .i .L .L .� •i •� •� •� •L V) Q) (L) (1) O (L) (L) (1) O N N Q) W (3) (1) (1) (a) Q) Q) (1) 13 (1) :E 2. 2 2.2. m O U N D N + +� Q) Ln Ln L W > Q L p U O O L L+ Ln p > @j > Y L Q L p O Q D �_ = Yo aJ q0 E_ N N p O U o O O H O v U __ E E O U� O Lia L O L U D O_ Y+ U bA H E Ln L Q) O U (U M == M C L ~ v >O > .� M U (Z m U L C .� -O O M C UO t Q m Y Y O S] .4 v) U •� m� U m W m '✓D C U "i3 L 'O i— S2 U U .1--+ L f6 E t U :�' cc L co C (D to c O O +� L O O n U L p Q U) In G G +� L �17; L a) C7 (D- 0 CJ � C= Q Y M � O m m Lll Ln W Ln W Ln u W W > W ri 00 N lD CD N lD N N > W ? O 7t m 00 > lD M LD M r-iO lD O Ln L m m m CD O N Ln O E Lf') N N N lD 00 O O m 00 N 00 'ch m Q) m m m 00 d' d' lD N Ln r, Lo r, m O M N Ln 1Z N Ln N Ln ..s--. m m M 00 00 Ln N N Q Ln m M m N Co N Y Q) U D p ~ L Q) i � L Q1 ]` ao Q) N C Q) -a O OQ1 >O >i m L O t Q tw -O LQL) U Lb CL =Q) Lo U OOOUnU O 2 Ln OLU, Q O Q) 4J co ' O In U -0 n ULMmm O=r— - O D W=m 4NL O N� O 'O Q -0 Y U Q m Q C '0L 41 to 'Z U O Q) Q) f6 U O � O 'L N N L) @ � ComC` Q) L •— C O D co ..0 co @ lV 2 ('o C co (D Y w f Q p Ln U� Ln L L Ln p Q a Q � Q Q (7 U i� ri (fn d' O 00 N m -i N m (D 00 00 m (D O ch r-I l0 00 m l0 m I- 00 O I- 00 O U-) O O 00 N m -i m d' d' Ln O c-i -i -i N N N N M Ln O N m d' Ln Ln c--1 -i -i N m m d' d' Ln Ln Ln -I c-i N N N N N m m M M M M M M M M 4 4 4 4 4 4 Li LI; L�i L�i to i11 to L!1 &; &; L�i c-i r-i -i r-I c-I r-I c-i -i _I c-I r-I c-I -i r-i c-I c-1 r-i c-i -i -i -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1--1 -1 c-I -1 -1 -1 -1 r-i r-i 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ri r-i r-1 -1 -1 1-1 -1 -1 r-i -i -i -i -1 -1 -1 c-1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -4 r-1 r-1 r-i r-i r-1 c-I r-i r-i -i r-1 c-I ri r-1 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 o0 Co 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 Co 00 00 Co Co c-I r--I c-I r-I ci r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I ci r-i r-i c-i r-I r-I r-I ci r-I r-I r-I c-I c-I c-I c-I c-I c-I r-I c-i c-I ri r-I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O r-i c-I r-1 r-1 r-i ri ri r-I c-I r-i r--I c--I c-I c-i ri r-I r-I ri r-I ri r-I r-I c-I r-I r-I r•-i c-I c-I c-I r-I c-I c-I r-I ri X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X � lD lD lD lD N M l0 (.01,DM (D l0 M Q0 lD M 1,0 M 1,D lD (D m O0 lD 00 't d' IZT 00 zzj- 'tet 00 t zt 00 zt a0 zt lzt d• lzT Om o o �' d m m M m M rn � 00 ro m M M m � 00 00 00 00 -0 00 0 00 D 'a 00 00 D -0 00 -0 00 00 00 O 00 0 0m0 Cc: c c c c CC c c c c c c c c c c c c c CC c @ f6 2 (D 2 @ (6 (0 m m (O 2 l6 2 Lo 2 (D 23 2 2 (6 2 (O (0 m •L •L L L L L L L L Qccj L L L accs L L Qcc) L L Qcci Qcc� L L L L L L L L accs L cv ccv cw cw cw cw cc(p ca) ccv ccv ccv cw ccv ccv cw ccv cw CQ) ccv Q) •L QJ L W > Y L p U (a U m v D v a m E v n a Q1 > O O a--� o N i L U N N ap Q O Q O J (n a N S? Q to (n (n a� — ra D c (a > (n c c — - (n L �? a E E c co S? Y O O c 4J 4J _ m •N ice-+ d_ O QJ L V) •N c OA m c .c S? M f F- w c cc > J ?� � 'o 3: 41 (O co U LL m CO Z V In U M D Q >>� >c O- Z Z W U W W j > L W (n (n W lD O 00 Lr) O O (.f) O r-1 r-I In 00 m L!) Ol 0 M Ln m m lD i- 00 m W m N O V1 00 N m it Ln (D c m 0 i- m "(,A O O M ci 0) d' r-i O Ln O r--I d'0 O i\ N 00 0) O -1 Ln -i Q l0 m -i ct Ct c-I N to in N Y N 1n 00 .� t N to m rn c � — u V) N O c '- 0 t� U c (O O V7 O (6 L •U (o O V) L Q) @ Q) E (6 (E V) Ln N Q) V�1 U L ,ai L Q_ •L .LLA U (l3 Q) 'L Q) -0 V, - i? j Q p= M W @ }� L (o c - O m L — f � QJ 7 Ln @ V) Q. Q1 N C O O o— 0 O '� S U U o f6 Sao Y=+ °� L._ c J Q u v v c S .ti0 o@ .L a� (n m o c S p M� v c m _ a� J Z — a� +' p m c '+aj Q) i QJ t Z 4- U Q) m (D Q) ai — Q) ) Q! Uo Ql @ + L l6 m %, V1 Q) Z c l6 ''('� C L L L L (D (6 Q) (O i- U 4- ccU U Q>1 C7 oc U U S o� c Q H QJ � Q C E m U U G D' (n 4J (D F C J J N J Q U (n --, O lD IzzT Ln N moi' u) r\ m m Ln I- 00 m m m N r- r- m N M lD ,D r\ N 00 N lfl Ql ri N lD O ri N N M M M M m m tz* �t d' C1' zt Ln Ln Lf) Ln O ri ri i --i c -I N M t Ln O O lfl lfl lfl lfl lD LD l6 LD l6 lD LD l6 LD lfl lD LD lfl LD Lfl LD I,: � � r t\ � n n � � 00 00 c -i -1 1-1 ri r -I r -I c --I i- i c -I c -I r -I -1 -1 r -I -1 -1 _q -1 -1 -1 c -I _q c -I c -i c --I -1 -1 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r -i ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ci 1--1 ri ri r -i ri c -I ri ri ri ri 1-1 -1 ri ri ri ri ri ri ri O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 00 w w w w w w w w w w w w w 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 OO 00 00 00 00 00 c -I ri r -I c -I c -i ri r -I r -I r -I r -I c -i r -I r -I r -I r -I c -I r -I c -I c -I r -I c -I ri c -I r -I c -I r -I ci c -I r -I c -I c -I r -I c -I c -I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O r -I c -I r -I r -I c -I c -i ri r -I c -I c -I ci r -I r -I c -I r -I c -I r -I c -I c -I c -I r -I c -I c -I r -I r -I r -I ci c -I r -I c -I r -I c -I r -I c -I X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X � Lfl lD N � lD � lfl Lnd LD Ci k 1.0 mLD I'D kD ILD M t.0lD ro �' - 00 00 � 00 00 � 00 00 W l'D M I'D LD lD to LD O O LD lD lD m lfl O lD o m lD O -O LD LD l0 O 00 M M M M M C M 00 m 00 M 00 00 m 00 L M -C 00 m 00 C 2 tM 00 rn 00 t 00 00 00 00 00 M 0000 @ LD o0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 o o o a ra o o o - - - - - - - - - - - - - - p - - - - - - - - - - C C != C C C >= C C C C C C C != C C C C C C C C C C C C6 f6 (Q l6 (6 C6 f6 (O (6 L LO (O (O f0 (0 (6 (i3 (D f6 (D f6 (6 (O (B (D f6 l6 @ (6 (6 'O "O "'✓7 "✓7 -0 -6 -0 "6 'D -O -0 '6 -0 -0- S "6 -6 '6 '6 'O 'O -0 -a -O -a -0 -0 "_a L L L L L L a) L v L v L Q) L v L a) L v L v L v L v L v a L v L 0) L (D y= v L Q) L a) L v L v L v L v L a) L v L Q) L v + Z3 a) O 1, u N Y m LL a v c c `, ami coo -0 v +, > v > O O '� L' C > N �, a� > > ��� aQ CB L L L L N >-�Q iO E a) m m ro Q a w Ln v ��N000},o L v v v Ln o _ L m 0- u u V) kn v O L L +- } } a� c o S .N @ to V) V _ (6 J ,O 5 > c -I ca a� *' = L L Y c + N a v (a m to c3 +� ri c Co o v Ln CO c� Ln m 2 v Ln �, N Z Z _ a) Z z �uuu� m �j Z Z LU Z r- Z m 00 w w Ln Ln c Ln Z Ln t 'X 1, d � O cn LD w w 00 w 00 w 00 w CO O LD w 00 00 ci m N 1--1 001 0 to u ri Hw [6 00 LD M m LD O m m m 00 Ln 1-0 O N 00 1p u') Ln c -I c -I Ol Ql WN M 1--i(� c-1 O m 00 H It Cf' Cf m O -i Ln lD M�j Ln d Lf) lD LD Ln Lf) m N �n LD H Hm Ln N I N N ri N c -I M (.D N C L C L on C >, C N l6 ro Q1 O O v O N n OA do C�!nN Y OO � "a C O N M O Q zu O p M OU v > V D O n (OL� E O m O- 4-M N >N N v LJ S w M N M -6 _ N N N m M CUm > O W N U O @ "a C C N O-0 Y O f6 N O Q! (O U1 N C -� C (6 N L >. � Q! m m ..0 lis Y 2E W ..0 @ U lD Q Y Q m m Q- N o @ c (D - Y Y- 00 Y � N to cn N N -i m In I, 0 O m d' l0 00 O ri Ql 6) N m m m m t d' Ln Ln Ill Ul O O O O ci -I 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 06 al rn al of of rn rn rn rn (n al of of rn rn rn ci c --i --I ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri r -I r -i r -I ri r -I r -I ri c --I ri r -I r -i i -I r -I ri ri 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 w 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 w oo 00 o0 00 r -I ri ri c --i c -I ri -i ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ci ri r i r -I -i ri ri ri -1 c -I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 00 00 00 00 00 W 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 W W 00 00 00 00 00 c -I r -I c -I ci c -i c -I ci c -i c -I r -I c -i r -I r -I r -I r -I r -I r -I c --I c -I r -I c -I ci c -i r -I r -I c -I ri \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ O O O o o O o O O o O o O O o 0 o O O O o 0 o O o o O c -I c -I c -I r -I r1 c -I c -I c --I r -I r -I r1 r -I r -I r -I r -I r -I c -I ri r -I r -I c -I r -I ci r -I c -I r -I r -I X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X m C cts N d' L.D I'D QD mL.0 W W N N U WW 00 W d' ', m 00 O O m 00 m 00 m 00 m 00 +L-+ rn c�a N 00 O T6 TO TD TB TD TO T6 T TTS T T (TS (O m Td T6 2 m m (TS m W •L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L v L ww L a) ri L L L (n v N C ,_ C M C C @ Y C C C ..Y > > J U J J J (n — - Nw (j,N w 0 C C C C C C w U '� U U U W L > M (O > U J J J J J J > > C L U Q CO 00 Q Oq U U m m m @ (D (D Q Q m F— m Td m L p 4J O L}' C C 0A OA OA 0A OA OA N Q! � Q� L 0A OA L OA p Tll Q1 �O L O O Q1 Q1 N Q1 Q1 Q1 OA OA Q Op Q Q. 0- 0-0 J -6 '23 O � O L C7 L (J O co m m m m TTs C C M-0 TTs p m TB m To m To 0 O p Ln m o m I— f— H I— f— F F j J� J= ma c U i W W = Z Z W W W N (n N (n (n (n Z Z N W (n (n (n N 6) M M O ri O O ri W M M M Ol 0) '�' T m (n m m m ..1 O m I" Q) M (D m l0 lD m In o0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 -i ri r -i ri rim In N N N (f) 0 m m o 0 m m MIM ri Ji ri ri m M (n ri ul In In a) m ri N N N m lD ri ri lD N N N lD lD lD lD ul (n lD N l0 l0 l0 m L U J C C O Ln (o Q 4- O_ J O p N L D U O = O N O _aN L 'L M U TU V) O CL (TS U 4-- p Qj L Q' W TO L (B L U L � L C CO D L 7 @ J CO L� .Q O U L U LO m >, CO CO N CO CO L m CO U �` Q N �' (is ? N C (TS N U U t +-+ N C C N C ). J C J @ O v f6 V) N 4J Q O 0A C O U • U N v C C L -Q ..Q U C U +-i 'L TTS A R) +- 'L }+ 2 (O O p O Q) D 0 CL Q L m L m (v m Q CO Z'- co L m (n (� CL U U CL CL N Chris Johnson From: Bill Parsons Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2018 6:26 PM To: Chris Johnson Subject: FW: Meridian City Code Amendment More of the same. Bill Parsons, AICP I Planning Supervisor City of Meridian I Community Development Dept. 33 E. Broadway Ave., Ste. 102, Meridian, Idaho 83642 Phone: 208-884-5533 1 Fax: 208-489-0571 WE IDR IAN,.- Built for Business, Designed for Living ©®©0© All e-mail messages sent to or received by City of Meridian e-mail accounts are subject to the Idaho law, in regards to both release and retention, and may be released upon request, unless exempt from disclosure by law. From: Taylor Doug and Adele [mailto:doug adeletaylor@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2018 5:32 PM To: Bill Parsons Subject: Meridian City Code Amendment To whom it may concern, I would like the following to go on record in reference to tonight's Meridian City Code Zoning amendment: I strongly oppose the H-2018-0059 code amendment Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Thank you, Adele Taylor Meridian City Resident Item #4F: Residential District Naming Convention and R-15 Dimensional Text Amendment (H-2018.0059) Application(s): UDC Text Amendment Summary of Request: The applicant requests approval to modify the several sections of the UDC as follows: 1. Proposing to change the map symbol of the R-2, R-4, R-8, R-15 and R-40 zones to R -A, R -B, R -C, R -D, and R -E zones. Because the request impacts other sections of the UDC, additional modifications are necessary to coincide with the proposed change. 2. Modify the dimensional standards of the R-15 zone (proposed as R -D with the first request) for the purpose of specifying certain setbacks along private streets, common driveways, interior side yards and the perimeter of a development with private streets. The first modification is being requested because the applicant contends the current numerical notation confuses the public which believe it still correlates the number to a maximum density of a particular residential zone. A previous UDC text amendment, approved by City Council, removed the maximum density requirements from Chapter 2 of the UDC. The purpose of the residential districts is to provide a range of housing opportunities consistent with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. The residential districts are distinguished by the dimensional standards of the corresponding zone and the housing types that can be accommodated. The Comprehensive Plan is the guiding document that specifies the density requirements for a property. For the last several years, City staff has contemplated renaming the residential map symbol to be more consistent with the Comprehensive Plan FLUM designations. Staff was hoping to have this discussion with the UDC Focus group for additional input and guidance but the applicant didn't want to wait on the City timeframes for implementing the change. Staff is not supportive of the requested changes to the naming of the districts as proposed by the applicant. Staff is of the opinion that the residential district should be retitled to align more closely with the nomenclature of the zoning district and the Comprehensive Plan as follows: • Low density residential - R -LD • Medium low density residential - R -MLD • Medium density residential - R -MD • Medium high density residential - R-MHD High density residential - R -HD This naming convention would also be more consistent with the other zoning designations in the UDC; for example Light Industrial District (I -L). If the request is approved, the County Assessor office would be responsible for changing the zoning symbol for over 39,000 parcels that are currently zoned R-2 through R-40 districts. The City has not contacted any of the affected property owners to inform them of the potential for the name change. Further, the City has embarked on the Comprehensive Plan update which complicates the timing for the requested change. Typically, code updates should occur after the adoption of a new Comprehensive Plan to ensure alignment between the two (2) documents. Commission should determine if it is the best interest of the City to modify the residential district symbols before the adoption of the new Plan and soliciting further input from Meridian residents. The second request is to add or change the setbacks of the R-15 zone when a property takes access from a private street or common driveway. The applicant believes the changes are necessary to allow for increased flexibility in the housing types to meet market demand. The City has approved several developments for the applicant (East Ridge Estates and Movado Village) in which there have been issues with the complying with the current setbacks of the R-15 setbacks, specifically the 12 -foot rear yard. With these development approvals, a central common open space and clubhouse are to serve as the primary open space and amenities for these communities. In order to provide some livability to the home on lots were no rear yards may exist, the applicant is proposing that the home provide a minimum of a 120 square foot patio as part of the requested modifications, To support the requested dimensional changes, the applicant has provided exhibits. Staff supports some of the dimensional standard changes that the applicant is proposing, except for the proposal for the 1.5' setback for the structure from the common driveway. Staff believes the applicant should apply a consistent setback of 3' to allow for adequate separation of the structure and the common driveway. Additionally, the applicant is proposing zero setbacks but doesn't indicate whether a zero lot line means an attached structure. Historically, when zero lot lines are depicted on a plat, staff has required the applicant to construct attached homes. Therefore, staff recommends that a footnote be added to the UDC table requiring attached homes to be constructed when a zero lot line is depicted. Further, staff has concerns with how drainage will function on these lots. Currently, the City doesn't have an adequate grading and drainage ordinance and there has been an increase in the number of citizen complaints on these issues. NOTE: If the proposed setbacks are approved, this will take additional staff time to review plans for conformance of these setbacks with the proposed standards. The applicant was given the option of proceeding forward through the PUD process to request the desired setbacks without amending the dimensional standards of the UDC. Per the Comprehensive Plan, City staff is responsible for ensuring diverse housing in the community and keeping the UDC current with local trends. Below are a few policies that support the applicant's request. • Amend the Unified Development Code and Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to ensure a wide variety of housing types can be developed and properly zoned and land is available (3.07.01A) . • Keep current the Unified Development Code and Future Land Use Map to implement the provisions of this plan (7.01,01A) In general, staff is supportive of the overall proposed changes. In the Exhibit Section below, Staff has inserted the applicant's requested modifications and associated support documents. Because staff is recommending modifications to the applicant's request, staff has provided a strike -through and underline version of staff's recommended changes and included additional changes that were inadvertently missed with the applicant's request.. Written Testimony: As of the print date of the staff report, the City has received multiple responses from the public not supporting the proposed changes. Please refer to the public record for the specific comments on the subject application. Written Testimony: Staff has received many emails form the public in opposition of the proposed text amendment (See Public Record). Staff Recommendation: Approval with modifications 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- 2018-0059, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of 10/18/2018, 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- 0059, as presented during the hearing on 10/18/2018, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2018-0059 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Page 1 STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: October 18, 2018 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Bill Parsons, Planning Supervisor 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2018-0059 Residential District Naming Convention and R-15 Dimensional Standards Text Amendment PROPERTY LOCATION: City wide I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Request for a text amendment to change the naming convention of the Residential Districts of R-2, R- 4, R-8, R-15 and R-40 to R-A, R-B, R-C, R-D and R-E, modify other related sections in Chapters 1-3 of the Unified Development Code (UDC) to coincide with the proposed naming convention AND modify the dimensional standards of the R-15 district for the purpose of specifying certain setbacks along private streets, common driveways, interior side yards and the perimeter of a development with private streets. II. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant/Representative: DevCo Development LLC [Phone: (208) 336-5355] III. NOTICING A. Newspaper notification published on: August 17, 2018 B. PSA distributed: August 14, 2018 C. Next door posting: August 14, 2018 IV. STAFF ANALYSIS The applicant requests approval to modify the several sections of the UDC as follows: 1. Proposing to change the map symbol of the R-2, R-4, R-8, R-15 and R-40 zones to R-A, R-B, R-C, R-D, and R-E zones. Because the request impacts other sections of the UDC, additional modifications are necessary to coincide with the proposed change. 2. Modify the dimensional standards of the R-15 zone (proposed as R-D with the first request) for the purpose of specifying certain setbacks along private streets, common driveways, interior side yards and the perimeter of a development with private streets. Page 2 The first modification is being requested because the applicant contends the current numerical notation confuses the public which believe it still correlates the number to a maximum density of a particular residential zone. A previous UDC text amendment, approved by City Council, removed the maximum density requirements from Chapter 2 of the UDC. The purpose of the residential districts is to provide a range of housing opportunities consistent with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. The residential districts are distinguished by the dimensional standards of the corresponding zone and the housing types that can be accommodated. The Comprehensive Plan is the guiding document that specifies the density requirements for a property. For the last several years, City staff has contemplated renaming the residential map symbol to be more consistent with the Comprehensive Plan FLUM designations. Staff was hoping to have this discussion with the UDC Focus group for additional input and guidance but the applicant didn’t want to wait on the City timeframes for implementing the change. Staff is not supportive of the requested changes to the naming of the districts as proposed by the applicant. Staff is of the opinion that the residential district should be retitled to align more closely with the nomenclature of the zoning district and the Comprehensive Plan as follows:  Low density residential - R-LD  Medium low density residential - R-MLD  Medium density residential - R-MD  Medium high density residential - R-MHD  High density residential - R-HD This naming convention would also be more consistent with the other zoning designations in the UDC; for example Light Industrial District (I-L). If the request is approved, the County Assessor office would be responsible for changing the zoning symbol for over 39,000 parcels that are currently zoned R-2 through R-40 districts. The City has not contacted any of the affected property owners to inform them of the potential for the name change. Further, the City has embarked on the Comprehensive Plan update which complicates the timing for the requested change. Typically, code updates should occur after the adoption of a new Comprehensive Plan to ensure alignment between the two (2) documents. Commission should determine if it is the best interest of the City to modify the residential district symbols before the adoption of the new Plan and soliciting further input from Meridian residents. The second request is to add or change the setbacks of the R-15 zone when a property takes access from a private street or common driveway. The applicant believes the changes are necessary to allow for increased flexibility in the housing types to meet market demand. The City has approved several developments for the applicant (East Ridge Estates and Movado Village) in which there have been issues with the complying with the current setbacks of the R-15 setbacks, specifically the 12-foot rear yard. With these development approvals, a central common open space and clubhouse are to serve as the primary open space and amenities for these communities. In order to provide some livability to the home on lots were no rear yards may exist, the applicant is proposing that the home provide a minimum of a 120 square foot patio as part of the requested modifications. To support the requested dimensional changes, the applicant has provided exhibits. Staff supports some of the dimensional standard changes that the applicant is proposing, except for the proposal for the 1.5’ setback for the structure from the common driveway. Staff believes the applicant should apply a consistent setback of 3’ to allow for adequate separation of the structure and the common driveway. Additionally, the applicant is proposing zero setbacks but doesn’t indicate whether a zero lot line means an attached structure. Historically, when zero lot lines are Page 3 depicted on a plat, staff has required the applicant to construct attached homes. Therefore, staff recommends that a footnote be added to the UDC table requiring attached homes to be constructed when a zero lot line is depicted. Further, staff has concerns with how drainage will function on these lots. Currently, the City doesn’t have an adequate grading and drainage ordinance and there has been an increase in the number of citizen complaints on these issues. NOTE: If the proposed setbacks are approved, this will take additional staff time to review plans for conformance of these setbacks with the proposed standards. The applicant was given the option of proceeding forward through the PUD process to request the desired setbacks without amending the dimensional standards of the UDC. Per the Comprehensive Plan, City staff is responsible for ensuring diverse housing in the community and keeping the UDC current with local trends. Below are a few policies that support the applicant’s request.  Amend the Unified Development Code and Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to ensure a wide variety of housing types can be developed and properly zoned and land is available (3.07.01A)  Keep current the Unified Development Code and Future Land Use Map to implement the provisions of this plan (7.01.01A) In general, staff is supportive of the overall proposed changes. In the Exhibit Section below, Staff has inserted the applicant’s requested modifications and associated support documents. Because staff is recommending modifications to the applicant’s request, staff has provided a strike-through and underline version of staff’s recommended changes and included additional changes that were inadvertently missed with the applicant’s request.. Written Testimony: As of the print date of the staff report, the City has received multiple responses from the public not supporting the proposed changes. Please refer to the public record for the specific comments on the subject application. V. DECISION Staff recommends approval of the proposed text amendments to the UDC based on the analysis provided in Section IV, modifications in Section VI and the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law listed in Section VII. Page 4 VI. EXHIBITS A. Applicant’s Proposed UDC Text Amendment Changes Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 B. Staff’s Recommended UDC Text Changes 11-1A-1 Definition of Terms RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: For the purposes of this title, the term residential district shall include the Low-Density Residential District (R-ALD)(R-2), Medium Low-Density Residential District(R-BMLD) (R-4), Medium-Density Residential District (R-CMD) (R-8), Medium High-Density Residential District(R-DMHD) (R-15), High-Density Residential District(R-EHD) (R-40), and Traditional Neighborhood Residential District (TN-R). 11-2-1: ZONING DISTRICTS ESTABLISHED: For the purpose of this title, the incorporated territory of the city of Meridian, Idaho, is divided into the following districts: Districts Map Symbol Residential Low-density residential district R-2 R-ALD Medium low-density residential district R-4 R-BMLD Medium-density residential district R-8 R-CMD Medium high-density residential district R-15 R-DMHD High-density residential district R-40 R-EHD Commercial Neighborhood business district C-N Community business district C-C General retail and service commercial district C-G Limited office district L-O Mixed employment M-E High density employment H-E Industrial Light industrial district I-L Heavy industrial district I-H Traditional neighborhood Old Town O-T Traditional neighborhood center TN-C Traditional neighborhood residential TN-R TABLE 11-2A-2 ALLOWED USES IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Use R-ALD R-2 R-BMLD R-4 R-CMD R-8 R-DMHD R-15 R-EHD R-40 Arts, entertainment or recreation facility, outdoors1 - - C C C Page 12 Cemetery1 - C C C C Church or place of religious worship1 - - C C C Civic, social or fraternal organizations1 - - C C C Daycare center1 - C C P P Daycare, family1 - A A A C Daycare, group1 - - C P P Direct sales3 A A A A A Dwelling, secondary1 A A A A A Dwelling, single-family attached - C P P P Dwelling, single-family detached P P P P A/C Dwelling, townhouse - C P P C Dwelling, two-family duplex - C P P C Education institution, private1 - C C C C Education institution, public1 - C C P/C P/C Home, manufactured or mobile subdivision - - C C C Home occupation, accessory use1 A A A A A Laundromat1 - - - A A/C Manufactured home park - - - C - Multi-family development1,2 - - - C C Nursing or residential care facility1 - - C C C Parking facility - - - - C Parks, public and private P P P P P Personal service - - - - A Professional service - - - - A Public, infrastructure C C C C C Public or quasi-public use1 - - C C C Public utility, minor P P P P P Recreational vehicle park - - - - C Restaurant - - - - A Page 13 Storage facility, outside1 A A A A A Storage facility, self-service1 A A A A A Vertically integrated residential project1 - - - C C Wireless communication facility1 P/C P/C P/C P/C P/C Wireless communication facility, amateur radio antenna1 A/C A/C A/C A/C A/C Notes: 1. Indicates uses that are subject to specific use standards in accord with chapter 4 of this title. 2. Multi-family dwellings may be allowed in the R-BMLD R-4 and R-CMD R-8 Land Use Districts when included in a planned unit development (PUD). 3. Subject to the home occupation, accessory use standards s et forth in section 11-4-3-21 of this title 11-2A-3F F. Living Space: Excluding the garage, all detached residential dwelling units in the R-2LD and R-4MLD districts shall meet minimum living space size requirements in accord with sections 11-2A-4 and 11-2A-5 of this article. 11-2A-4: LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R-2LD): Dimensional standards for development in the R-2LD residential district shall be as follows: TABLE 11-2A-4 DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FOR THE R-2LD DISTRICT R-2LD Standard Requirement Minimum property size/dwelling unit (in square feet) 12,000 Minimum street frontage (in feet) 80 Rear setback (in feet) 15 Interior side setback (in feet) 7.5/story Street setback1 (in feet): Local 20 Collector 25 Street landscape buffer2 (in feet): Collector 20 Arterial 25 Page 14 Entryway corridor 35 Interstate 50 Maximum building height (in feet) 35 Minimum living area (in square feet) 1,500 Minimum ground floor area for multi-story units (in square feet) 800 11-2A-5: MEDIUM LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R-4MLD): Dimensional standards for development in the R-4MLD residential district shall be as follows: TABLE 11-2A-5 DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FOR THE R-4MLD DISTRICT R-4MLD Standard Requirement Minimum property size/dwelling unit (in square feet) 8,000 Minimum street frontage (in feet) 60 Rear setback (in feet) 15 Interior side setback (in feet) 5 Street setback1 to front loaded garage (in feet): Local 20 Collector 25 Street setback1 to living area and/or side loaded garage (in feet): Local 15 Collector 25 Street landscape buffer2 (in feet): Page 15 Collector 20 Arterial 25 Entryway corridor 35 Interstate 50 Maximum building height (in feet) 35 Minimum living area (in square feet): Detached 1,400 Attached 800 Minimum ground floor area for multi-story units (in square feet) 800 11-2A-6: MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R-8MD): Dimensional standards for development in the R-8MD residential district shall be as follows: TABLE 11-2A-6 DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FOR THE R-8MD DISTRICT R-8MD Standard Requirement Minimum property size/dwelling unit (in square feet) 4,000 Minimum street frontage (in feet): 40 With alley loaded garage, side entry garage, or private mew lots 32 Street setback1 to garage (in feet): Local 20 Collector 25 Page 16 Alley 5 Street setback1 to living area (in feet): Local 10 Collector 25 Alley 5 Interior side setback (in feet) 5 Rear setback (in feet) 12 Street landscape buffer2 (in feet): Collector 20 Arterial 25 Entryway corridor 35 Interstate 50 Maximum building height (in feet) 35 11-2A-7: MEDIUM HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R-15MHD): Dimensional standards for development in the R-15MHD residential district shall be as follows: TABLE 11-2A-7 DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FOR THE R-15MHD DISTRICT R-15MHD Standard Requirement Minimum property size/dwelling unit (in square feet) 2,000 Minimum street frontage (in feet) 0 Street setback1 to garage (in feet): Local 20 Page 17 Collector 25 Alley 5 Private Street 20 Common Driveway1 20 Street setback1 to living area (in feet): Local 10 Collector 20 Alley 5 Private Street 10 Common Driveway1,5 1.5’- 3’ Interior side setback (in feet)3,4,5 0 or 3’ Public Street Rear setback (in feet) 12 Private Street Setback (in feet): Rear setback3,4,5 0 or 3’ Exterior boundary of entire development 12’ Street landscape buffer2 (in feet): Collector 20 Arterial 25 Entryway corridor 35 Interstate 50 Maximum building height (in feet) 40 Notes: 1. Measured from back of sidewalk, back of common driveway or property line where there is no adjacent sidewalk. 2. A reduction to the width of the buffer may be requested as set forth in subsection 11-3B-7C1c of this title. 3. A public utility, irrigation and drainage easement shall be 3’ wide adjacent to interior lot lines except where occupied by an attached zero lot line structure. 4. A minimum of one hundred and twenty (120) square feet of private, usab le open space shall be provided for each unit. This requirement can be satisfied through porches, patios, decks, and/or enclosed yards. Landscaping, entryway and other accessways shall not count toward this requirement. In circumstances where strict adherence to such standard would create inconsistency with the purpose statements of this section, the Director may consider an alternative design proposal through the alternative compliance provisions as set forth in section 11 -5B-5 of this title. 5. Up to 50% of the building face adjacent to a common driveway may be 1.5’from the edge of pavement. 5. Any property line with a zero lot line depicted shall attach the units. 11-2A-8: HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R-4HD): Page 18 Dimensional standards for development in the R-4HD residential district shall be as follows: TABLE 11-2A-8 DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FOR THE R-4HD DISTRICT R-4HD Standard Requirement Minimum property size/dwelling unit (in square feet) 1,000 Minimum street frontage (in feet) 0 Rear setback (in feet) 12 Interior side setback (in feet) 3 Street setback to garage (in feet): Local 20 Collector 25 Alley 5 Street setback1 to living area (in feet): Local 10 Collector 20 Alley 5 Street landscape buffer2 (in feet): Collector 20 Arterial 25 Entryway corridor 35 Page 19 Interstate 50 Maximum building height (in feet) 60 11-3A-7: FENCES: C. Additional standards in the R-ALDR-2, R-BMLDR-4, R-CMDR-8, R-DMHDR-15, R-EHDR-40, L-O, O-T, TN-C, and TN-R districts: 11-3D-5: SUBDIVISION IDENTIFICATION SIGNS B. Signs In Residential Districts: In addition to the general standards for subdivision identification signs set forth in this section, the following standards shall apply to subdivision identification signs in residential districts (R-ALDR-2, R-BMLDR-4, R-CMDR-8, R-DMHDR-15, R-EHDR-40, and TN-R): 11-3D-6: MARKETING SIGNS: B. Signs In Residential Districts For Three Or Less Dwelling Units: In addition to the general standards for marketing signs set forth in this section, the following standards shall apply to marketing signs for three (3) or less dwelling units per property in residential districts (R-ALDR-2, R-BMLDR-4, R-CMDR- 8, R-DMHDR-15, R-EHDR-40, and TN-R): C. Signs In Residential Districts For Multi-Family Developments: In addition to the general standards for marketing signs set forth in this section, the following standards shall apply to marketing signs for multi- family developments and allowed nonresidential uses in residential districts (R-ALDR-2, R-BMLDR-4, R-CMDR-8, R-DMHDR-15, R-EHDR-40, and TN-R): 11-3D-7: CONSTRUCTION SIGNS: B. Construction Signs In Residential Districts: In addition to the general standards for construction signs set forth in this section, the following standards shall apply to construction signs in residential districts (R-ALDR-2, R-BMLDR-4, R-CMDR-8, R-DMHDR-15, R-EHDR-40, and TN-R): 11-3D-8B and 11-3D-8C B. Business Signs In Residential Districts: In addition to the general standards for business identification signs set forth in this section, the following standards shall apply to business identification signs for residential districts (R-2LD, R-4MLD, R-8MD, R-15MHD, R-40HD, and TN-R): 1. In addition to the general standards for business identification signs set forth in this section, the following standards shall apply to business identification signs for residential districts for dwelling and accessory uses (R-2LD, R-4MLD, R-8MD, R-15MHD, R-40HD, and TN-R): C. Business Signs For Multi-Family Developments And Allowed Nonresidential Uses: In addition to the general standards for business identification signs set forth in this section, the following standards shall apply to business identification signs for multi-family developments and allowed nonresidential uses (R- 2LD, R-4MLD, R-8MD, R-15MHD, R-40HD, and TN-R), excluding accessory uses: Page 20 VII. FINDINGS 1. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMENDMENTS: (UDC 11-5B-3E) Upon recommendation from the Commission, the Council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing, review the application. In order to grant a text amendment to the Unified Development Code, the Council shall make the following findings: A. The text amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Staff finds that the proposed UDC text amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan if the changes to the text of the UDC are approved with staff’s recommendations in Section VI above. Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals, Section IV, of the Staff Report for more information. B. The text amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; and Staff finds that the proposed zoning ordinance amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare if the changes to the text of the UDC are approved with staff’s recommendations in Section VI above. It is the intent of the text amendments to further the health, safety and welfare of the public. C. The text amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the City including, but not limited to, school districts. Staff finds that the proposed zoning ordinance amendment does not propose any significant changes to how public utilities and services are provided to developments. All City departments, public agencies and service providers that currently review applications will continue to do so. Please refer to any written or oral testimony provided by any public service provider(s) when making this finding. Page 1 STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: October 18, 2018 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Bill Parsons, Planning Supervisor 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2018-0059 Residential District Naming Convention and R-15 Dimensional Standards Text Amendment PROPERTY LOCATION: City wide I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Request for a text amendment to change the naming convention of the Residential Districts of R-2, R- 4, R-8, R-15 and R-40 to R-A, R-B, R-C, R-D and R-E, modify other related sections in Chapters 1-3 of the Unified Development Code (UDC) to coincide with the proposed naming convention AND modify the dimensional standards of the R-15 district for the purpose of specifying certain setbacks along private streets, common driveways, interior side yards and the perimeter of a development with private streets. II. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant/Representative: DevCo Development LLC [Phone: (208) 336-5355] III. NOTICING A. Newspaper notification published on: August 17, 2018 B. PSA distributed: August 14, 2018 C. Next door posting: August 14, 2018 IV. STAFF ANALYSIS The applicant requests approval to modify the several sections of the UDC as follows: 1. Proposing to change the map symbol of the R-2, R-4, R-8, R-15 and R-40 zones to R-A, R-B, R-C, R-D, and R-E zones. Because the request impacts other sections of the UDC, additional modifications are necessary to coincide with the proposed change. 2. Modify the dimensional standards of the R-15 zone (proposed as R-D with the first request) for the purpose of specifying certain setbacks along private streets, common driveways, interior side yards and the perimeter of a development with private streets. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 175 of 194 Page 2 The first modification is being requested because the applicant contends the current numerical notation confuses the public which believe it still correlates the number to a maximum density of a particular residential zone. A previous UDC text amendment, approved by City Council, removed the maximum density requirements from Chapter 2 of the UDC. The purpose of the residential districts is to provide a range of housing opportunities consistent with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. The residential districts are distinguished by the dimensional standards of the corresponding zone and the housing types that can be accommodated. The Comprehensive Plan is the guiding document that specifies the density requirements for a property. For the last several years, City staff has contemplated renaming the residential map symbol to be more consistent with the Comprehensive Plan FLUM designations. Staff was hoping to have this discussion with the UDC Focus group for additional input and guidance but the applicant didn’t want to wait on the City timeframes for implementing the change. Staff is not supportive of the requested changes to the naming of the districts as proposed by the applicant. Staff is of the opinion that the residential district should be retitled to align more closely with the nomenclature of the zoning district and the Comprehensive Plan as follows:  Low density residential - R-LD  Medium low density residential - R-MLD  Medium density residential - R-MD  Medium high density residential - R-MHD  High density residential - R-HD This naming convention would also be more consistent with the other zoning designations in the UDC; for example Light Industrial District (I-L). If the request is approved, the County Assessor office would be responsible for changing the zoning symbol for over 39,000 parcels that are currently zoned R-2 through R-40 districts. The City has not contacted any of the affected property owners to inform them of the potential for the name change. Further, the City has embarked on the Comprehensive Plan update which complicates the timing for the requested change. Typically, code updates should occur after the adoption of a new Comprehensive Plan to ensure alignment between the two (2) documents. Commission should determine if it is the best interest of the City to modify the residential district symbols before the adoption of the new Plan and soliciting further input from Meridian residents. The second request is to add or change the setbacks of the R-15 zone when a property takes access from a private street or common driveway. The applicant believes the changes are necessary to allow for increased flexibility in the housing types to meet market demand. The City has approved several developments for the applicant (East Ridge Estates and Movado Village) in which there have been issues with the complying with the current setbacks of the R-15 setbacks, specifically the 12-foot rear yard. With these development approvals, a central common open space and clubhouse are to serve as the primary open space and amenities for these communities. In order to provide some livability to the home on lots were no rear yards may exist, the applicant is proposing that the home provide a minimum of a 120 square foot patio as part of the requested modifications. To support the requested dimensional changes, the applicant has provided exhibits. Staff supports some of the dimensional standard changes that the applicant is proposing, except for the proposal for the 1.5’ setback for the structure from the common driveway. Staff believes the applicant should apply a consistent setback of 3’ to allow for adequate separation of the structure and the common driveway. Additionally, the applicant is proposing zero setbacks but doesn’t indicate whether a zero lot line means an attached structure. Historically, when zero lot lines are Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 176 of 194 Page 3 depicted on a plat, staff has required the applicant to construct attached homes. Therefore, staff recommends that a footnote be added to the UDC table requiring attached homes to be constructed when a zero lot line is depicted. Further, staff has concerns with how drainage will function on these lots. Currently, the City doesn’t have an adequate grading and drainage ordinance and there has been an increase in the number of citizen complaints on these issues. NOTE: If the proposed setbacks are approved, this will take additional staff time to review plans for conformance of these setbacks with the proposed standards. The applicant was given the option of proceeding forward through the PUD process to request the desired setbacks without amending the dimensional standards of the UDC. Per the Comprehensive Plan, City staff is responsible for ensuring diverse housing in the community and keeping the UDC current with local trends. Below are a few policies that support the applicant’s request.  Amend the Unified Development Code and Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to ensure a wide variety of housing types can be developed and properly zoned and land is available (3.07.01A)  Keep current the Unified Development Code and Future Land Use Map to implement the provisions of this plan (7.01.01A) In general, staff is supportive of the overall proposed changes. In the Exhibit Section below, Staff has inserted the applicant’s requested modifications and associated support documents. Because staff is recommending modifications to the applicant’s request, staff has provided a strike-through and underline version of staff’s recommended changes and included additional changes that were inadvertently missed with the applicant’s request.. Written Testimony: As of the print date of the staff report, the City has received multiple responses from the public not supporting the proposed changes. Please refer to the public record for the specific comments on the subject application. V. DECISION Staff recommends approval of the proposed text amendments to the UDC based on the analysis provided in Section IV, modifications in Section VI and the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law listed in Section VII. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 177 of 194 Page 4 VI. EXHIBITS A. Applicant’s Proposed UDC Text Amendment Changes Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 178 of 194 Page 5 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 179 of 194 Page 6 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 180 of 194 Page 7 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 181 of 194 Page 8 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 182 of 194 Page 9 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 183 of 194 Page 10 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 184 of 194 Page 11 B. Staff’s Recommended UDC Text Changes 11-1A-1 Definition of Terms RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: For the purposes of this title, the term residential district shall include the Low-Density Residential District (R-ALD)(R-2), Medium Low-Density Residential District(R-BMLD) (R-4), Medium-Density Residential District (R-CMD) (R-8), Medium High-Density Residential District(R-DMHD) (R-15), High-Density Residential District(R-EHD) (R-40), and Traditional Neighborhood Residential District (TN-R). 11-2-1: ZONING DISTRICTS ESTABLISHED: For the purpose of this title, the incorporated territory of the city of Meridian, Idaho, is divided into the following districts: Districts Map Symbol Residential Low-density residential district R-2 R-ALD Medium low-density residential district R-4 R-BMLD Medium-density residential district R-8 R-CMD Medium high-density residential district R-15 R-DMHD High-density residential district R-40 R-EHD Commercial Neighborhood business district C-N Community business district C-C General retail and service commercial district C-G Limited office district L-O Mixed employment M-E High density employment H-E Industrial Light industrial district I-L Heavy industrial district I-H Traditional neighborhood Old Town O-T Traditional neighborhood center TN-C Traditional neighborhood residential TN-R TABLE 11-2A-2 ALLOWED USES IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Use R-ALD R-2 R-BMLD R-4 R-CMD R-8 R-DMHD R-15 R-EHD R-40 Arts, entertainment or recreation facility, outdoors1 - - C C C Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 185 of 194 Page 12 Cemetery1 - C C C C Church or place of religious worship1 - - C C C Civic, social or fraternal organizations1 - - C C C Daycare center1 - C C P P Daycare, family1 - A A A C Daycare, group1 - - C P P Direct sales3 A A A A A Dwelling, secondary1 A A A A A Dwelling, single-family attached - C P P P Dwelling, single-family detached P P P P A/C Dwelling, townhouse - C P P C Dwelling, two-family duplex - C P P C Education institution, private1 - C C C C Education institution, public1 - C C P/C P/C Home, manufactured or mobile subdivision - - C C C Home occupation, accessory use1 A A A A A Laundromat1 - - - A A/C Manufactured home park - - - C - Multi-family development1,2 - - - C C Nursing or residential care facility1 - - C C C Parking facility - - - - C Parks, public and private P P P P P Personal service - - - - A Professional service - - - - A Public, infrastructure C C C C C Public or quasi-public use1 - - C C C Public utility, minor P P P P P Recreational vehicle park - - - - C Restaurant - - - - A Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 186 of 194 Page 13 Storage facility, outside1 A A A A A Storage facility, self-service1 A A A A A Vertically integrated residential project1 - - - C C Wireless communication facility1 P/C P/C P/C P/C P/C Wireless communication facility, amateur radio antenna1 A/C A/C A/C A/C A/C Notes: 1. Indicates uses that are subject to specific use standards in accord with chapter 4 of this title. 2. Multi-family dwellings may be allowed in the R-BMLD R-4 and R-CMD R-8 Land Use Districts when included in a planned unit development (PUD). 3. Subject to the home occupation, accessory use standards s et forth in section 11-4-3-21 of this title 11-2A-3F F. Living Space: Excluding the garage, all detached residential dwelling units in the R-2LD and R-4MLD districts shall meet minimum living space size requirements in accord with sections 11-2A-4 and 11-2A-5 of this article. 11-2A-4: LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R-2LD): Dimensional standards for development in the R-2LD residential district shall be as follows: TABLE 11-2A-4 DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FOR THE R-2LD DISTRICT R-2LD Standard Requirement Minimum property size/dwelling unit (in square feet) 12,000 Minimum street frontage (in feet) 80 Rear setback (in feet) 15 Interior side setback (in feet) 7.5/story Street setback1 (in feet): Local 20 Collector 25 Street landscape buffer2 (in feet): Collector 20 Arterial 25 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 187 of 194 Page 14 Entryway corridor 35 Interstate 50 Maximum building height (in feet) 35 Minimum living area (in square feet) 1,500 Minimum ground floor area for multi-story units (in square feet) 800 11-2A-5: MEDIUM LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R-4MLD): Dimensional standards for development in the R-4MLD residential district shall be as follows: TABLE 11-2A-5 DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FOR THE R-4MLD DISTRICT R-4MLD Standard Requirement Minimum property size/dwelling unit (in square feet) 8,000 Minimum street frontage (in feet) 60 Rear setback (in feet) 15 Interior side setback (in feet) 5 Street setback1 to front loaded garage (in feet): Local 20 Collector 25 Street setback1 to living area and/or side loaded garage (in feet): Local 15 Collector 25 Street landscape buffer2 (in feet): Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 188 of 194 Page 15 Collector 20 Arterial 25 Entryway corridor 35 Interstate 50 Maximum building height (in feet) 35 Minimum living area (in square feet): Detached 1,400 Attached 800 Minimum ground floor area for multi-story units (in square feet) 800 11-2A-6: MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R-8MD): Dimensional standards for development in the R-8MD residential district shall be as follows: TABLE 11-2A-6 DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FOR THE R-8MD DISTRICT R-8MD Standard Requirement Minimum property size/dwelling unit (in square feet) 4,000 Minimum street frontage (in feet): 40 With alley loaded garage, side entry garage, or private mew lots 32 Street setback1 to garage (in feet): Local 20 Collector 25 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 189 of 194 Page 16 Alley 5 Street setback1 to living area (in feet): Local 10 Collector 25 Alley 5 Interior side setback (in feet) 5 Rear setback (in feet) 12 Street landscape buffer2 (in feet): Collector 20 Arterial 25 Entryway corridor 35 Interstate 50 Maximum building height (in feet) 35 11-2A-7: MEDIUM HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R-15MHD): Dimensional standards for development in the R-15MHD residential district shall be as follows: TABLE 11-2A-7 DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FOR THE R-15MHD DISTRICT R-15MHD Standard Requirement Minimum property size/dwelling unit (in square feet) 2,000 Minimum street frontage (in feet) 0 Street setback1 to garage (in feet): Local 20 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 190 of 194 Page 17 Collector 25 Alley 5 Private Street 20 Common Driveway1 20 Street setback1 to living area (in feet): Local 10 Collector 20 Alley 5 Private Street 10 Common Driveway1,5 1.5’- 3’ Interior side setback (in feet)3,4,5 0 or 3’ Public Street Rear setback (in feet) 12 Private Street Setback (in feet): Rear setback3,4,5 0 or 3’ Exterior boundary of entire development 12’ Street landscape buffer2 (in feet): Collector 20 Arterial 25 Entryway corridor 35 Interstate 50 Maximum building height (in feet) 40 Notes: 1. Measured from back of sidewalk, back of common driveway or property line where there is no adjacent sidewalk. 2. A reduction to the width of the buffer may be requested as set forth in subsection 11-3B-7C1c of this title. 3. A public utility, irrigation and drainage easement shall be 3’ wide adjacent to interior lot lines except where occupied by an attached zero lot line structure. 4. A minimum of one hundred and twenty (120) square feet of private, usab le open space shall be provided for each unit. This requirement can be satisfied through porches, patios, decks, and/or enclosed yards. Landscaping, entryway and other accessways shall not count toward this requirement. In circumstances where strict adherence to such standard would create inconsistency with the purpose statements of this section, the Director may consider an alternative design proposal through the alternative compliance provisions as set forth in section 11 -5B-5 of this title. 5. Up to 50% of the building face adjacent to a common driveway may be 1.5’from the edge of pavement. 5. Any property line with a zero lot line depicted shall attach the units. 11-2A-8: HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R-4HD): Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 191 of 194 Page 18 Dimensional standards for development in the R-4HD residential district shall be as follows: TABLE 11-2A-8 DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FOR THE R-4HD DISTRICT R-4HD Standard Requirement Minimum property size/dwelling unit (in square feet) 1,000 Minimum street frontage (in feet) 0 Rear setback (in feet) 12 Interior side setback (in feet) 3 Street setback to garage (in feet): Local 20 Collector 25 Alley 5 Street setback1 to living area (in feet): Local 10 Collector 20 Alley 5 Street landscape buffer2 (in feet): Collector 20 Arterial 25 Entryway corridor 35 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 192 of 194 Page 19 Interstate 50 Maximum building height (in feet) 60 11-3A-7: FENCES: C. Additional standards in the R-ALDR-2, R-BMLDR-4, R-CMDR-8, R-DMHDR-15, R-EHDR-40, L-O, O-T, TN-C, and TN-R districts: 11-3D-5: SUBDIVISION IDENTIFICATION SIGNS B. Signs In Residential Districts: In addition to the general standards for subdivision identification signs set forth in this section, the following standards shall apply to subdivision identification signs in residential districts (R-ALDR-2, R-BMLDR-4, R-CMDR-8, R-DMHDR-15, R-EHDR-40, and TN-R): 11-3D-6: MARKETING SIGNS: B. Signs In Residential Districts For Three Or Less Dwelling Units: In addition to the general standards for marketing signs set forth in this section, the following standards shall apply to marketing signs for three (3) or less dwelling units per property in residential districts (R-ALDR-2, R-BMLDR-4, R-CMDR- 8, R-DMHDR-15, R-EHDR-40, and TN-R): C. Signs In Residential Districts For Multi-Family Developments: In addition to the general standards for marketing signs set forth in this section, the following standards shall apply to marketing signs for multi- family developments and allowed nonresidential uses in residential districts (R-ALDR-2, R-BMLDR-4, R-CMDR-8, R-DMHDR-15, R-EHDR-40, and TN-R): 11-3D-7: CONSTRUCTION SIGNS: B. Construction Signs In Residential Districts: In addition to the general standards for construction signs set forth in this section, the following standards shall apply to construction signs in residential districts (R-ALDR-2, R-BMLDR-4, R-CMDR-8, R-DMHDR-15, R-EHDR-40, and TN-R): 11-3D-8B and 11-3D-8C B. Business Signs In Residential Districts: In addition to the general standards for business identification signs set forth in this section, the following standards shall apply to business identification signs for residential districts (R-2LD, R-4MLD, R-8MD, R-15MHD, R-40HD, and TN-R): 1. In addition to the general standards for business identification signs set forth in this section, the following standards shall apply to business identification signs for residential districts for dwelling and accessory uses (R-2LD, R-4MLD, R-8MD, R-15MHD, R-40HD, and TN-R): C. Business Signs For Multi-Family Developments And Allowed Nonresidential Uses: In addition to the general standards for business identification signs set forth in this section, the following standards shall apply to business identification signs for multi-family developments and allowed nonresidential uses (R- 2LD, R-4MLD, R-8MD, R-15MHD, R-40HD, and TN-R), excluding accessory uses: Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 193 of 194 Page 20 VII. FINDINGS 1. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMENDMENTS: (UDC 11-5B-3E) Upon recommendation from the Commission, the Council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing, review the application. In order to grant a text amendment to the Unified Development Code, the Council shall make the following findings: A. The text amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Staff finds that the proposed UDC text amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan if the changes to the text of the UDC are approved with staff’s recommendations in Section VI above. Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals, Section IV, of the Staff Report for more information. B. The text amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; and Staff finds that the proposed zoning ordinance amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare if the changes to the text of the UDC are approved with staff’s recommendations in Section VI above. It is the intent of the text amendments to further the health, safety and welfare of the public. C. The text amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the City including, but not limited to, school districts. Staff finds that the proposed zoning ordinance amendment does not propose any significant changes to how public utilities and services are provided to developments. All City departments, public agencies and service providers that currently review applications will continue to do so. Please refer to any written or oral testimony provided by any public service provider(s) when making this finding. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda October 18, 2018 – Page 194 of 194